Tutuvatu Forum

Anna · Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Posts: 93

This is pretty much the same motion Soga tried to pass during his term but was met with stiff opposition from RAMSI, the opposition and some women group. Was Soga not been diplomatic last time?

A motion to pave the way for the review of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act under which the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands operates was passed in Parliament today.

The motion was moved by the Prime Minister Dr Derek Sikua.

Mr Sikua said the motion was to seek approval from parliament to refer the International Assistance Notice to the Foreign Relations Committee for inquiry, review and report.

During his presentation, the Prime Minister said that two of the three original reasons to invite international assistance were properly outlined while the third needs further clarification.

He said the Foreign Relations Committee will venture to find ways in which RAMSI can develop programmes according to Solomon Islands' plans and aspirations.

Dr Sikua said the government decided to let the Foreign Relations Committee do the review because even if Parliament is in recess, it can still continue with the review and eventual report.

He said the Foreign relations Committee should report its findings to Parliament before November 14.

Parliament meeting will resume on Monday as there is no business for tomorrow.
_________________
God loves us all

tkorax · Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject:

Anna,
I salute Dr Sikua's move to have that RAMSI ACT is reviewed. It probably never had the support of RAMSI and even the public during Soga's term cos his intentions were very cloudy...I mean with Moti as Head of Legal System and Khan as Head of Security..wanting to rearm his troop?..

The public knows that RAMSI has done a great job and yes, it is also about making sure that RAMSI align their tasks with the development plans and aspirations of the people of Solomon Islands.

To me, this is a very important review and i am glad that it is to be carried out independently of the government.

For Dr Sikua to get this through in parliament with lack of public outcry goes to show the confidence the public have in his Leadership.

Keep up the good work Dr Sikua.

Eddie · Joined: 13 Feb 2008 Posts: 129 Location: Kiwi

You may quite right Anna in the sense that Soga was quite undiplomantic at that time. Evidence in his non cooperation to the Task force set in 2006 Forum towards the forum meeting in Tonga last year for his withdrawal and instead sent only the government tourists. Plus, his non attendance and poor excuses when the Enhance Consultative Mechanism (ECM) process was scheduled in Honiara last year and all members are present except the host country and moreso, the termination of Michael Maena, the mediator.

I guess he was quite bombarded by his self appointed AG, having in mine of their personal hatred towards the Australian government and other issues. So in actual fact, Soga does not come clean in his strategies and mechanisms, its like a milky cloud hanging over us. At least now we have an effective ECM with the 100% cooperation of the current government with some clear directions in terms of timeframe/milestones and strategic plans. The way forward, not side ways.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Now this is a very interesting development, and how co-incidental for the government to accept the review of RAMSI at a time the Motion-of-no-confidence and allegation of corruption surfaced. It is almost transparent the way things went down in the passed few days. Is Dr. Sikua trying to secure his job and appeased his critics? It maybe so, but it is also a dangerous ground to walk on if Dr. Sikua puts the fate of RAMSI in the hands of committee members who are prone to bribery and extreme lobbying from the other side.

First of all, I want to know the "three original reasons" and the one that needs "further clarifications". I suspected, reading some of the RAMSI critics in this forum, that the part in the FA the SIG wanted to remove is what one of the contributors in this forum referred to as the "monopoly" that RAMSI have over the releasing of funds. Critics claimed that RAMSI has been blocking funds to meet certain programs required by the SIG. The words of Dr. Sikua that RAMSI must "develop programs according to Solomon Islands' plans and aspirations," confirms this hypothesis.

But is this true or is it just a myth? The truth is that RAMSI has no monopoly over our the release of funds for government programs, but there were times, according to RAMSI, that funds were requested for programs not there in the first place for the allocation of funds. Sometimes the government wanted funds without any single explanation. When I first heard this, I wasn't surprise at all because it became a norm for our executive branch to control or dictate the financial mechanism of our country. At one point, Andrew Nori ordered the Central Bank to print more money on executive order when he was the Minister of Finance. It seems that Dr. Sikua is putting on the hat of Sogavare who lashed out at RAMSI's economic advisers in the treasury, calling them "Australian" spies" and who called for RAMSI's economic advisers to be removed as they were "stumbling blocks" in the development of SI. This is the same message that is echoed by Sikua in his motion; the only thing is-it is not Soga, its Dr. Sikua.

Besides that, RAMSI had never had any program contrary to the development of SI as Sogavare and now Dr. Sikua claimed. If they strong believe this, they should have clearly outlined these RAMSI's programs that they claimed contrary or unaligned with the developmental plans of SI.

The only thing that I think stands between SIG and their ambitions (corruption of wantokism) is RAMSI. This is the very reason why the Australian High Commissioner was reprimanded back in 2002 over funds provided for by Australia to meet teachers' demands, and the sole reason why he was declared "Persona Non Granta" shortly after Sogavare was sworn in. The government obviously wanted full control of how our money is spent and how to not being held accountable for misappropriation of funds by the elites. That is pathetic.

Whatever his (Sikua) motive is, hem barava dangeroys tumas. It seems that Sikua is looking for a way out of his own personal mess. The allegation brought against him (his social behavior, alcohol, women, etc.) maybe too much to bear. Fearing a rift within his own party and loosing the support of the public, he decided to throw the first punch. 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. That will more likely to appease the general public that was extremely upset at the accidental death of the SI nurse a few months ago. Remember that this young nurse was Malaitan and Dr. Sikua needs the Malaitan supports to survive a MNC.

Folks, I am trying to understand the mindset of our PM here, but the more I dig in deeper, the more I see a desperate PM. The impending danger of the proposed review of the Facilitation Act is when this legal agreement is radically altered. Yes, Solomon Islanders want FA radically changed to see that RAMSI officers are judged according to our laws. Yes, our elected leaders want RAMSI out of the way of our government, in terms of its spending rights. Yes, Dr. Sikua might get a lot of support from the general public and perhaps some from the OP, but how about the walls surrounding him, security wise? The walls that protect him might collapse if he is not careful about his moves!

What Dr. Sikua should have done was fighting for an exit strategy for RAMSI. He should have given the RAMSI appropriate time to wrap up their work and leave SI, instead of tearing down the very fabric of which RAMSI operated for the past five years. This is a recipe for future political instability and destruction of our civil society.

Was Sogavare been "undiplomatic last time?" I don't think so. Yes, he was silly the way he approached the PIF (that was undiplomatic), but "undiplomatic" is not the reason why Sogavare didn't get the support for the review of the FA. People didn't want to see RAMSI leave SI, hem nomoa. Dr. Sikua's motion carries the blueprint of Sogavare's FA proposal and the timing is just extremely suspicious. Theres nothing new nor is there any significant differences between the two leaders over this FA review.
Again, it is a very dangerous ground that Dr. Sikua is walking on for the next four months.
_________________
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

Whilst others may have varying views about the amendment process of the FA recently passed in our parliament, I personally see it as a way forward in the long run. To be more frank I think RAMSI missed the focal point. If i may generalize here, indeed we are in a serious dilemma as far as ‘Changing of ATTITUDE’ in our society is concerned when it comes to viewing this whole issue. Observing each and everybody’s contribution on this forum for sometime, it’s obvious that one group and the likes seem to disagree on any of such moves to revise the FA reason being vividly clear and that is due to ‘SECURITY’ concern. Fine we all share the shame sentiment about security.
On the other hand, some (including myself) view this amendment as a positive step towards bringing SI to full recovery. Each contributor is entitled to his or her stands on this issue; however, we first of all had to be cleared with this ‘Attitude’ problem. A mention of the statement change of attitude here should be done on a two fold bases, (i) as SIer’s (or leaders to be more appropriate) we/or leaders have to change from the attitude of misappropriating aid funds ( was it real aid??? Rolling Eyes

)received from our friends overseas (reason only them could deduce WHY they continue with such aids knowing very well we have been missusing such aid for ages), which RAMSI could be included in these aid party, (ii) on the other hand we also have to attempt ‘change of Attitude', meaning to try and be responsible of our own issues, these may take onboard the idea of trusting each other. The more we continue to linger on the idea that SIers can’t do it, security will never be there the moment RAMSI left our shores, that is the attitude that will often be a hurdle to us from moving forward. The solution to our problems lies in looking within ourselves to find an answer, thus I view it as an attitude problem which needs refurnishing to continue to think that RAMSI is the only savior.
I’m afraid others will turn to think that I’m Sogavare’s or Sikua’s supporter here. I am only highlighting the fact that i chose to look beyond these two leaders flaws and got the notion that for Solomon Islands to get above and over its problems we simply have to look within. That was the inspiration i got from Soga’s short reign, though there’s so much cloud over him in relation to his leadership style (its over for him with such style). If we decided not to look beyond the bridge of our noses, we will often see Khan, Moti, fanatism, unfriendliness, Sikua & Fono emitting usual rehotrics with political agendas tugged along. This government always gives me the impression that we need to look helpless and wait on others to help us or take care of us, not encouraging us to help ourselves, that is my problem so far with this government. However, with this recent slight shift of frequency, facilitating the amendment of the FA, i start to realign my perspective about them.

What is my problem with RAMSI? Why do i decided to have the notion that their focus is wrong. Their focus is wrong in my view, because it fails to address that Solomon Islanders only need to be empowered to fulfill their own destiny. It has missed the entire point that is why I accepted the recent shift from the parliament for the amendment of the FA.
I personally believe wantoks that the true therapy is to impress on Solomon Islanders the truth that SIers (or we) can determine and control our own destiny, we need not be told and be treated as kids; This is the Right way to do it not that,,, we only need to be given the tools and asked, “how are you going to do it?” RAMSI’s approach is all wrong because RAMSI believes it/or they are the solution to our problems, and it’s so sad that the whole populace of our Island country started becoming comfortable with this notion aswell.
I view this as a problem that amalgam our unhappiness. Close assessment on how much RAMSI wasted on things superficial, I only wish somebody provide us with factual figures here, we'll be astounded with facts that never came out to light for the public to know. What if RAMSI remove three expensive expatriate consultants and instead divert the funds to attract ten or fifteen top Solomon Islands brains (dozens and dozens of such brains are out there overseas) to help out in the rebirth of the Public Service. I believe it would a lot of difference folks.

Other possible alternative would be if RAMSI encourage a ‘think tank’ made up of intelligent Solomon Islanders who should then map the way forward for this country, I believe this will really enhance previous efforts to push us forward than being stagnant as we are now, because building the ABILITY of Solomon islanders is important than to draw a shadow in the minds of our people to always think that RAMSI is the solution.
Implanting logic of national pride and independence is significant in my opinion. Just like what was supposed to be done prior to or during the tension, before RAMSI came along while thugs and not so tough guys with guns were running around ruining the place. RAMSI's focus is all wrong - it needs review it needs to be more inclusive of Solomon Islanders and it must address real issues for Solomon Islanders not provide a superficial feeling of safety which created continuous need for them from us everyday.
With our nations involvement with RAMSI i bgan to think that continuous facilitation of Aid projects might be a very 'GOOD' Business for aid donors,,,With more profits earned by them comparative to what we were given.

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

Some critics fear that conducting a review of RAMSI may possibly spells the beginning of their exit from the shores of solomon islands, have vehemently opposed such undetarking. Probably the bad memories of the recent ethnic tension have erased whatever trust and confidence we have in fellow solomon islanders for upholding law and order, and maintaining a secure environment whereby citizens and friends could freely move around without intimidation, harrassment, etc.
Or probably the extent of corruption that exists within our government circles (mind you that corruption exists in almost every facets of our society) prompted critics against such review.
the timing of the successful submission also comes at a time when Japan indicated its willingness to send troops for peace keeping missions in solomons.
those who drafted the bill should know the real reasons however, as one of those who supports such review I see this as a progress RAMSI has made since its inception few years back.

Eddie · Joined: 13 Feb 2008 Posts: 129 Location: Kiwi

I personally view the motion to review certain aspects of RAMSI as healthy and in a positive direction. The Forum had the similar sediment that RAMSI's focus should align with our Government National Plan, as the law and order issue has improved and for that reason various working committees were set up to form a healthy dialogue among RAMSI, Forum and SI government. They very much aware of the concerns and needs of our people and I’m sure the PM does not selfishly decisive, but he has his government members to consult with, plus the members of the parliament and that is the very reason to seek their endorsement to allow the review to take place. There is also a framework in partnership developed so I’m sure there are guidelines to follow.

Therefore, I don’t want to make any pre-emptive conclusive outcomes of the review, cos, the parties involved are yet to dwell on the matter and I’m sure they will reach a consensual plan, satisfying the parties involved.

At the end of the day, each party knows that RAMSI will have a dynamic strategic plan. The issue on immunity is a separate matter altogether.

tkorax · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject:

I really dont know much about ins and out of the RAMSI FA, but it seems quite obvious from my personal observation that whilst they have brought some normalcy to us, they have yet to achieve some important strategic change. This is why, a review is important - not because we want them out now, but at least when they exit, at least we know that they have truly helped us set in place a strategic roadmap to total Empowerment and self-governance and not be Dependent on them.

Personally, the normalcy currently experienced is only short term. As soon as RAMSI leaves, fear will start to creep up, lack of confidence about business communities will start to surface, more corruption and malpractice will probably surface and so forth. Why - mainly, because i feel that our Police and Security force are still being treated like puppets and totally disempowered . I still find it hard to gain full confidence in a local Police and i dont blame them, RAMSI's role should be to help raise the public's confidence in our own force - instead all the publicity, perception they portray to people is that 'We are the Only ones to be trusted'.

One of the most important Steps forward in our country is public confidence and this can only be achieved by having a Strong Police and Security force that is properly trained and free of wantokism. RAMSI's role should be to prioritise this until they can they see public confidence in this force improved....But it does not help when you see all the RAMSI's official carrying out Policing and Security duties with one local officer mostly as a driver - Our can our local Officers be empowered in that way?. After 4-5years of RAMSI having been in SI, at least I think it's fair to expect to see some confidence and credibility being brought back to our local force, or even abit of hope that we can be confident when RAMSI leaves.

And yes, for me i think that RAMSI should be supervised to ensure it EMPOWERS our people in all aspects of their engagement in SI like some of you said.

I feel that Dr Sikua's call for this review is timely and i dont think that his intention is for RAMSI to leave just yet, but more to ensure that their work can have a meaningful 'Helpem Fren' so that SI can stand on it's feet.

There is a big difference between Dr Sikua's call for the review of this FA. Soga had the controversial Moti and Khan when he called for the review. His intentions was probably seen more as attempt to kick RAMSI out !!!

Soga likes to back in the media about everything including personal attacks. I see Dr Sikua as someone young in power who is not reactive, consultative instead of dictorship...and therefore naturally attracts command and respect.

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Vexie, I agree with some of your ideas, but the truth still remains and that is RAMSI have restored law and order. And with the light of the recent riot by some nasty Solomon Islanders, there is more to security than an absence of men with arms in our streets. The review of RAMSI's achievements to measure their effectiveness-whether they have achieved their goal or not, is perhaps the best way forward. However, in my view, the FA review is an attempt to remove the walls by which RAMSI operates and easing RAMSI influence in our country while giving the government the ultimate freedom to do whatever pleasing to them just like any other time since independence. In other words, they want RAMSI to stick around and catch bullets for them while surrounding themselves with red-tapes. That worries me because I personally believe that there is no imminent danger with RAMSI's current operations, the only danger is those who are planning to turn the table upside down.

kulau · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 38

Interesting discussions! It is interesting that Solomon Islanders (including myself) tend to spend a lot of time and energy criticising RAMSI and what it has or has not done. In this discussion, what we often do not ask is: What can we Solomon Islanders do? This, I think, is a much more important question. RAMSI has provided the space and opportunity for us to change our country - make things better and ensure that the kind of civil unrest we had does not re-emerge. What have we done to be more pro-active. RAMSI cannot build nationalism, nor can it develop our country. It is us, Solomon Islanders, who have to do it. What have we done? RAMSI can only facilitate and provide us with the space (that is free of violence) to do it.

I acknowledge that there are certain focus of RAMSI that we might not see as the most appropriate, or the most useful. But, what have we done to tell them?

Let's be more proactive, rather than just criticising.

ok iufala moa. mi rest fastaem.

Vexie · Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Posts: 64

AK47

I think i've said much already, examples and reasons why i think RAMSI's focus had strayed are embraced in my previous personal deliberation of the issue.

At this juncture i assumed that my suggestion quoted, which you rightly picked is and one of the REASON(s) why the FA needs amendment. For the better or worse for SI let alone 'Foreign Relations Committee' who will man the task.

It's about time we should start trusting each other and be confident and honest with each other as capable SIers and move our own Nation ourselves. We can not rely on RAMSI for that and RAMSI plus ourself should not think without them we will never excel, that is my whole point.

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

Vexie, I can not more than agree with you colleague.
It seems some people embrace the mentality that their whole future depends on RAMSI. We need to look beyond the windows of RAMSI. Enough of being like babies. We are already 30yrs old.

Bantex · Joined: 14 Apr 2008 Posts: 2

The review of FA should be welcomed as it provides an opportunity for the Parliament through one of committees (FRC) to critically examine RAMSI and suggest how RAMSI could be strategically positioned to support ongoing efforts to promote post conflict reconstruction and development process in Solomon Islands. It would be interesting to see the terms of reference that will guide the foreign relations review committee.

the politics and motivations of this review had been parltly discussed by a number of contributors in this forum already. Regardless, passing of the motion is an important opportunity to make RAMSI work smater and better for SI rather than leaving the current SI situation working in favour of RAMSI. RAMSI working smarter meaning, playing more developmental role rather than purely a security and law order driven initiative which is often perceived as a foreign occupation of SI; setting of milestones, timelines and achieveable targets with government and important stakeholders. I think its time that our people and government tell others what we want and be able to articulate these in concrete terms rather than criticising RAMSI without proposing workable and viable alternative to intiatives such as RAMSI and what it support.

hem fastaem

AK47 · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 233

Tkorax,

I strongly disagree with you that RAMSI had eclipsed Solomon Islands Police as a result of RAMSI wanting to be the center of everything. We really need to move beyond this for a number of reasons: i. generalization without a factual argument is wrong ii. assuming things that never happened is also wrong. For instance;

tkorax · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject:

AK47,
Thank you for contributing further to this topic. My bad for my ill informed assumptions but I was being very honest with my perception of our Police and Security force and what I have seen around town.

I am glad to find out from you, that at least you have some close friends who have pointed out some excellent changes within. The question now is How many Solomon Islanders will be able to regain the confidence and trust they use to have on their Police force when their time to leave is up?

RAMSI's time in SI is only temporary and they have done a tremendous job in bringing law and order. And to ensure that this achievement is sustainable for our future, RAMSI's role should also extend to improving public perception and trust about RSPF and the good changes happening within. We need to remember that the breakdown of law and order and security situation has incurred so much phycological scars amongst our people and one of the greatest things RAMSI can do is helping us indirectly change that. I am sure, they are not naive of that, but there are so many other simple things that i feel could have been done concurrently with the good work they have already done to change that. The same goes to RSIP and govt.

Most of the publicity stunts you see, hear and read and therefore implanted in the minds people seem to be RAMSI and their helpem fren logo and moto and that there is no Solomon Islands beyond RAMSI. They have done a good job in their publicity and i wish they could now help RSIP to regain some public confidence in them as well.

This is why it is important that our their works on the ground is monitored and reviewed to ensure both parties can work together strategically until their time to leave is up. This is provided that our govt has all the good intentions about it all.

I hope the review can clarify better the 3rd point in the FA as highlighted by PM.

On the other note I have to say I am very grateful for their service and what they have done...and all I am pointing out is that I want to be as confident enjoying freedom and security in SI that RAMSI brings with them and continue to enjoy that same freedom and security after they left.