By Dr JOHN KUWIMB
I
would like to respond to the Post-Courier’s headline news on Tuesday, 10
December 2013, entitled ‘Cultural
terrorist’ to describe the Restoration,
Reformation and Modernisation program of the Speaker of our 9th
National Parliament, Hon. Theo Zurenouc.
 |
| Parliament...in the eye of the storm.-Picture by MALUM NALU |
Post
September 11, 2001 (post 9/11) use of the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’
anywhere on earth conjures up images of someone who is violent and hostile,
driven by religious or political beliefs to kill and destroy others who do not
subscribe to their beliefs.
The Post-Courier’s front page headline gave the image that the Speaker of our Parliament
is such a hostile and violent person against our culture.
The
word ‘culture’ embraces all of
civilisation and modernity. According to
the Penguin English Dictionary culture
means:
“1. the
development of the mind, esp by education. 2a
enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and
aesthetic training. b. intellectual and artistic enlightenment as
distinguished from vocational and technical skills. 3a.
the customary beliefs, social forms, etc of a racial, religious or
social group…b. the socially
transmitted pattern of human behaviour that includes thought, speech, action,
institutions and artifacts” (The Penguin Reference English Dictionary
(London: Penguin Books, 2004).
Leading
authorities on culture also define culture in this all-embracing sense:
(a) According
to Sir Edward B. Tylor, a British social anthropologist, writing in the 19th
century:
“Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic
sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals,
law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member
of society” (Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of
Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom (New York: Gordon Press,
1974. 1st published in 1871).
(b) The United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) defines culture to mean:
“…the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual
and emotional features, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems,
traditions and beliefs.”
(c) Geert Hofstede, who conducted a cross-cultural survey among 116,000
employees of IMB in 71 countries, define culture as “the collective programming
of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
from another…” (Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed.,
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2001, p9).
(d) William H. Redmond
defines culture to include:
“Human behavior…marked by regularity, rather than
randomness, [including behavior such as] tastes, distastes, habits, fashions,
norms, mores, [and] ethics.” (“Instinct,
Culture and Cognitive Science” (2006) XL (20) Journal of Economic Issues
431 at p.434).
(e) Keith
F. Otterbein states that anthropologists use culture in two senses. These are: (1) the way of life of a
particular people; and (2) “everything that a group of people thinks, and says,
and does, and makes. … When anthropologists refer to the culture of a people,
they are referring to a large and diverse number of topics which include
technological pursuits, marriage customs, military practices, and religious
beliefs.” (Comparative Cultural
Analysis: An Introduction to Anthropology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1972) p1).
In
light of these definitions, the Post-Courier’s headline is telling the people
of PNG that the Speaker is a terrorist against our beliefs, our languages, our
marriage institution, our dressing, education system, our civilisation – our
way of life.
Is
this true? Can the Post-Courier prove
it?
The
Post-Courier editorial on Friday, 20th December 2013, begins:
“Dedicating the front page of the Post-Courier to a
single issue for two consecutive weeks rarely happens in a world full of so
many other news stories competing for prominence.”
In
the Post-Courier’s view, the Speaker of the Parliament is a terrorist against culture as defined above, and therefore he deserves to be covered
for two consecutive weeks. That is why they
have dedicated their front page headlines to warn the people of this country
about it. It is in this spirit that the
editorial headline on Friday, 20th December 2013, suggests: “Speaker
should resign from office”.
In
that same editorial on Friday, the newspaper insists:
“We have stated from the beginning of our coverage of the National
Parliament Speaker Theo Zurenuoc’s controversial actions, that we opposed
it because it was an attack on our cultural heritage as Papua New
Guineans…”
When
the Post-Courier says “we”, does it
mean the Post-Courier itself as a private company? Does it mean the shareholders and directors
of the Post-Courier? Does it mean the
Editor and employees of the Post-Courier?
Or, does it mean the people of PNG?
Who is “we” is critical
because this links to “we opposed it.”
Since
“we” the people of PNG have not
voted the Post-Courier to be our “mouthpiece” or “watchman” to guard anything
and everything our elected politicians do, the word “we” must mean the owners and shareholders of the Post-Courier or
the Post-Courier itself as a person at law, or the Editor and his supporters. The Post-Courier is not qualified to say, “we,
Papua New Guineans.” It does not
represent us! Many Papua New Guineans
are on the side of the Speaker. He is
our elected leader, and he has the mandate to do what he is doing.
The
Post -Courier had done what “rarely happens in a world full of so many
other news stories competing for prominence” in the name of wooden
images and not the people of this country because many of us support our
Speaker.
According
to the Post-Courier, wooden carvings represent the culture of everyone in PNG. Based on this view, the editorial of Tuesday,
10th December 2013, commented:
“Every single Papua New Guinean has a right to have their traditional
and cultural identity reflected in the National Parliament because it is that
institution which ultimately determines our future and survival as a sovereign
nation.”
Yes,
I am one of this single Papua New Guinean it is referring to. I have my right to have my traditional and
cultural identity in the National Parliament.
But the carving the Speaker is removing is not one of them. It does not determine our survival as a
sovereign nation. Only God does
that. It does not represent my culture
or tradition. I come from Margarima in
Hela Province. The carvings come from
some other parts of PNG. It does not
represent everyone in PNG.
Has
the Post-Courier carried out a survey to see if the wooden carvings being
removed represent the traditional and cultural identity of everyone in
PNG? Since in its own words, “this newspaper has history going back to
1969 and like the National Parliament of this great nation, [it had] grown with
Papua New Guinea and covered the highs and lows of a country in transition
since independence in 1975”, does it have records of a nation-wide
consultation on the installation of the totem pole before they were installed? Was it a cultural representative of everyone
in this great nation?
As
for me and my people, we were never consulted nor does it represent our
tradition or culture. Therefore, the
Post-Courier should be fair to every one of us and not make sweeping statements
in its judgement of the Speaker’s actions in our name. It has no mandate from my people to say so.
Now,
some crucial questions should be asked: What
if the Speaker is ridiculed and hated by his people, his colleagues or the
public? Has the Post-Courier thought
about endangering his life or bringing into disrepute the good name and public
standing of the Speaker by the front page headlines, especially his branding as
a “cultural terrorist?”
Does
the Post-Courier observe media ethics?
Does it have protocols and code of conduct? Is it important to crucify a human being with
life in the name of lifeless wooden faces?
Does PNG have an institution monitoring responsible journalism and media
reporting?
The
closure of the Rupert Murdoch-controlled News
of the World in Great Britain and the prosecution of certain individuals
involved in that media scandal should be a reminder to Papua New Guineans to be
responsible reporters and the need to be ethical and not go on a crusade to
crucify individuals who have good intentions to benefit the country. The Speaker is such a person and he deserves
our commendation and not condemnation.
The
Speaker has spoken. We now know that he
is undertaking one part of a series of actions that past and current leaders in
their wisdom, as elected representative of the people of this country, have
embarked upon.
First,
our Founding Father and then sitting Prime Minister, Grand Chief Sir Michael
Somare made a covenant with God, Creator of the universe, in which he publicly
renounced idolatry, witchcraft, ancestral worship and all other ungodly
traditional practices and committed PNG and the people of this country to the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in 2007.
Second,
in 2013, Hon. Peter O’Neill formally established diplomatic relations with Israel,
the nation of God with whom Sir Michael made the covenant.
In
the third act, Hon. Theo Zurenuoc is reforming the Parliament by laying down
the Word of God as the foundation of PNG and the new covenant in the Grand Hall
of Unity in the National Parliament.
This is part of the same political process.
What
is wrong with that? Does it deserve a
continuous negative front page headlines for two consecutive weeks? Why has it become something which “rarely happens in a world full of so many
other news stories competing for prominence”?
This
country was fragmented and disunited by thousands of tribes, languages and
traditional gods. Christian missionaries
brought the Word of God and united us into believing in one God. Many were saved and became peace-loving
members of the Christian faith. This is
an historical truth and part of our great cultural heritage.
The
Speaker is putting the Pole of National Identity and Unity to represent this
cultural and historical identity of our foundation as a nation. The word UNITY in every language spoken in
this country will be inscribed on that Pole.
There will be a light at the top symbolizing enlightenment proceeding
from the Biblical foundation. This is
awesome. This is a great and uniting
monument of national importance. It is
coming from a wise and intelligent mind.
For
those who are bringing religious arguments to say that what the Speaker is
doing is imposing his religious views on others and therefore contrary to section
45 of the Constitution, is misconceived.
The argument is based on a misunderstanding between national direction versus
individual
choice in religion.
Following
Sir Michael and Hon. Peter O’Neill, and based on our Christian history, the
Speaker is saying that we want to build this country on the Word of God and
adopt the Christian ethics and principles to inspire us into prosperity and progress. As a nation-state, we want to build on the
ideas and principles found in the Bible.
This amounts to giving national direction on the ideas on which we want
to build this nation. That is different
from forcing individuals to become Christians.
Individual right to choose their religion is not affected.
King
James authorised the translation of the Bible from Hebrew, Greek and Latin into
English in 1901 and no one protested against it as forcing his religious belief
on others. American political leaders decided
to inscribe “In God we trust” on their national currency, and that did not
amount to imposing their religious beliefs on individuals. Our Parliamentarians open their sessions with
the Lord’s Prayer, and this does not amount to imposing religious beliefs on
others. Witnesses in our court rooms
swear by the Bible before they give evidence, and this does not amount to
forcing our religious views on others.
These are our Christian cultural heritage.
Just
as we have inherited the political culture of democracy, political party
systems, court systems, financial system, education system and all other cultural
aspects of our modern nation, Christianity is a part of our culture.
The
Speaker is not imposing his religious belief on us. Rather, he is replacing a cultural item that
represent some parts of this country depicting idols and witchcraft with
another cultural item that will represent everyone in this country depicting
our Christian values. For this he must
be commended; not condemned.
Therefore, I suggest the Post-Courier to
publicly offer the Speaker an apology for the front page headline describing
him as a ‘cultural terrorist’. If it
refuses, then I suggest every Christian in this country who support the Speaker
to stop buying and advertising in the Post-Courier so that your Kina will not
empower it to attack your Christian culture and the actions of the Speaker.
Dr. John Kuwimb, Ph.D
Lawyer
Kuwimb Consultancy Services Ltd
P.O. Box 467, PORT MORESBY, NCD.
