THE CURIOUS CASE OF UNITECH SRC PRESIDENT DAVID KELMA
Consider the obvious facts.
The first fact is that David Kelma in the hot seat. He is the SRC president of one of the 3 major boycotting universities against the Prime Minister. Despite protest to the contrary (with no evidence provided) we have verified that he comes from Imbongu District in Southern Highlands, whose MP is Francis Awesa, a sometimes business partner of Peter O'Neill. Kelma is young, inexperienced, easy to influence and probably easy to pressure. David Kelma’s mother is from Pangia, Peter O’Neill’s district.
Here’s another fact. With all the bribery and thuggery already reported against UPNG and Unitech students, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT DAVID KELMA HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED AND PUT UNDER PRESSURE OR SECRET OFFER TO BREAK THE UNITECH BOYCOTT. This is 100% certain.
The question is what kind of pressure has been applied to David Kelma? To know that, it is worth a brief discussion on how Peter O'Neill's (and other corrupt politicians) briefcase carrier's operate today in PNG.
RESISTING EVIL: VERY FEW YOUNG PNG PEOPLE TODAY HAVE STRONG MORAL BACKBONE
Fewer young people than ever go to church. When they do, the sermons they hear are more likely to be scripture quotes without specific examples of how the scripture relates to everyday life. Because of the strong influence of evangelical churches today, pastors can go off in all kinds of directions on mark of the best, one world government, etc. None of that teaches young people how to deal with choices between right and wrong. On top of all that, the overall environment in PNG today is much worse than 20 years ago in terms of greed and self interest. How many city people 30 or 25 years ago would deny assistance to wantoks back home when asked? Today there are many. Thus, young people grow up with greed as normal behavioiur, and sharing as something you only do in order to get something back again later on.
THE VULNERABILITIES OF DAVID KELMA, UNITECH SRC PRESIDENT IN FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AND THE STEPPING DOWN OF PETER O’NEILL
It is 100% certain that David Kelma has been put under pressure by O'Neill's goons in some way or another, especially considering where he comes from.
What is not clear is how David has reacted to these pressures. He keeps everything secret. He is not the only SRC president who does not go public with any attempts to bribe and intimidate them. They all use baby sense in this respect. They do not understand the power of transparency in stopping intimidation at an early stage. This makes it easy for them to fall into a trap with the briefcase carriers. David Kelma is a practicing SDA who goes to church regularly but what does that indicate about his honesty or ability to resist bribes? It means nothing in today’s world. Some of the most corrupt pretend to be the most religious.
WHY SUSPICIONS GROW THAT DAVID KELMA IS CLOSE TO GIVING INTO O’NEILL PRESSURE OR OUTRIGHT SELLING OUT
The first suspicion has its roots in David Kelma’s general lack of transparency with even his SRC committee. Honest people who are open and transparent about themselves and their dealings are the least likely to come under suspicion. David Kelma does not fit that kind of personality. On the internet, for example, he does not answer possibly embarrassing questions directly if at all. On one occasion when he came onto Niugini Outlook to rebut some of the posters and articles that had been posted, a Niugini Outlook administrator asked him to response to specific allegations that had been received by informants about what was going on at Unitech: Niugini Outlook You have given us lots of rhetoric but we're still looking for the substance of your reply. We stand by our reporting and await a response that contains substance and detail with regard to the allegations of continually saying no to good SRC Council recommendations for action, the lack of extensive awareness training of students during all these days of boycott, only 1 awareness activity being carried out in 3 weeks of boycott, extremely poor communication (compared to what UPNG is achieving with the UPNG for PNG website) to the PNG public on what Unitech students are doing to strengthen the movement against the PM, widespread drinking and influence peddling over the past few days, and the drunken behaviour of your VP. We pray you will do a better job at replying to these allegations than the PM does in replying to allegations against him. The best way to be convincing is to divulge the corruption that you have witnessed or been told is taking place on campus so that it becomes clear what side you stand on. If you reply that you have seen nothing amiss while so many of your fellow students seem to see a lot, that will say everything that needs to be said from your side.
Just as PNG politicians have traditionally done when confronted with unpleasant evidence or questions (known examples on PNG Blogs being John Marape , Powes Parkop, and even Garry Juffa) Kelma did not reply and quickly disappeared from Niugini Outlook.
Niugini Outlook and PNG Blogs were now receiving reports that rather than demonstrating himself to be a leader, Kelma always seemed several steps behind activist students in doing anything. He always seemed to be dragging his feet. Considering his vulnerability to being pressured by O’Neill’s forces, people wondered why.
Amusing was the fact that the SRC (perhaps David Kelma himself) used his appearance on Niugini Outlook to do a popularity contest on who got the most thumbs up, David Kelma’s comments, or the comments from Niugini Outlook. Kelma’s 2 comments probably received far more thumbs up than Niugini Outlook has ever received on any comment. That this was an SRC organized campaign of support, and not a spontaneously expression of general public support for Kelma’s remarks was obvious in comparing the overall likes for the article, versus likes for other comments by other people under that article, versus likes for David Kelma’s comments.
Everyone will agree that David Kelma presents an outward appearance of being a careful planner, never doing anything quickly. He gives all appearances of being a reluctant activist and leader and holds back the more activist students committed to the boycott.
The question is why does he do this? Does it mean that David Kelma has sold out to Peter O’Neill’s pressure? Or does it mean he is an innocent plodding, conservative person that is more fit for bossing an office than leading a social movement?
Until recently, there was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that indicated that David Kelma’s intend in being so slow and lacking leadership to move the boycott forward was that he was intentionally obstructing justice to ensure that
UNITECH STUDENTS LARGELY SEEM UNITED AND SUPPORTIVE OF BOYCOTTING TO THE FINISH
Informants tell us that the recent successful awareness efforts was a giant boost to overall morale and to continue the boycott as long as it took. The revelation that high government officials had secretly decided that the Unitech governing bodies had given students far too much freedom of speech and had not come down hard enough to end the boycott, thus leading to the decision to depose Unitech Chancellor Sir Nagora Bogan was a bombshell that seems to have brought an immediate strong student reaction. The subsequent silence of those accused of being in on the secret decision (Peter O’Neill Chief of Staff George Bopi, Department of Higher Education Minister Malakai Tabar, and Higher Education Director General David Kavanamur) following the public uproar is the kind of circumstantial confirmation that logically indicates that this was not a fake rumour, but a valid story that was meant to be kept secret until it was implemented, catching the students off guard.
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE AGAINST DAVID KELMA #1: VETO OF ACTIVIST IDEAS
Those within the SRC committee have reported that Kelma has on multiple occasions, said no to proposals from committee members that would increase student involvement in awareness and otherwise make the movement more activist. Kelma has not offered equivalent ideas nor sought any compromise. One specific proposed committee action was to shut down the administration offices when starting the boycott. Had Kelma accepted that, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff George Bopi and Higher Education Director General David Kavanamur would have had no basis to blame Chancellor Bogan nor VC Albert Schram for the persistence of the boycott. It was true that the students had no unhappiness with the Unitech administration, but by not closing down the administration building, they allowed outsiders to assume that Dr Schram was secretly supporting and helping the students. This has caused a lot of problems subsequently, all because David Kelma said no.
There have been additional, less critical decisions that Kelma said no too. This obstructionism to progress does not indicate a person making conservative, careful decisions maker as much as it suggests someone who is purposely trying to slow the activists down, thus rendering the Unitech boycott less effective and less likely to be successful at achieving its primary objective of forcing Peter O’Neill to step down.
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE AGAINST DAVID KELMA #2: REFUSAL TO COME OUT IN PUBLIC TO SHOW SOLIDARITY OF UNITECH WITH UOG AND UPNG BOYCOTT
On Monday the SRC presidents from UOG and UPNG came to Unitech for a strategy planning session. The idea being pursued was a powerful one, in view of the dropping out of Lae’s Polytech Institute and the disappearance of UNRE from the map. The idea was to show solidarity to the nation of the 3 boycotting student bodies by a press conference in which all 3 SRC presidents would speak and show unity. This was a crucial action at a crucial time, i.e. the evening before parliament went into session.
David Kelma refused to participate and the idea collapsed.
INCREASING RUMOURS ABOUT A SELLOUT DESPITE SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THE BOYCOTT
The remarkably energizing and successful Unitech awareness activities throughout the provinces last week in some respects came about despite David Kelma. The ones to be credited for this are the provincial leaders and the strong activists within the Unitech student body. Not all students are leaders, very few are. But those who are leaders, apart from the SRC president, have done wonders at moving things forward. This includes SRC officers except for the President and SRC Vice President Robert Kerenga, the latter of whom has proven to be a disruptive drunk and poor leader, voted in by students for unclear reasons. In other words, Unitech students still seem strongly unified. They also seem to have renewed energy to continue the boycott as long as possible, in solidarity with UPNG and UOG, until the boycott objectives have been achieved.
In such an environment, why then would there be a springing up of rumours that a K300,000 “donation” to Southern Highlands students is imminent?
It is clear that bribery attempts are continuing and the price is going up. One wonders why David Kelma has not confronted all this in public and transparently, being that he is in line to get the most cash and be the principal beneficiary if there is any giving in of southern highlands students to bribery.
HOW DAVID KELMA CAN SELL OUT LIKE A CORRUPT JUDGE AND SUPERFICIALLY LOOK INNOCENT, WHILE BETRAYING UNITECH STUDENTS
Just like at UPNG especially Unitech administrators have pressured students for weeks to end their boycott and go back to class. The perspective of the administrators is most focused on their personal job, its safety and their continued paycheques. The university administrators first priority is not (although it should be) the future of Papua New Guinea, of which the current crisis is such a history defining moment. Only the university students of PNG are taking the moral high road in demanding the Prime Minister’s resignation as the current top priority in their lives.
In this environment, David Kelma has at least 3 sneaky options to pretend that he was never a sellout, when in fact he is.
Option 1 is for Kelma to hold a forum and announce that he is ‘giving in’ to those students (still apparently in the minority) who want to go back to class and ending the boycott as if he is “only following student wishes”. The only reason Kelma finds it difficult to implement that option is because of the strong support of Unitech students for continuing the boycott no matter what.
Option 2 is to wait until parliament meets. If the opposition fails to mount a vote of no confidence quickly or if the motion is defeated, Kelma can then announce to Unitech students that the cause is lost and nothing further can be achieved by the students. This is, of course, not true. However, naïve Unitech students may accept his argument.
Option 3 relates to the fact that time is growing closer to the government having to cancel the school year entirely. In this environment, it would be an easy shift for David Kelma to move over and join Peter O’Neill and the university administration into frightening the students into thinking that the damage caused to them (the students) by cancellation of the school year is far worse than the damage that will be caused to the Dept. of Higher Education and the government (the government receives far more damage).
If that occurs, David Kelma will have singlehandedly destroyed the entire PNG university boycott movement. Peter O’Neill will be victorious and using his agents, will immediately begin to take measures to ensure that the university of PNG students will never be able to mount an effective challenge to his leadership again.
David Kelma will be the one person in PNG most responsible for destroying the movement to remove Peter O’Neill from power before he becomes an absolute dictator like Robert Mugabe.
3 WAYS WHERE PETER O’NEILL CAN DEFEAT BOYCOTTING UNITECH STUDENTS
It is unclear what capacity there is within Unitech provincial and other leaders to be able to predict that the government will do next to defeat them and be proactive in building defences against those tricks.
There are 2 obvious ways in Peter O’Neill has a good chance of destroying the admirable unity of Unitech students up to now in continuing the boycott.
Option 1 is for Peter O’Neill to defeat and destroy the Unitech student boycott movement by getting any of the major provincial groups on his side, thus dividing the students. A K300,000 payout to Unitech’s Southern Highland Students undoubtedly would do the trick. Again the question is whether this issue is being discussed openly by David Kelma at the student forums or whether he is trying to keep the topic from being brought up. More than anyone, Kelma has the power and authority as a southern Highlander himself, to bring up the topic and then have it fully discussed, including coming up with ways to prevent any such bribery from taking place.
Option 2 is still for the O’Neill government to implement its secret decision to remove Sir Nagora Bogan as chancellor, or possibly the entire Council. That would clear the way to terminate VC Albert Schram. This is always a weapon that can be held in the background ready for use, the moment the students end their boycott, the national movement collapses, and Peter O’Neill can begin to get payback against all those he considers to be his opponents.
DAVID KELMA’S ACTIONS COULD SINGLEHANDEDLY DETERMINE THE COURSE OF HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY IN PNG
At the moment, Unitech is probably the most vulnerable of the 3 campuses in ending the boycott. This is only because Unitech is the only university whose SRC president has seemed to be a reluctant warrior from the start. Yesterday’s odd decision of David Kelma to sabotage the planned statement of unity between UPNG, UNITECH and UOG makes him even more so the pivot man, the one who has the power to destroy the entire national movement.
The national movement has always been built upon the university student boycotts as its foundation, far more than anything the NGO groups or Opposition politicians have been able to achieve. As the university student boycotts go, so does the nation. If the nation fails to remove Peter O’Neill from power, PNG will assuredly descend into a dictatorship at best, and civil unrest at worse.
The burden of responsibility lies greatly on David Kelma’s shoulders. At the end of the day, will he succumb to the forces of evil or will he do the right thing? Thus far things do not look promising.
David Kelma I appreciate and acknowledge the person who came up with this post. I got no hard feelings against anyone. But only if you are here at Unitech you would really appreciate what the SRC, committee and student leaders are doing to fight the issue. In terms of confidence, I can assure you that i earn the confidence of more than 3000 students since day one. The fact is you and your insider need to join us so that we fight this battle together as Papua New Guineans. Let me also reminder you that Unitech is very cautious about fighting this issues thus we are following due processes to show the intellectuals and citizens of this country that we handling the issue more professionally than rushing up things like you wish. My friend I know well, leadership is a responsibility you will never escape from challenges and criticism like this. You may think that you are destroying me but you fail to forget that you are assisting me in building my leadership. Thankyou
