Nabanga Groups

02/04/2024

26/03/2024

A debate on the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes to the proposed Constitutional amendments will be held at the Convention Centre from 11am to 1pm today.

This debate marks the first one since the launching of the referendum campaign and the awareness efforts.

According to information given to the Daily Post, the ‘Yes’ Team will include Ralph Regenvanu, the Minister of Climate Change, Anatole Hymak, the Minister of Education and Training, Anthea Aru, a Councillor from the Port Vila City Council, and Benjamin Shing, the First Political Advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The ‘No’ team comprises former Member of Parliament (MP) who is also the chairman of the ‘No’ Group, Joshua Kalsakau, along with former MPs Iaris Naunun and Kalo Seule, as well as Chief Jimmy Nampas.

The public is welcome to attend the Convention Centre to listen to the debate, gain information, and ask questions.

The debate will also be livestreamed on the 2024 Referendum Facebook.

In related updates, the Public Service Commission's office, represented by Acting Secretary Jonathan Iavere, has issued a circular to all public servants, mandating their attendance at today's Referendum awareness session organised by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The circular reads, “The referendum is a crucial event that will shape the future of our nation. It is essential that all public servants are well-informed about its significance and implications.

“Your attendance at the awareness session is vital to ensure that you have a clear understanding of the referendum and its potential impact on our society.

“Your participation in this event is not only mandatory but, also essential for the success of our democracy.”

On Monday of this week, Minister of Internal Affairs Johnny Koanapo launched the referendum awareness campaign on Paama Island.

-By Glenda Willie.

A debate on the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes to the proposed Constitutional amendments will be held at the Convention Centre from 11am to 1pm today.

25/03/2024

🔥HOT DEBATE, confirmed list blong ol Member blong YES mo NO.

Pablik i welkam blong joinem iven ia long konvensen senta o laef lo fesbuk.

Venue : Convention Centre
Time : 11:00am till 13:00pm

Wajem live long 2024 Referendum Facebook pej.

17/03/2024

Vois Blong Yumi emi presentem - bigfala series blo debate we nation ya i ever look: Joshua Tafura Kalsakau mo team Vote No vs Minister Johnny Raso Koanapo mo team Vote Yes.

VENUE : CONVENTION CENTRE
TOPIC: 17a mo 17b emi blo good blo Vanuatu ?

Kam wetem frens e g*t bigfala space Air-conditioning mo open mic Discussion or Question.

14/03/2024

Hello Ol Gudfala Citizen Blo Port-Vila City, Notis stap Go Out Lo Everiwan Bambai E G*t Wan Program Lo 1::00pm Ofisiel Awareness Blo REFERENDUM.
Kam wetem frens sitaon Arround mo Lisen long Storian Blong Referendum.

12/03/2024

11/03/2024

10/03/2024

02/03/2024

Public I welkam blo ko harem panel discussion lo tomorrow Sunday 3, March lo Convention Centre.

02/03/2024

The proposed amendments to Articles 17A and 17B aim to address the political instability, but, will not put a complete stop to it.

Article 17B mandates that certain Members of Parliament (MPs) must be affiliated with a political party throughout their parliamentary term. This includes independent members, sole representatives of a party, and those representing custom movements.

They must tell the Speaker of Parliament which party they belong to within three months of the election and after the first Parliament session. If they fail to do so, their seat can be declared vacant. If any of these MPs stop being part of their party, the party president must notify the Speaker within 14 days. Then, within seven days, the Speaker must declare that MP's seat is vacant.

Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Edward Kaltamat explained that while they regulate individual MP’s affiliations, the amendment does not directly impact political parties. For example, if MPs from a particular political party in a coalition government disagree with the decisions of the Prime Minister (PM), they can switch sides as a party or even move a motion of no confidence.

Therefore, political instability might remain if this scenario occurred.

Chairman Kaltamat said it is not an absolute answer to the political crises, but, it is one of the various ways to address it, given the country's political environment experienced by everyone.

Many MPs also agreed that while the proposed changes will not put a full stop to the ongoing instability, they are a step forward to addressing it. They recognise the importance of starting somewhere, indicating that these amendments could be a starting point in addressing political instability.

-By Glenda Willie

The proposed amendments to Articles 17A and 17B aim to address the political instability, but, will not put a complete stop to it.

02/03/2024

Constitutional Referendum

Dear Editor,

Please allow me space in your paper to briefly discuss my views on this planned referendum. It seems to me that without knowing all the reasons for political instability and the implications of YES votes, the public in Vanuatu will ruin their own democratic rights and freedoms through this referendum.

The public is being sold a version of reality by their Members of Parliament (MPs). Essentially, the MPs are saying as follows that for 44 years:

They could not master political stability because the Constitution did not stop MPs from crossing the floor and joining another party. So, they want the Constitution to now punish anyone who moves to another party. One needs to ask if the MPs themselves know and are willing to identify and admit the real causes of political instability. Have they asked themselves the WHY question about this frogging that some of them like doing. One should ask WHY, and when you get your first answer, you again ask WHY. You do that until you no longer can get another answer to your WHY question. Then see if that final answer you have points to a serious lack in the constitution. I would not think so.

For generation, democracies around the world saw value in this ability to move parties, especially when used for the wise and right reasons. Those seeking a YES vote want to remove that freedom from all of us. They do not think that future generations should be allowed to move parties. The disregard for the hopes and aspirations of others by this legislature is such a problem. How can they stoop so low?

The actions of independent candidates are among the biggest reasons why there is no political stability. They imply that independents are a problem and unless they are required to join a political party, they pose great risk to political stability. Is this so? Do the independents seek no confidence votes just by themselves. Do they alone lack any political integrity in their practices?

Democracies the world over have a place for independents.

Already we are seeing a big push by politicians and many on social media for YES votes. What people need to know is that by voting YES, you are agreeing to no longer allow MPs the ability to leave a party that does not stand for things that they and good minded electorate value. You are saying that no future MP should have the right to move to another party, even if for a good course. If the electorate in a constituency wants their MP to move, they must be availed that option. MPs themselves have been moving for all the wrong reasons, so they think they should stop this practice. What a blunder!

In terms of independents, you are saying that they must not have the right to express their political association. They must join parties that they did not want to join in the first place before election. If they did like those parties, why become an independent candidate? In having to join an established party, you are sacrificing the political aspirations of the electorate who initially voted the independent. It is just like saying we no longer allow persons to content votes as independents. This is not democratic.

What is disheartening also is that women and girls had no say in the politics of the 44 years as leaders. They have been voters, but not lead in parliament. Just because some men cannot use common sense and lead properly, they want to find a scapegoat in the constitution. This is so unfortunate. Voting YES means you are saying women should never have the opportunity in parliament and cross the floor if they so wisely choose. You also are saying that women should never be independents because they cannot represent their own agendas. So, they must join existing parties. These are the parties that have caused the problems we have seen for 44 years. That is just disgraceful.

In the end, the referendum only benefits the current political parties and men only. So, I will vote NO, not because I like instability, but because I think there are still better leaders out there, including future leaders yet to be born. We should give them the right to a free and truly democratic Republic of Vanuatu, with a well-run parliament. All we need is better MPs, not a changed constitution for the reasons noted above, and restriction of democratic rights of the future generations.

So vote NO.

Ruben Bakeo Markward

https://www.dailypost.vu/news/constitutional-referendum/article_f11fe2d3-c8df-559c-851e-24b90541fcb3.html

01/03/2024

If the referendum passes, the amendments will not immediately come into effect.

Chairman of the Electoral Commission, Edward Kaltamat, made this clear.

Mr. Kaltamat explained that political parties must adjust their party constitutions to accommodate these changes.

Article 17A, deals with what happens when a Member of Parliament (MP) resigns or is removed for not supporting their party. The primary goal of Article 17A is to ensure MPs remain affiliated with their parties for the entire parliamentary term.

If an MP leaves their party, the party leader must inform the Speaker of Parliament within 14 days.

Subsequently, the Speaker must declare the MP’s seat vacant within seven days of being notified.

Article 17B addresses MPs who are independent or only one representing a political party or represent a custom movement.

These MPs must declare their party affiliation within three months of being elected or after the first parliamentary session. Failure to do so results in their seat being declared vacant.

Similarly, if an MP ceases to be affiliated with a party, the party leader must inform the Speaker within 14 days, and the Speaker must declare the seat vacant within seven days.

Regarding Article 17A, Kaltamat stressed that parties cannot simply terminate members without a provision in their constitution.

There must be a process in place for such decisions. Furthermore, individuals switching sides cannot be automatically terminated; they must be allowed to justify their actions.

According to the chairman, after the referendum, political parties will be required to submit their revised constitutions.

These revisions must include provisions for managing members who switch allegiance or resign. Kaltamat explained that certain considerations, such as the number of supporters required to form a party, will be determined by the Electoral Commission.

He added that the Commission will take into account that some parties have support concentrated in specific constituencies, while others have supporters in all six provinces.

Concerning Article 17B, Kaltamat noted that MPs, including independent candidates, will have enough time to choose their affiliation. They can engage with their voters to explain their decision, a process that will take three months.

-By Glenda Willie (www.dailypost.vu)

If the referendum passes, the amendments will not immediately come into effect.

01/03/2024

Some citizens are taking their concerns regarding the upcoming National Referendum to social media and are actively advocating for a “No” vote.

The Vanuatu Daily Post reached out to a former Member of Parliament (MP) for Efate Rural Constituency, Joshua Kalsakau, who explained his reasons for opposing the referendum.

Kalsakau urged the authorities to provide funding, suggesting a minimum of VT20 million, for the “No” campaign. He stressed the necessity for people to understand both sides of the referendum and make informed choices, without being unduly influenced by the government to vote “Yes.”

“In general, more than 60% to 70% of the people eligible to cast their vote are not fully informed or aware of what this referendum is all about. The public must be fully informed about the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ reasons,” Kalsakau pointed out.

He claimed that the Electoral Commission is conducting this referendum campaign with “undue influence”.

“Their statements published or aired on the radio are none other than only influencing people to vote ‘Yes’. They even go to the extent of informing or instructing their workmates to vote for ‘Yes’, including the people,” said Kalsakau.

“People must be given the correct statement so that they can choose what they think is best for our country.

“The purpose of the Referendum is to get the views and stance of the public because their views represent the true answer (Yes or No) from the people. That is the only way in which the primary objective of going through the referendum will be achieved.”

Mr. Kalsakau believes “the core objective of the proposed amendment is primarily to protect the interests of political parties that will have more representation in parliament but do not serve the people’s interest at large”.

“The proposed amendment is undemocratic because it no longer promotes the element of proportional representations, to ensure that our governance system produces a more balanced and mixed representation of political parties as reflected by the votes cast by the people,” he added.

“With these proposed amendments tooled by this referendum, we are basically, only promoting dictatorship, power hunger leaders, and corrupt politicians.”

The former MP affirmed that Vanuatu is not going to achieve political instability with these proposed amendments.

Questioning the necessity of amending Article 17(1), Kalsakau advocated for addressing issues through elections by electing representatives who genuinely serve the interests of the people and the nation.

He argued for a Judicial Review, citing an alleged breach of Chapter 2, Article 5(1)(i) of the Constitution, and raised concerns about the lack of provisions to protect individual or independent MPs who may join larger political parties, potentially jeopardising their interests and constitutional rights.

However, Edward Kaltamat, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, made it clear that the Electoral Office and the Commission remain impartial when it comes to supporting the referendum.

He stated that all materials and information related to the referendum are neutral. They are giving the opportunity to every eligible citizen to make their own choices.

Kaltamat confirmed that a Regulation Order being developed by the Office of the Attorney General and the Electoral Commission does not specifically address those who try to influence others’ votes for a particular outcome.

He noted that if there is a campaign advocating for a “yes” vote, as the government is doing, those against the referendum also have the right to run a “no” campaign.

He also highlighted that Article 5(1)(i) is affected by the referendum. This article aims to prevent MPs from changing affiliations or switching parties.

-By Glenda Willie (www.dailypost.vu)

Some citizens are taking their concerns regarding the upcoming National Referendum to social media and are actively advocating for a “No” vote.

29/02/2024