Papua New Guinea’s literacy rate stands at 63.4 percent — the lowest in the Pacific — with the government planning for it to reach 70 percent by 2027, an official says.

Career Trackers chief executive Ellenor Lutikoe told the National Content Conference in Port Moresby that according to the medium-term development goal, the literacy rate should reach 70 percent by 2027.

She highlighted three skills lacking in the workforce:

READ MORE: Illiteracy: A growing concern in PNG

• Basic English skills;
• Basic business skills including digital literacy; and
• Relevant and practical working knowledge related to the role they apply for.

“Personally, I strongly believe that literacy is the foundation for an individual,” she said.

In 2000, PNG had a literacy rate of 57.34 percent, in 2010 the rate increased by 4.26 percent to 61.6 percent and today it was 63.4 percent — an increase of 1.8 percent.

It needs to increase by 6.6 percent to reach the 2027 target of 70 percent.

On-the-job training
Lutikoe said one of the ways to address these challenges was through on-the-job training programmes offered by companies, including Career Trackers.

Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) chief executive officer Darren Yorio agreed that one way of addressing such challenges faced by employees was through literacy programmes.

Yorio said many parts of PNG faced many social issues because illiteracy had continued to delay the progress of national development.

He said the literacy rate was low compared to other Pacific island countries, and the government must work with other players to address the issue.

“If there is a serious area we need to address, it is the issue of illiteracy. It is important that we maintain that level of rigorous focus on partnership to effectively continue the progress of development,” he said.

Dr Kilala Devette-Chee, a senior research fellow and programme leader of the Education Research Programme at the National Research Institute, said PNG could reduce its high illiteracy rate by implementing the strategies recommended in her research report “Illiteracy: A growing concern in Papua New Guinea“.

“The literacy level in different parts of PNG has continued to be a matter of national concern,” she said.

“Although the government has taken a number of measures to improve literacy in the country, more and more students who are dropping out of school are either semi-literate or illiterate.”

The strategies included:

• Reviewing the provision of free education to allow more children to attend school;
• Developing awareness on the importance of education;
• Encouraging night classes for working people ;and
• Re-establishing school libraries to promote a culture of reading.

According to Dr Devette-Chee’s study, the root causes of the poor literacy outcomes include weak teaching skills and knowledge, diverse languages, frequent teacher and student absenteeism’ and lack of appropriate reading books and teaching support materials.

The Outcome-Based Education (OBE) which promoted the use of vernacular languages in elementary schools with a transition period to English in Grade 3 failed a lot of students due to improper implementation of the programme.

Joy Olali and Max Oraka are reporters with The National newspaper. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“I thank Mr Campbell for his contribution since the establishment of Te Whatu Ora last year.”

In a statement, Campbell said the removal from his position was “an inappropriate reaction to statements made in my private capacity”.

“I have spoken to [opposition leader] Christopher Luxon who has accepted my apology for any personal offence my statements may have caused. He accepted my apology.

“I have also apologised to Minister Verrall for any difficulty which my statements may have caused for her and the government.”

Campbell defends actions
Speaking to RNZ Checkpoint, Campbell continued to defend his actions.

“I’ve received a letter from the minister which responded to a letter from my lawyers, indicating that she has removed me from that position as chair of Te Whatu Ora. I think that’s a mistake and an overreaction to the statements I made in a private capacity but nevertheless that’s what she’s done,” he said.

“I think I’m entitled to make comments as a private citizen, which I did in the LinkedIn post.

“And secondly, the suggestion is that I’ve somehow got offside with the opposition, which given that I spoke to Christopher Luxon earlier today, we discussed the issues. I made an apology to him for any personal offence he had taken, he accepted that apology. We had a very nice discussion about it.

“So I don’t believe there’s any issue there. I’ve seen Richard Prebble from the ACT Party saying that he believes I have the right to make statements of this kind.”

He said the comments that he made were on a public forum, but he made them in a private capacity.

“I didn’t make those statements as chair of Te Whatu Ora … I always have to have regard to the interests of Te Whatu Ora and I don’t see anything in the statements I’ve made which was in any way damaging to Te Whatu Ora.”

Strong commitment to kaupapa
“The comments showed my political position, but there is nothing in the code of conduct which suggests you should not do that,” he said.

Campbell said emphasised his strong commitment to the kaupapa of the Pae Ora legislation and the work which Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora were doing to implement that legislation.

“I have devoted huge energy and time and involvement to that end. I am disappointed that I will not be working directly with the thousands of health sector staff, patients and whānau with whom I have been actively engaged. My support for them is undiminished.

“The principle of working in Tiriti partnership to achieve equity in the lives of all New Zealanders is core to my beliefs and I make no apology for that.”

Campbell would not rule out taking legal action over the matter saying it was one possible line of action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The heated (and often confused) debate about “co-governance” in Aotearoa New Zealand inevitably leads back to its source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But, as its long-contested meanings demonstrate, very little in the Treaty of Waitangi is straightforward.

Two versions of the 1840 document were written, one in English and one in te reo Māori.

About 540 Māori, including 13 women, had put their names or moko to the document. All but 39 signed the Māori text.

But the differences in the translations were so significant that there has been debate ever since about what much of this agreement actually meant, especially Articles 1 and 2.

Article 3, on the other hand, attracts less controversy — which is interesting, because it was and is critical to debates such as the one swirling around co-governance. In effect, Article 3 acted as a mechanism by which the fundamental rights and privileges of British citizenship would be afforded Māori.

In the English language version, the Crown promises the Queen’s “royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects”. In te reo, the Crown gave an assurance that Māori would have the Queen’s protection and all rights accorded to British subjects.

The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other.

Although there were many British laws, practices and principles in existence by this time, four particularly stand out.

Participation
The ideal was that laws reflected the community (or a portion of it at least) and were made with the participation and consent of citizens. This was a long-standing principle, in that law and governance could not be something arbitrary or controlled absolutely by one person.

There had been efforts to control royal abuses of power since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the establishment of a “common council of the kingdom”, by which high-ranking community leaders could be summoned to discuss important matters.

Later, the 1688 Bill of Rights required free and frequent parliaments which would contain the right of free speech within them (parliamentary privilege in today’s terms). This meant representatives could speak without fear. Monarchs could no longer suspend laws on a whim, levy taxes at their pleasure, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without the permission of Parliament.

The anomaly that only about 5 percent of British citizens (wealthy and entitled men) could actually vote for members of Parliament was not resolved until legal reform in the early 1830s. This began the expansion of the political franchise and the widening of control over Parliament.

Individual rights
All were deemed equal in the eyes of the law, and the delivery of justice with integrity could be expected. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 added: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner’s detention, thus preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

The Bill of Rights prohibited excessive penalties, cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of fines or penalties before convictions. It also guaranteed the right for all citizens to petition, where they could complain or seek help from the authorities, without fear of punishment.

Tolerance and a free press
After the Reformation, religious tolerance among British subjects took centuries to develop. The 1701 Toleration Act allowed some tolerance of the public practising of different religions, although the monarch could never be Catholic. But it was not until 1829 that Catholics — and some other faiths — could even be elected to Parliament in Britain.

The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”.

Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.

Public debate and the role of a free press was another important privilege. Although British laws governing libel, blasphemy and sedition were continued after 1688, there was a clear trend toward expanding liberty, allowing both booksellers and newspapers to proliferate.

This helped build the modern belief in the Fourth Estate, and that the media would act as a positive influence on decision makers.

Forward together
Despite the fine sounding language of Article 3 and all the expectations that went with it, the reality was that for many decades after 1840, the promised rights and privileges did not arrive for everyone.

The governor, followed by the early stages of representative government, ruled with a near absolute power that crushed dissent. The law itself was often used to target the rights and privileges of Māori, with some of the darkest examples occurring during and after the New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa.

Equality for most was largely a chimera, tolerance was elusive, and the press did not act as a brake on atrocious decision making.

Thankfully, the world is different today. Positive change has happened through successive generations of Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.

There have been official apologies, compensation and redress, although only a portion of what was alienated has been returned.

As we move forward and look for new ways to work together to achieve equal and equitable partnership based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is important to remember the relevance of Article 3 and what it continues to offer in a modern context.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, professor of law, University of Waikato; Dr Claire Breen, professor of law, University of Waikato, and Valmaine Toki, professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

United States Vice-President Kamala Harris has assured Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting in the Fiji capital Suva that Washington will “significantly deepen” its engagement in the region.

Harris joined the regional leaders today to announce half a dozen new commitments to signal America’s renewed commitment to the region.

The commitments included the establishment of embassies in Kiribati and Tonga, tripling the funding for economic development and ocean resilience, and the appointment of the first-ever US envoy to the Pacific Islands Forum.

She said the US recognised that it had not provided the “diplomatic attention and support” to Pacific nations in recent years.

But she said that would now change.

“We will significantly deepen our engagement in the Pacific Islands. We will embark on a new chapter in our partnership, a chapter with increased American presence, where we commit to work with you in the short and long term to take on the most pressing issues that you face,” she said.

“The United States is a proud Pacific nation and has an enduring commitment to the Pacific islands which is why President Joe Biden and I seek to strengthen our partnership with you.

‘Support that you deserve’
“We recognise that in recent years the Pacific Islands may not have received the diplomatic attention and support that you deserve. So, today, I am here to tell you directly, we are going to change that.

“In this region and around the world, the United States believes it is important to strengthen the international rules based order. To defend it, to promote it and to build on it.

“These international rules and norms have brought peace and stability to the Pacific for more than 75 years.

“Principles that importantly state that the sovereignty and terriotorial integrity of all states must be respected. Principles that allow all states big and small to conduct their affairs free from aggression or coercion.

“At a time when we see bad actors trying to undermine the rules-based order we must stand united. We must remind ourselves that upholding a system of laws, institutions, and common understandings … well, this is how we ensure stability and indeed prosperity around the world.

“We will continue to work with all of you and all of our partners and allies to craft new rules and norms for future frontiers grounded in our shared values of openness, transparency and fairness.

“All of us convened we recognise there is so much we can do together. We have a strong foundation and we will build on this and embark in a new chapter – all in the spirit of partnership, friendship and respect.”

Tripled funding
Harris also said the US planned to triple funding for economic development and ocean resilience for Pacific islands.

She said a request would go to the US Congress for US$600 million.

“Sixty million dollars per year for the next 10 years. These funds will help strengthen climate resilience, invest in marine planning and conservation and combat illegal unreported and unregulated fishing and enhance maritime security.”

The forum Secretary-General Henry Puna welcomed the commitment from the United States, saying it was a good sign of friendship.

“That was very refreshing and also very reassuring that the Americans are fully committed to re-engaging with the Pacific in a meaningful and substantive way.”

Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has commended the United States for its renewed intentions.

US policies welcomed
Bainimarama said he and fellow leaders welcomed policies such as appointing a designated US envoy to the forum.

“I think it’s clear to see that the US is certainly looking more like the Pacific partner that we have traditionally held it to be. We look forward to deeper engagement to support our development and build our capacity at the regional and national level,” he said.

Last year, President Joe Biden was the first US president to address the forum Leaders, which was followed up by a visit to Fiji by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to launch the America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Harris said Washington planned to build on this foundation in the months and years ahead.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Forming post-election alliances through formal agreement is an effective way of drawing in a broader and more culturally diverse group of voters into a bigger support bloc, says a New Zealand-based political sociologist.

Professor Steven Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Pacific Studies Centre at Canterbury University, said this while responding to the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed recently by the opposition National Federation Party and the People’s Alliance party which was formed last year and led by Sitiveni Rabuka.

The two parties have undertaken to work together in the lead-up to the 2022 Fiji general election.

Professor Ratuva said politics everywhere had to do with power contestation, and the removal or weakening of those in power was usually one of the most fundamental factors of this “power game”.

Meanwhile, Rabuka says his party will win the election.

“The question I would like to ask Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is, has he ever played competitive sports,” Rabuka said during a news conference.

“Nobody goes into the field thinking that they are going to lose; we are going in thinking the way he is thinking, we are going in to win.”

Rabuka, whose MoU witj the NFP sets out the guidelines on how the two parties would work together towards the election, confirmed that the two parties would be fighting the polls on their own.

However, he said they would be working together on a number of issues during the election.

When quizzed by the media on how he intended to make the partnership with NFP work under the electoral process, Rabuka said “it is not a coalition, it’s an MoU”.

NFP leader Professor Biman Prasad said their partnership was to get rid of the mess the FijiFirst government had created in the country.

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz