Tutuvatu Forum

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

I want to know these three things: The two that were clearly outlined and the one that wasn't properly outlined.

This will clarify some confusions and speculations in this forum. But I am sure that the RAMSI's operation under the FA passed in the Kema government, is okay and that a review of it will more likely to weaken its operation. Ones the government has it hands in it, or radically change this FA in a hope to control or regulate RAMSI, then we have a big problem here.

Thats why I want to know these three things. Nogud Pinmiz nao save!

Take it easy
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

sv · Joined: 06 Nov 2007 Posts: 195 Location: japan

AK47, I guess it is very clear that you have a deep mistrust of our politicians that whatever review of RAMSI they wish to undertake is not genuine.
You even make too many generalization and assumptions in your views under this thread, something which you accussed other contributors of.
How sure are you (are there evidences/facts) that the current bill passed by the Sikua lead govt for the review of RAMSI is not genuine? Please provide us some real facts or else i would say that you are just assuming.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Sv,

That is an opinion that I expressed in my postings looking at the way things went down in the past few days. I inferred that Dr. Sikua's did this to gain support and that the review may jeopardize RAMSI's operation. That is not a general statement!

Claiming that RAMSI is killing Solomon Islanders senselessly, which is not true, or to claimed that RAMSI enjoys killing Solomon Islanders in a way that make it sound as not an opinion but a factual statement, is not only over-generalizing, but a flat-out lie.
Another over-generalized statement I referred to in my post was that by one contributor who claimed that RAMSI has been using Solomon Islands police officers as drivers. These aren't opinions, they are claims that you two argued based on facts.
Sv, when you make a statement and presenting it in a way that seemed to be based on fact when they aren't, hem barava over-generalized na! So far, some of the claims made against RAMSI, for instance, have not been substantiated or supported through examples. For instance, when did RAMSI started shooting Solomon Islanders down the road for fun? NONE unless you provided me with proofs.

I don't really know Sikua's intention in moving this motion, but I only guess that he probably have done that to please both side. This is an opinion that you either take or leave. In my previous posting I stated that I was trying to understand the mindset of Sikua, so my opinions are open to be debated. Did I know for a fact that Sikua is not genuine in moving this motion? Not at all. But I pointed out that the timing of this motion is highly suspicious and thats my own opinion.
Again, your are good in making general statement and tried to present them as facts! That what I was referring to!
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

Vexie · Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 64

AK47

Your story about the 'party' can not even be treated as truth friend, it could just be another point scoring tactic while you argue your point. Reason being that we are not their to justify your story. Lets not try justify our arguement by demeaning other contributors contributions. Example is what somebody raised, an SI police officer used as driver by RAMSI officers ,,, It could have happened (who knows?) and somebody who raised that here could have observed the scene face on, yet you condermn it as valid example why FA should be reviewed, policing wise.

Interesting to note your request for substanciating arguements,,,and it's a sad truth if you believe every back up examples in this forum. How sure are we that they bear truth either,,, Same as guessing isn't it?

Lets not think that how i argue my point is better than the other that's my point. Opinions could be blatant generalisations as well, i might be wrong.

Gohet diskas wantoks

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Vexie, what are you looking for when you reading an article? Especially one that attacks an organization, a company, or in this case, RAMSI that you know aren't true at all? so to speak of RAMSI enjoy killing Solomon Islanders? Would you rather agreeing with someone directly attacking a subjective without justification or substantiation of arguments or someone that attempts to justify a point ? As for the party I stated in my previous writing, I stated that because I know I can prove it actually occurred. And many other instances where I've seen RAMSI and SI Police officers working together.
If you read that paragraph, I attempt to make two points; 1. that RAMSI don't take complete control over policing in Honiara as someone claimed. 2. That Solomon Islands police are competent than the ones existed back in the pre-coup era (someone claimed our police are incompetent as a result of RAMSI taking full control). Had the contributors substantiated their claims against RAMSI, I would not have a paint to argue.
Remember, these are serious allegations that our contributors leveled against RAMSI. And it is just unfortunate that RAMSI people don't have access to this board to defend themselves. You think that making such unsubstantiated claims against RAMSI, bae finis long hia? You are dead wrong! The world is reading this forum. Eniwan googlim this fala forum bae conclude that RAMSI "enjoys killing innocent Solomon Islanders senselessly," which is not true!

If we are here to respect each others posting no matter what, there wouldn't be any reason or point of debate would there? A forum is where people discuss issues, disagree with each other and disagreeing with different views and ideas. Disagreeing with points raised is the true nature of a debate, there is no demeaning in my view. Is it a bad thing to call for substantiation of arguments? For instance, I believe that if the author of the allegations actually witnessed it, or know for a fact that it occurred, the wording of that allegation should have been different. Is driving RAMSI vehicle a justification for the review of RAMSI? I don't think so.

I don't have any problem with expressing of opinions. Opinions such as; I feel that RAMSI over-shadows Solomon Islands Police, or I strongly believe that RAMSI sees Solomon Islands as a battle group or seems to enjoy killing Solomon Islanders. To me these are opinions, personal beliefs and can be taken as they are, but when contributors come forward, making claims that tarnish the reputation of RAMSI or any organization without a single grain of substance or example. Mi filim hem wrong!

As for me, I still believe that the FA is manipulated by Politicians, and I want to see the three factors that Dr. Sikua talked about in his press-release!

My last post on this!
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

Vexie · Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 64

AK47

You really fail to realize that you can not prove the 'party' you mentioned in this forum as you said you can. I wish you could prove it happen here if you can, but its beyond comprehension that you can really prove it.

Nafu

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Vexie, if you think its hearsay, then that is your problem. The Police officers responded that night weren't all Australians as some suggested; majority were local officers. They are Solomon Islanders.
The other things I raised about SI Police officers who busted a local Kwaso factory, etc, might also be difficult to prove unless you read the Sol. Star issue then online.
But they are facts, and that prove to me that our police officers are competent and not what some contributors claimed.
Want to prove it? Take me to court mekem mi provim long yu. I would probably do a better job proving it than having other contributors proving that RAMSI's intention is to kill Solomon Islands like chickens!
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

Vexie · Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 64

AK47

GOOD on YOU,,,Now you finally realize that the only place to prove issue of concern is in court,,,Not in this forum, as you previously alleged

Cheers Big Boy Razz

,,, Hahahaleeeeee

Good night wantoks

pinmiz · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 75 Location: Honiara

Giving the full authority to the Foreign Relations Committee to review RAMSI will also mean that the Immunity Clause will have to be either modified or trashed.

This is out rightly wrong AK47. If you look closely at the way the motion is worded it reads that:

i) Parliament refers the International Assistance notice to the Foreign Relations Committee
for inquiry, review and report;

(ii) in undertaking this inquiry, the Committee may consider any matter relating to the:
(a) facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003,

(b) the agreement concerning the operations and status of the Police and the Armed Forces and other personnel deployed to Solomon Islands to assist in the restoration of Law and Order and security between the Government of Solomon Islands and the Government of certain assisting countries; and

(c) any other notices made under the Act that will assist the Committee in informing and making recommendations to this House in relation to the notice.

It is not correct to say that the Foreign Relations Committee will take action to alter the Act as AK47 try to portray. What the motion merely says is that the committee will after its inquiry make recommendations to Parliament on its findings. It is Parliament who has the power to amend the act that governs the operation of RAMSI not the Foreign Relations Committee. The committee is empowered by the house to go and find out whether the public purpose RAMSI was here for either need chances or not and report back to Parliament on this. It is up to Parliament to decide on what to do next.

tkorax · Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:

AK47,
Thank you for your postings and your attempt to raise the points about accusations and assumptions. You repeatedly referred to the point about local officers being used just like drivers.....Is not a claim....That's how I see it (My perception) everytime I am in Honiara. I don't really see why a perception could be so wrong according to you.

I am a big supporter of RAMSI and my support for the call to be reviewed, is not because I don't appreciate or support their work - I am tax payer in OZ and SI as well through my business back there i am greatful for their work but I would rather see RAMSI complete their task there with the absolute certainty of the public that 'Yes, they finally can now rely on the SIPF' and that all the institutional strengthening program is water tight to strategically support the Solomon Islands as truly capable of moving forward without RAMSI eventually.

In spite of this, i also appreciate that maybe it is abit too early for me to expect too much of a change in my perception but it has been 5 years since RAMSI landed and we cannot expect them to there forever. Our govt therefore has the responsiblity to control RAMSI's role to make sure we we are assisted strategically as a FREN, otherwise we might as well call ourselves, another State of Australia....hem bae oraet lo mi tu...lolz

I have had enuf of talking about this...it's pointless now cos it has been passed.....What I would be really keen to see now is :-

1) What's involved in the review process and what they come up with.

2) What the parliament will do about the findings of the review committee.

3) Would also be good to see the long term development plan of the current Sikua govt.

No matter olsem, but mi bae also like for lookim disfala 3rd point wea govt request review lo hem, as also requested by our friend AK47...

Until then....good night oketa wantok....Bolo head blo mi cold lo winter now...

Bongi Dou.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Pinmiz, hence their recommendations to the government; Parliament actions Pinmiz will be directed as recommended by the committee. If they (the committee) recommended to the Parliament that RAMSI officers must be judge according to the laws of SI in order to align itself with our nation's wishes and ambitions, or if they recommended that RAMSI has no right to interfere with the government spending rights then the Parliament will have to take them in to consideration. And just by looking at the way our politicians viewed or talked about RAMSI in the past year, any recommendation by this committee to change the face of RAMSI will be heavily enforced by leaders, and thats what I think will happen. Iam not stupid about this process.
And yes, the way these allegations against RAMSI came forward in this room have not been forthright and genuine in my view. Unfortunately, no one of them is here to defend RAMSI. And I am sure that anti-RAMSI sentiments expressed here will have a bigger impact in any uprising if there is any in the near future.
Tkorax is right about something and that is the "distrust" Solomon Islands have on each other. It has never been addressed since the arrival of RAMSI, some people think it is RAMSI's responsibility but I disagree. This is SIG's responsibility and so far, no eni ting hapen yet asf far as the root causes of the tension is concern. Dr. Sikua should concentrate on this part instead of skarasi fo kontrolim RAMSI.
Besides that, it will be a matter of time and MPs will once again jump boat and just wait till Sogavare gets his hand in directing the traffic.
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

sv · Joined: 06 Nov 2007 Posts: 195 Location: japan

AK47, none of us who contributes to this particular thread has anything against RAMSI or are anti-RAMSI.
If I am not mistaken it was just me who was so vocal about the tragic death of the solomon islands nurse killed in an accident involving two off-duty RAMSI officers. Having being assured by media revelations that this particular RAMSI officer is not immune to our laws and could be prosecuted under our laws, have already defused whatever arguments I put forward which you seem to always make references to in almost all your postings under this thread. You even camouflaged every other contributors under this thread to your references.
The distrust you claimed that solomon islanders have for each other can be clearly highlighted at best in all your postings. None other but you have the most distrust against Solomon Islanders.
Furthermore, you are becoming very obvious that whatever criticisms against RAMSI is all bad.
A review process is paramount to improving better partnership and coordination of plans and aspirations. Reviews are done to enhance current existing partnership and agreements so as to work hand in hand to reflect the successes and changes achieved.
NO RAMSI NO LIFE IN SOLOMON ISLANDS IA BA AK47???????

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Sv, you and others have obviously leveled some serious unfounded allegations against RAMSI that are extremely misleading. Thats why I asked for you and other contributors to at least substantiate your claims. Why I pointed to your postings is because you perhaps the most profound critic of RAMSI, which is your right, but did so rather hatefully. Yu se dat yu no hetim RAMSI but your previous postings in other threads were graced with all kinds of allegations against RAMSI, showing all the characteristics of a hater. If you aren't then hem olrait!
Don't get me wrong, you can go on criticizing RAMSI, that is your right to do so but you better support your criticisms or else the allegations you put are just mere verbal assassination!
I do believe that a review of RAMSI's operations in Solomon Islands and any recommendation for an exit plan, is the best way to go about this. The fact that SIG wants RAMSI to stay back and protect them while changing the Act by which they operate, hem politically motivated and not based on any genuine concern for partnership, in my view.
The Forum team that reviewed RAMSI in 2005 concluded that RAMSI have achieved its major objectives and that SI needs to address the root-causes of the ethnic tension. This is not RAMSI's responsibility, they may facilitate the reconciliation, but hem waka blong yumi! The SIG should have spent sometimes in addressing the needs of the indigenous people of Guadalcanal and grievances of Malaitans and then set an exit timetable for RAMSI.
Instead they want to review the FA. Any review, in my view, will be followed by parliamentary debate and then followed by an amendment sapos hem pas! God help us if this review will change the whole issue.
Because the root causes of the ethnic tension have not been fully addressed, resurgence of ethnic hatred and fighting in the future will be more likely to occur if RAMSI livim Honiara. If you don't believe me, then go all the way back to 1998 when no one ever imagined that the IFM and MEF would change the country forever. This is dangerous. Even with the presence of RAMSI, thugs in our town showed they don't give a heck when they want to destroy Honiara. Hao mas moa sapos RAMSI go back and Sogavare gohed witim plan blong hem like he did prior to the coup of 2000 to get into power.
The newspaper allegation that Soga mitim former militants hem samting fo yumi warim!
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier

Eddie · Joined: 13 Feb 2008 Posts: 128 Location: Kiwi

While we don't have the chance of seeing the review's ToR for the FRC to use, i wonder will there be an opportunity for the stakholders input before the law makers ponder on the recommendations. Although, our members are our representative, sometimes, the outcome is not to our expectation of the majority of Solomon Islanders.

I'm hoping whatever, the outcome of the FRC, should reflect the views of the majority, constructive and meaningful. Otherwise, once it reach the parliament, it could be another hot debate or the contrary and my last hope is when it reach the tri party.

pinmiz · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 75 Location: Honiara

AK 47, clearly you fail to see the process. Firstly the Foreign Relations Committee is a bipartisan committee that made up of both opposition and government mps. It’s not their own views that will be the basis of whatever recommendations they’ll come up with. What will happened is the committee will conduct public hearings, that is calling on key stakeholders like RAMSI, SIG, CHURCHES,NGO’s etc to come forward and present their views. It is from these views that will form the basis of the recommendations. From what I gathered the process will be open for media including one news. It is absolutely non sense to say that committee’s recommendation will direct Parliament to act. The recommendations will in fact inform Parliament of the views of the key stakeholders. The committee is a forum to collect information and made recommendations to Parliament base on the information gathered during the inquiry. We should not assume that the committee’s recommendations are base on the views of the members of the committee. That is absolute rubbish. The inquiry will be a public one and it is the consolidate view of the public especially the key stakeholders that will be reflected in the report. In fact this inquiry firstly focuses on the review of the facilitation of international assistance notice. That is the primary issue the committee will be focusing on. This will set the stage for further specific inquiries if need be. We should not take the view that this is the review of RAMSI in its totality; this is only a review of the notice as required under section 23 of the facilitation act. A review of RAMSI in its totality will need a much longer time frame as suppose to this one which the committee will have to report back on the 14 of November 2008.

In fact if one looks at the broader function of Parliament as the supreme law making institution of the land, Parliament has the authority to amend any act at any time it wishes including the facilitation act. Parliament need not be constrained by any act that should restrict its work. In fact Parliament can take action in whatever form it wishes with regards to the facilitation act. The time frame as set out in the facilitation act is there as gesture to remind Parliament the importance of ensuring that RAMSI’s operations are checked but one should not view it as a deterrent to Parliament not to do its work.