Reversion of public land

We would soon be dealing with the return of indigenous public land from investors (lessees) whose agreements would be expiring in about three years.

The issue could very well turn difficult for purposes of discussion and resolution. There’s the common belief in lessee’s renewal rights versus its nullification under Article 11, 5C. In brief, current lessees aren’t at liberty to seek “renewal” but a “new” agreement altogether.

Without polite fancy, we must resolve the creeping potential investment disaster. Would this be approached from the standpoint of who submits the highest bid or doesn’t this require a kid’s glove, proceeding with caution protecting the investment future of the NMI with current lessees and others? Isn’t it time we come to terms with bankruptcy plastered all over the NMI?

Interesting the rationale behind exclusion of renewal rights or first rights of refusal by the author(s) of this provision. What did you have in mind when you penned down such highly shortsighted provision? Perhaps it isn’t so shortsighted but then we need rational explanation from you. Let’s see how well you used reasoning on this issue to determine the consequence of ill-considered provision.

Isn’t the issue about enabling the NMI the ability to lure “lasting investments” into the islands? Is the exclusion of renewal rights the infinitesimal wisdom you had in your perception of the essence of building lasting relationship with investment partners? Isn’t investment stability the most vital foundational aspect of spurring economic growth in the NMI? Again, we ask the framers to justify the history of their so-called vision on this score.

This incoherence spurs policy instability that has become the bane of investors here since 1978. It merits resetting our true north if we wish to work with investors of substance based on real partnership.

Is paradise lost forever?
Hope is a word pillaged to death by leadership of recent past. The promise of brighter days slowly faded into the sunset. People yearn even for a faint sense of hope that a new break of dawn would bring good tidings of sort. It disappeared almost simultaneously with the setting sun.

I’ve stood besides these guys, confident they could deliver the work of state to improve the wellbeing of our people throughout the villages. There would be wealth and jobs creation so families could work, earn, and bring home the bacon with a sense of pride, so to speak.

But more than 3,000 relocated elsewhere in search of greener pasture since six years ago. They knew intuitively that opportunities are shut and home is no longer the place to raise their children with some semblance of common decency.

Corruption has crept in and stayed around like permanent living room furniture. I took each governor’s name and dissected it to the hilt in terms of leadership skills, performance rating, e.g., success or failure or all or none of the above.

Definitely, they came into office hailing from populist contest in wildebeest fashion. Each avoided making hard decisions including the need for an economic blueprint to address the mounting deficit of the NMI or vicious economic depression. If you disagree, take another step back and look at our fiscal posture today.

Our government is a mess and don’t worry, you’re as much a part of this problem for participating in their election. If you wish to feel safe, just explain that the mess is part and whole of the fallacies of a democracy. In this way, we both could head home and sleep well tonight. Political maturity is definitely a protracted work in progress, if at all. Seesuzzz!

A bad nightmare!
The recent political fiasco sent me soul-searching revisiting the terms integrity and morality. Both are abstracts requiring commitment to diligence and perseverance. But I needed a refresher on their definition in order to analyze and secure clarity what must have gone wrong. Are elected officials wary of the principle of integrity that requires staying principled?

Integrity means “loyalty not to a whim or delusion, but to one’s knowledge, to the conclusions one can prove logically. It’s a mind that seeks knowledge, accepts and follows reason. Emotion is never used at this level.

Would you trash the principle of morality that permits you to make a distinction between right and wrong? You may say it’s illusory or impossible to achieve and stay the course of morality. It would seem convenient to ignore it in favor of demagoguery and newfound toy in corruption.

In doing so you begin ceaselessly sliding into corrupt activities and each trip to the mound becomes even easier. You ignore your commitment to truth in favor of greed. At day’s end, you would have sowed the seed you planted all on your own!