The so called Western or modern system of laws were developed over many centuries of practice and 'trial' and error. A thousand years ago, there was a notion called 'The divine right of kings'. This concept described how a king's power was directly received from God and therefore the 'Crown' was always right in what he said.
We still hear this concept spoken of today in our Law Courts where the State, Commonwealth, 'Crown', etc. is used as a term to represent the authority of those prosecuting the case against the accused. Roughly 800 years ago in England, a Simon DeMonfort led a group of nobles against King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, a document that has so much significance to us today that one of the few copies (the original is long gone), resides in a place of honour in the Australian Parliament. The Magna Carta or 'Big Document' was the equivalent of a bloodless coup in political terms and established that the King was not the supreme ruler and had to submit to the will of the then voters (although only nobles had any power to vote in those days). Little by little, the British and then Australian body of law was established, written down and the power of the Monarchy subsided to that of a figurehead.
The same process also happened in modern PNG where new laws were enacted by the PNG Parliament. Modern law can only be enacted by Parliament (as the accepted representative of the people), after debate and discussion at a national level and not by the country's leader alone. . Penalties exist if anyone is found to have broken these laws.
At Independence, PNG was told it would follow the Melanesian Way but in which direction would this take PNG? Has pursuing the 'Melanesian Way' actually taken PNG along the wrong road during the last 30 odd years? Let us examine the origins of both Western Law and Melanesian Custom. Were the origins and purposes of these points of view similar or are they different? Which road should PNG take in the future?
Why is there a difference between Melanesian custom and that of other countries? Why is there a perceived difference between Melanesian and Modern Customs anyway? The origins of traditional PNG customary law were developed in much the same way as the origins of the so called 'Western Law'. The only difference seems to be the relative stage of developed human society that each set of customary laws pertain to.
Some years ago, Professor Jared Diamond, was quizzed by a PNG leader named Yali, as to why there was such a difference between PNG and so the called European culture. In his book, "Guns, Germs and Steel", Prof. Diamond explains why some countries were seemingly more advanced along the road of technological development than others.
The Professor postulates that some countries in Eurasia (Europe and Asia connected), were lucky enough to live where food, like naturally occurring grains existed or had been spread through the region. Wheat, barley and rice were nutritious and could be stored for use during lean times. In addition, large animals were also available and suitable to be domesticated and used for food, transport and agriculture (cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc.).
This 'luck of the draw' provided Eurasian humans with an advantage over other regions that did not share these opportunities. There is however, no reason to suspect that if any group of humans is afforded the same opportunities, they will not develop their society in the same way and at the same exponential rate.
PNG had in past times, only access to food crops that are easily perishable and had no large animals available for domestication (except the pig and dog), and none suitable for transport or tilling the soil. The result was a 'plateauing' or a relative slowing down of the development of PNG technological achievements so that when the first 'outside men' arrived in PNG; they, the outsiders, had the advantage of superior weapons and a resistance to diseases that they brought with them.
These diseases had previously jumped the species barrier from their domesticated animals to humans and these outsiders had had time to build up an immunity. When PNG was introduced into the Modern Age, the country was a largely a collection of different languages, cultures and traditions and without a common set of values and written law.
This was the same situation that would have existed in every scattered group of humans that ever walked the planet prior to the development of metallurgy, a central government, written laws being passed on from one generation to another and the invention of a common and durable form of currency (money). Can Melanesian customs and western law co-exist? What happened when traditional PNG customs clashed with written and long established western law?
To those of us who, during our training to become kiaps, were told we were 'agents of change', that was THE question. What we were not trained in but had to learn to do, was to make considered judgements in the field about how this duel set of laws and customs could co-exist and indeed, work together for the common good. In many cases, this was a very difficult situation to try and resolve and often, no two situations were the same.
Like most difficult situations, some mistakes were made however with the benefit of hindsight, the vast majority of decisions were recognized by the PNG people as being desirable and worth supporting. Hence there is an often expressed view by 'oldtimers' that the time of the kiap was a 'good time' and compared with the present day situation.
Philip Fitzpatrick in his book, "Bamahuta, Leaving Papua", gives some excellent examples of how a kiap had to interpret the actual situation and make a considered judgement on the rights and wrongs of what he was confronted with at the time. Often this judgement could entail an amelioration of some western law or custom to present some understandable and practical justice to people who only knew and understood their traditional law.
This was one of the reasons why kiaps were so effective and often respected by the local people. They saw justice enacted and enforced in a fair way in their own village or area. Senior judges brought in to PNG specifically to hear serious charges, were often unaware that their pontifications from the bench concerning western law had very little relevance to those who had no knowledge of any but their own customs.
This situation was also very difficult for outsiders to comprehend like visitors from the UN or indeed, some Australian politicians of the time. The kiap methodology of interpretation was unfortunately not a viable or long term solution that could continue to exist once modern communications and education were available to PNG. It did work in rural PNG however.
When the kiap system was replaced at Independence, the contrast between the two concepts became ever more pronounced. There was at that time, modern legislation that had been adopted by the PNG Parliament. There was also a set of traditional and varied customs that were still understood and were being promoted as the 'Melanesian Way'. How then, could the average PNGian decide which set of laws that he or she had to follow?
This is the "Gordian Knot" that has proved so very difficult for PNG leaders to unravel in the last 30 odd years. Let us now examine what the expression "Melanesian Way" might be taken to mean. Traditional PNG custom in areas where no common currency existed required the accumulation of wealth and influence to be a 'notional' practice. In a climate where wealth was measured primarily in perishable foodstuffs, namely pigs and root crops, these assets could not be stored for any length of time. This meant that in order to acquire perceived wealth, a traditional PNG leader had to give his wealth away.
Only by giving away food and ornaments could the giver acquire perceived wealth. This was based on the obligation imposed on the recipient of the gift by the giver. Traditional PNG 'Bigmen' created and maintained their wealth by this means. In contemporary terms, this is known as 'social capital'. When the 'Melanesian Way' is super imposed on a modern society that now measures it's wealth in monetary terms, a conflict of interest can easily occur.
If the traditional concept of a PNG 'Bigman' requires that he accumulate his wealth in order to achieve recognition and the prestige to make decisions affecting his people, then this 'wealth' can now be accumulated in money, rather than perishable food. Money can now be accumulated in banks at little or no real cost and can also be transferred overseas and away from those who contribute, either by commission or omission, to its accumulation.
It is also possible that those in a position of authority might have better access to receiving modern day wealth by the dispensing of favours and influence rather than those who have no such opportunity. So, what's the problem? Well...clearly, if someone insists and promotes that the Melanesian concept of wealth and the subsequently acquired influence should apply in PNG but then personally pursues a western, monetary, methodology, surely there is a perceived and intentional duplicity of purpose?
So what's the answer? Simply, apply either one set laws or the other. The two concepts of traditional PNG custom and modern law cannot be mixed. This is because each is only effective when applied to the applicable, relative period of human social development. Either become a traditional 'Bigman' by using the Melanesian Way' and giving all your accumulated wealth away or be bound by modern customs and be held accountable and responsible for your actions, if you acquire wealth illegally.
Just imagine the huge extent of 'social capital' that could be earned if the full extent of the wealth coming into PNG was in fact 'given away' to the PNG people? Of course this wealth is difficult to be passed on to an hereditary dynasty as its obligation dims with the passing of the individual that incurred it. To be sure, the instances of the notorious 'brown paper bag' or a convenient overseas bank account is not a new concept or one restricted to PNG. Notwithstanding, that doesn't make this process of recognized bribery and corruption any more legal.
The report about a senior PNG cabinet minister having had 30 million paid into a Singapore bank account by a Taiwanese government minister has still to be openly resolved. The Burning Question If the PNG people and their leaders are to assume their rightful place in the modern world, they must determine the answer to this important issue:
Will PNG continue to turn its back on the modern world and continue to promote the 'Melanesian Way' even though this concept clearly applies to a period of past, human, social history? or, Will the laws enacted by the modern PNG Parliament about anti corruption and fraud be promoted and clear breaches fully investigated and effectively policed?
