| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AK47
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 233
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
OOH I get it Pinmiz, a committee to survey? That is absolutely interesting pizmiz. That means that the Three things that Sikua wanted the committee to look at; two specifically have been properly outlined and the third was not (Facilitation Act), would be reviewed by the public: NGOs, Churches, and the public? This is very interesting; a committee to review the FA will have the whole country participated. Interesting stuff. I always believe that a review of the RAMSI in its totality as you rightly pointed out, would require a national participation from groups outlined earlier. To have a review of the FA in this manner is strange! That was why RAMSI protested Sogavare's proposed review of the FA in the firs place.
We both don't know what will be the outcome of this review and the kinds of recommendations they will come up with.
| Quote: | | 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. |
You are absolutely right. The parliament has the complete power to change or amend anything, example the FA. But even if the Parliament have the right to do so, it will take a unanimous consent or majority vote to make it work. Thats how I understand it. Thus, that power still vested on the majority vote amongst MPs, doesn't it?
Again, when Sikua announced the committee to review the FA instead of RAMSI, mi barava wanda wat nao civil society bae se aboutim FA? How would the civil society participate in reviewing of the FA? Say how they feel about RAMSI? That would be more accurate if the committee was set to review RAMSI (something I think should have been the case, not the FA) whether it had fulfilled its mission or not. I always maintained that RAMSI's operation is the one needed to be reviewed.
I might be wrong...but the fact that this is a bipartisan committee makes me sit on the edge of my chair. I wonder what the anti-RAMI Mps will say.
_________________
For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
It might have been.
............
John Greenleaf Whittier |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
