 Over to you, Lili. Good morning, Yandra Vinaka. Hello, I'll get to everyone that's joining us today on this second of the Democratic series of Melanesia, the Democratic Conversations Around Melanesia webinar series. We started this conversation two weeks ago now, I think. And now we started with Papua New Guinea, and now we're moving on to the Solomon Islands. It is, I feel, very inadequate because I've been such a great company this morning in terms of the wonderful speakers that international idea has been able to bring together, given their work in the Pacific region. And so it's my absolute pleasure to introduce them. But just before I do that, I would like to introduce a little bit of why we're having these conversations around democratic processes, and particularly the anti-corruption work and the anti-corruption structures that exists in the Pacific. So held as part of international ideas, democratic development work in Melanesia, this online panel discussion has focused on Melanesian countries. Today, we're focusing on the Solomon Islands. And the rationale behind that is that with a score of 43 in the Transparency International's 2021 Corruption Perception Index, or CPI, the Solomon Islands remains stagnant in terms of how they're rated in the work they do to address corruption. And this is a characteristic that spreads across Melanesia, hence the important work of international idea. So what we're doing today, like we've done over this past couple of weeks, and like we will continue to do with international idea, is to look at the drivers of corruption, look at what is it that exists in our region, and in particular our specific countries that drives corruption, or maybe that changes the way we have to address corruption in our societies. So we're looking at specific anti-corruption measures that have taken place since 2018. On the panel today is Ms. Ruth Lilacula. Won't talk my apologies if I've not properly introduced your name. But I will say that I will do Ms. Lilacula very little justice in the way that I describe her stellar career, an agriculturalist by profession with undergraduate and master's qualifications from across Melanesia, as well as in Britain, the United Kingdom. Ms. Lilacula was a career civil servant, having taken up a lot of the leadership positions, senior leadership positions within her field of agricultural science. But also moving into police, national planning, national security, and her civil service career culminated with being appointed the first woman to hold the position of secretary to cabinet. Now Ms. Lilacula is the chief executive of Transparency Salmon Islands and NGO that's focused on promoting anti-corruption measures in the country. And even in that field, she's led a stellar career to having been the recipient of the 2019 Transparency International Amalia Award in the professional excellence category. Our second panelist is a consistent panelist from our previous panelist discussion on Papua Ngini. Dr. Grant Walton is a fellow at the Development Policy Center of the Crawford School of Public Policy in which he is also the convener of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Specialization of the Crawford School of Public Policy, which is, of course, a research-intensive policy school within the ANU's College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University. So a lot of his work, a lot of his research has been in and around the socioeconomic challenges. Let's call it that, of the wider Pacific region, but with a very specific focus on Melangea. So we're going to have quite a dynamic conversation here. The one and a half hours that we've set aside probably is not going to be enough for everything that we'd like to discuss about what the emerging issues are in and around corruption and anti-corruption work. But we will try to spark more conversations, which is the main goal of this webinar series. So it's my absolute pleasure to welcome my one talk, Ms. Lulukula, to the mic to begin with her contribution, her presentation to this conversation, after which we will allow maybe one burning question if there is one. But we'd like to encourage everyone to use the Q&A feature of this Zoom platform to take record of all of your questions as they come to mind, because what we would like is that after Ms. Lulukula's presentation, we'll go directly to Dr. Walton, after which we'd like to have a more free-flowing interactive conversation. But just before we open up the mic and then open up the floor, I would just like to remind I would like to welcome, first of all, all of our participants. I understand that there were 80 who were registered to be part of this conversation. And so we're very heartened by the interest and the contribution to the body of work being done. At this point, I would like to just remind everyone by way of a disclaimer that the opinions being expressed here today don't necessarily represent that of international idea. And so we reserve the relevant genesis, the interested rights. Without further ado, I would like to now welcome to the mic Ms. Lulukula. Denaka. Action. Action. Mobone and, yeah, well, I think you do me. But we'll start. And I'm going to, I'm not familiar with the screen thing. So here's the screen. Let's see if I can do it. Then do the presentation. Can I see my screen? Yeah. It's on. It's on. It's on. It's on. When I'm not. This is for presentation. OK, we'll try again. Slide so. OK, can you see the screen? Yes. OK. All right. The. Do the. This. Democratic Development. Thank you for inviting me to be a panelist. This one focusing on Solomon Island. So the corruption perception index. C.P.I. The Solomon Islands case. The corruption perception index is one of transparency international legacy. And it's initiated in 1995 of the global movement. It measures the total reliance on external data sources reflecting the opinions and perceptions of surveys respondents from the private business communities. C.P.I. As you know, is a reflection of the opinions and perceptions of our corrupt or corruption in the public sector from the private sector. The data in C.P.I. Is not collected nor produced by transparency international secretary and its national chapters. C.P.I. Measures perceives levels of public sector corruption and not the actual levels of all forms of corruption inside the public sector and the perceptions of corruption and not the actual corruption. So C.P.I. School unranked C.P.I. 100 of our corrupt or clean position where a country is placed in the corrupt and 100 is very clean. A C.P.I. School below 50 indicates serious levels of public sector corruption. Since 2012, C.P.I. Scores are comparable from year to year. C.P.I. Rankings are not comparable from year to year. Rankings are only useful to see where a country is placed compared to other countries in the same year. Common to see small changes or minus core fluctuations, these may not be statistically significant. Important that C.P.I. Messaging consider or reflect experiences and observations on the ground of those of us who are on the ground and do a balanced reporting messaging. Things that we are focusing attention on worthy achievements and innovative programs that are being pursued in the fight against corruption by ordinary citizens, government, and C.P.I. Scores also, it's putting a positive spin and an encouraging one is the way to go. Now, C.P.I. Scores for Solomon Islands since 2016. 2021, our score was 43 and we were ranked 77. 2020, we were 42, ranked 78. 2019, we were still at 42, ranked 77. 2018, 44, ranked 70. 2017, 39, ranked 85. And in 2016, it was 42, no ranking was given. Solomon Islands was a country in the Asia Pacific region in 2018 that improved its score the most from 2017 to 2018 by plus five points. Its score in 2017 was 39. In 2019, Solomon Islands score dropped back by 2.242 and in 2021, C.P.I. Scores was 43. Since 2026, when it appeared back in the C.P.I. Scores and ranking, Solomon Islands maintained its C.P.I. Scores for 42. There are things that we have done together as a country that does help act the establishment of the Solomon Islands Independent Commission against corruption. The media covering more and more corruption-related news and others being able to hear their views on air in radio. And also, there's a willingness for those in the authorities to hear and invite civil society, organization, participation in policies and legislative reforms and freedom of press and media is here. But this is changing. Just before the 2019 national general election, there was a burst of investigations, detentions by the police of abuses and misuse of power. Citizens after the election launched 29 petitions against winning candidates. These have contributed to this awful trade. But since then, the government's effort to combat corruption in the public sector has stagnated as shared earlier. Solomon Islands is in the bottom half of the table, despite the upward movements in its C.P.I. school. There was just a modest increase of plus two points and 44 out of 100 means a highly corrupt and politicized public sector. People's ways of space activism are stably or silently but surely being restricted. And democracy in a country, as you know, because it's kind of become the world news for the wrong things, what's happening in the country. This means Solomon Islands has highly corrupt public sector confirmed. This is further confirmed by the Global Corruption Barometer Pacific 2021. The Global Corruption Barometer Pacific 2021, while the C.P.I. is measurement of the perceptions of public sector corruption from experts and business people, the Global Corruption Barometer is a measurement of perceptions, observation and actual experiences of public sector corruption from ordinary citizens of Solomon Islands. The Corruption Perception Index of Solomon Islands shows that government's efforts to tackle corruption in the public sector is not going anywhere or has become stagnant, private and public sector vote. The Global Corruption Barometer Pacific 2021 of Transparency International confirms this opinions, experience, perception, observations of the people. The key government institution that should be leading or providing the leadership bringing in reforms in this fight are the most corrupt per G.C.P. Pacific 2021. According to the experiences, opinions, observations and perception of the citizens and people in Solomon Islands, the most corrupt institutions and members of parliament, 55 companies attracting natural resources. Our government is actually in the hands of the loggers. The prime minister and officials in his office, business executive, civil servants and the police. So you can see who do you report corruption to when the system is so corrupt already. According to the key findings for Solomon Islands of the Global Corruption Barometer Pacific 2021, 97% of the respondents see corruption in the government as a big problem. 90% of the respondents see corruption in the business sector as a big problem. And it is their views that are captured in CPI. So I don't know what to make of that. 54% of the respondents say government is not doing a good job fighting corruption. Public official engaged in corruption rarely or never face consequences. The most important component of a democratic state country are its people, collective decision making and rule of law. The CPI scores for Solomon Islands reflects the efforts of the executive government tackling corruption levels in the public sector. It's not doing very much. These efforts have stagnated since 2016. The Global Corruption Barometer Pacific 2021 reveals some of the reasons for the stagnation in the government's corruption fight struggle. The very institution that should lead this fight and protect democracy are the most corrupt. Accountability in political decision makers is at its lowest. There is very little integrity in the relationship between the government and the private sector. Government is run by a few big interests, loggers and miners and driven by the deliverables demanded by some foreign interest. While international and regional elections say election, election observers say elections are pre and fair. They are not in Solomon Islands and just don't know how corrupt and how rigged these elections are. Reliance on money or connections to obtain government contracts still is a huge issue. Public officers engaged in corruption, conduct and practice rarely or never face consequences. Since COVID-19 crisis, authoritarian approach to managing crisis has taken on a stronghold, restricting civil society space, waste and activism. Democracy and human rights are under attack with a very powerful support of external powerful partners of the executive government. Civil society waste, space activism, holding power to account and been further restricted and denied under COVID-19 state of emergency regulations and the invading of authoritarian practices displayed by the current government. Recommendation is a transparent Solomon Island on democratic countries as calls on democratic countries to support the efforts of CSO just as that of transparency Solomon Islands to protect democracy, human rights and through the empowerment of citizens especially youth with key and critical knowledge about the democratic, political, legal, civil and human rights to all government to account. 70% of the population of Solomon Islands are aged between 18 years to 34 years. They can bring about change when empowered with key and critical knowledge and information to engage in debate constructively. More importantly to combat the monetization of national general election allowing people to choose their representatives without undue influence of money. People have the power to bring about good change but first they must know where they fit into the big picture. Call to action on government to strengthen the engagement with citizens and communities to drive the reform required for tackling corruption. Placency in fighting corruption exacerbates human rights abuses undermines democracy and development. The erosion of freedoms, human rights and democracy can only pave the way for authoritarianism contributing to even higher levels of corruption. Way forward is empower citizens especially the youth with key and critical knowledge about the democratic constitutional political, legal, civil and human rights to constructively charge a challenge to injustice, call out corruption and demand their rights. They need funding for that. Thank you for listening. That completes me. Thank you very much. I don't see anything coming yet from the audience which is great. I'm going to move us on to Dr. Oton now. Grumps, Ruth, I have asked you to mute your mic and turn off your video just to put your connectivity on your end. It seems that the internet's connectivity is an issue everywhere in a couple of weeks. Grumps, you have the mic now on the phone. Hi, everybody and thank you for that wonderful presentation. Ruth, it's a hard act to follow. Thank you to the organisers for putting on this discussion today and before we begin I would also like to acknowledge and celebrate the Ngunnawal people on whose land that I am presenting to you from and celebrate their elders past and present. So today I'm going to talk to you about some of the measures and solutions to corruption in Solomon Islands. And I'm just kind of leading on from, I suppose, following on from Ruth's presentation. What I want to do is to draw on a variety of measures to show what we know about the nature of corruption in Solomon Islands. And Ruth's already talked about some of these. I'm going to talk about some others. And then I'm going to highlight some of the key challenges to addressing it and a part of that we'll be having a look at some of the measures that we might not necessarily think of when we think about responding to corruption. All right, so let's have a look at first of all measures of corruption in Solomon Islands. Now, Ruth's gone through the red line, which is of course the corruption perceptions index score for Solomon Islands. I want to though take you through the blue line. Now, the blue line is the worldwide governance indicators, control of corruption indicator. Now, what that tells you is how well governments are perceived to be doing in relation to controlling corruption. You can see that Solomon Islands has, it was pretty flat between 2007 to 2000 and about 16. And then it's improved. And whilst there's a recent dip between 2020 and 2021, overall, there has been some sense of improvement. Now, these are international measures, right? This is mostly about international perceptions of how well Solomon Islands is doing. Now, again, if we have a look at how well Solomon Islands is doing in terms of this control of corruption measure, and I'm using this because it includes more Pacific Island countries than the corruption perceptions index. You can see that Solomon Islands is perceived to be doing better than Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Palau and Tonga at the moment, but not as well as a number of other countries, including Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tuvalu. Now, I want to highlight something here. The countries that have seemed to be doing very well on these indicators, New Zealand and Australia. But I'm going to come back to this and I'm going to suggest that actually, Australia and New Zealand, while playing a role to respond to corruption in Solomon Islands, also play an important role in helping to perpetuate corruption in the country. Now, Ruth has gone through some of these findings from the global corruption barometer. I'm not going to go through all of them. I want to highlight really one thing here. And that is that 2% of those who paid a bribe reported it to authorities. People are really concerned and people are not, even though they may be asked for a bribe or some sort of engagement in corruption and not responding to it. And as Ruth said, corruption is most associated with MPs, extractive companies, particularly logging companies and the prime minister in that survey. And we've seen the concerns about corruption in Solomon Islands have erupted into civil unrest in the past, the most recent example of this in November, 2021, where some have said that this protest was about the switch of allegiance from Solomon Islands recognizing Taiwan to moving to a one China policy. But as a number of commentators have suggested, corruption played a really important role in this protest. In other words, Solomon Islanders are really concerned about corruption in the country and sometimes this spills over into unrest. The largest sector of concern and there are a number of sectors to be concerned about risk on through a number of those, but many are concerned about the logging sector which is seen as the matter to be the largest in export industry of around about 70% of export income. And it features a collusion between state officials and the timber industry. And that's resulted in, according to the UNODC, the blurring of legal and illegal trade in relation to formal export oriented log production with senior ministers having direct interests in logging concessions. So there are concerns about what is happening in the Solomon Islands in the logging sector and the corruption that continues on in that sector. But it's really important to know that the logging sector is not just contained within the borders of Solomon Islands. It's transnational in its makeup. Transnational companies come into Solomon Islands and they take logs away and they export them most of which end up in China for processing into things like tables and chairs and other consumer goods. And Waru has talked about the role that international companies play in this. He stated that the government has been unable to maximise its revenue capture from the logging industry to avoid paying taxes and fees. Logging companies exploit transfer prices, tax exemptions, the under or misreporting of log prices, log species and volumes and the fragmentation of responsibilities between different agencies within Solomon Islands. And this is a graphic of how logs move out of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands and in other countries and they end up in China for processing and come back to countries like Australia. And these are some of the estimates we've done about a decade ago of the value of the illegal logs that are coming out of the sector. These figures were a bit rubbery but suffocates to say it's a significant proportion of the logging sector. In terms of another transnational area, Solomon Islands and looking at money laundering, a recent report by UN and Hopkins for Transparency International has argued that Solomon Islands itself faces a low risk of transnational money laundering. But it's the foreign destinations where corruption occurs within Solomon Islands and then is sent overseas that is of most concern. And they highlight the foreign destinations for the laundered proceeds of corruption including China, Australia, Malaysia and Singapore. So when we have a look at where corrupt money ends up, oftentimes it's not the developing countries, it's not in the Pacific, it's actually in other developed Western countries. The United States in fact, even though on the corruption perceptions index and other indicators is considered the least, one of the better performing countries around the world, around about 20 or so. In terms of being in this destination for corrupt proceeds, it's the worst in the world. Singapore, another country that was identified in that report ranks at number three, China at number 11, Australia does better. But in terms of all of the Pacific countries that are included in the Trans, the Tax Justice Network's Financial Secrecy Index, it's ranks worse than all the other Pacific Island countries included in it. So Nauru, which is down the bottom here, actually had a black listing for its role in anti-money laundering, which basically destabilized its formal financial system. And so what this shows us is that in any response to corruption, we need to be including not only Solomon Islands government but others, other countries around the world that play a role in helping to facilitate corruption, even if in indirect ways. So here's, I wanna move on now to some of the challenges and opportunities I should say to addressing corruption in Solomon Islands. So there are some causes for optimism, I think. Ramsey rebuilt a number of, the Ramsey intervention started in 2003 and ended up in 2017 in Solomon Islands, rebuilt a number of key anti-corruption organizations and introduced processes, particularly in the government and for improving the management of funding. However, there have been criticisms of Ramsey's efforts, particularly its lack of effort for cleaning up the logging industry and also for its inability to respond to the political dimensions of corruption, the political networks that facilitate corruption. In 2017, the government introduced a national anti-corruption strategy that's resulted in a number of different acts. The Ombudsman Act, which increased the powers of the Ombudsman, the Whistleblower Protection Act which was introduced in 2018 and the Crowning Glory, the Anti-Corruption Bill which established the Solomon Islands ICAC in 2018. Now the government has budgeted some funding for this in 2021 and 2022, but it has been budgeted to receive around about half of what the, actually less than half of what's been allocated for the Ombudsman. So there's still some way to go in establishing this organization. And of course, Ruth talked about, so passionately and eloquently, about civil society efforts and we've certainly seen those efforts helping to lobby government being quite robust. Although, as Ruth said, there has been some pushback from government, particularly during COVID-19. I wanna now have a look at the funding for anti-corruption organizations. This is some work I've been doing with my colleague, Huznia Hushang. We've been looking at how much the government has been allocating and spending on key anti-corruption organizations. Now we're doing this as a proportion of the budget. So what this shows us is how much of a priority the government is paying to key anti-corruption organizations. Here we've got the Auditor General Leadership Code Commission, the ICAC and the Ombudsman Commission. And what you see is that in terms of the blue line, which is how much is budgeted or promised, it's been relatively consistent. It dipped down initially, but it's gone back up. And that is because there has been more funding that has been promised to the Solomon Islands ICAC over the last couple of years. But the real concern is this growing gap between how much has been promised in the budget and how much key anti-corruption organizations receive. And this, I think, is of concern and needs to be addressed. Logging, there are a number of people that are experts in this area, more expert than I am, but they have highlighted a number of improvements that could take place around the logging sector, national improvements, such as improving legal frameworks and laws around customary ownership and the interface between traditional customary laws and government laws around this. Monitoring and policing is a key issue, as well as community engagement and awareness around logging and community rights and so on. But there are also transnational dimensions that are really in responses that are really important as a part of this. And Hannah Harris has been writing on this recently talking about the responsibility of destination countries. Countries like Australia play in framing legal responses to help to monitor the legality of logs that are coming into the country. And she's talked about the role that technology can play, for example, in detecting the origin and species of timber products. And there's also, of course, the role of addressing issues like transfer pricing, which helps companies to avoid paying tax and transferring profits to someone's government, tax credits and other things. I wanna also talk about this issue of culture because it often comes up when we talk about corruption across Melanesia. And for many, and this has been highlighted in surveys, the WANTOC system can be seen as a key cause of corruption. Citizens often see that it's a key driver of corruption. This has been brought up in surveys across the country. However, some of the research that I've been doing, I've been doing research with those involved in anti-corruption reforms in Solomon Islands over the past few years. And these, the interviews that I've had with people who's really reinforced that the WANTOC system actually can be a potential response to corruption. For example, a number of public servants, sorry, a number of respondents to my research have talked about how they draw on the WANTOC system to respond to corruption. One senior anti-corruption policymaker, for example, said, we draw on WANTOC relations every day. As a relative or a friend, you call him up and check what's going on. That's the same as networking, actually. When it comes to investigations, it's easier to work with a relative. I know this guy, and if you ask him whether it's confidential or not, then they can release it and it's easier that way. So this suggests that people are already using the WANTOC system to help fight corruption. I think perhaps there's more research that could be done to highlight ways that the WANTOC system can be drawn upon because this informal system of reciprocity is particularly important, given that there are limited resources to respond to corruption. Just one particular area of potential response. And other responses we've found around the world that when citizens are educated, they're more likely to support anti-corruption efforts. And my research, along with my colleague Karen Pifers, found that it has been the case in Papua New Guinea. We found that when people are educated past primary school level, they're more likely to report it as long as they trust that something will be done about corruption. In Solomon Islands, we see relatively low primary enrollment and particularly role net secondary enrollment. So this is not often talked about in terms of anti-corruption responses, but improving the enrollments and quality of education is a potentially powerful anti-corruption response. Messages around corruption can also play a role. We've found that in the context of Papua New Guinea, more people are likely to report corruption if messages stress the impact on local communities. And this reflects back on the importance of the one-talk system and communal life in the country. This kind of research could be repeated in Solomon Islands, but it's one of those areas that could help to get citizens on board and responding to it or building on efforts that are already been established, as Ruth has said. And gender's another area. 33% of the responses to the global corruption barometer in Solomon Islands had said that that experienced extortion on new of someone who had clearly corruption impacts on women different than men and we need more research to highlight how this is the case. The global corruption barometer actually has some of these answers and I think exploring that data a bit more will help to reveal the differences between men and women. In terms of anti-money laundering efforts in the Solomon Islands, as I said that it's in terms of a market, it's relatively small market, but having said that, the country has limited expertise, staffing capacity and resources available for anti-money laundering work, while the banks have been supervised by the Solomon Islands Financial Intelligence Unit in relation to anti-money laundering and counter-finance terrorist matters. The small designated non-financial business and profession sector has not been under active AML supervision. This is from the UN and Hopkins report. So highlights that there's some more work that could be done in supporting anti-money laundering efforts in the Solomon Islands. But the most important thing here is that we need to have a greater transnational commitment to fighting corruption and the corrupt monies that end up elsewhere in places like Singapore and China, but also in places like Australia. I've got a list of things that Australia could be doing to respond to these concerns, including implementing recommendations from a recent Senate Standing Committee that could be more mutual learning between Solomon Islands ICAC and the new National Anti-Corruption Commission that's going to be hopefully introduced in Australia in the coming months. And there's been an ongoing debate that's involved a number of eminent money laundering experts talking about the importance of bolstering cooperation between Australian agencies and Solomon Islands and Pacific partners. Brydie Rice in particular has been writing about this and calling for a Pacific Centre for Financial Crime to be established. It's also important, and this is where some of my research has comes in, that there is a continual strengthening of anti-corruption networks. I did some research on the Solomon Islands ICAC and looked at how it was established. And one of the key things about that legislation is it's established due to a transnational network of anti-corruption reformers, institutions and organisations. And it's really important that responses to corruption in Solomon Islands have this transnational element. Now, not everything about the Solomon Islands ICAC is going to be fantastic. There's some issues with the legislation. It faces issues around expectations. It's not going to be a magic bullet. But the introduction is a step forward. And I think the process of doing so highlights the importance of transnational coalitions in responding to corruption. So there's more that can be said, but I'll conclude it here. And what I just want to say in conclusion is that, look, the indicators on corruption are limited. We can't know all of what goes on in terms of corruption because it's done in secret. But there are indicators that there have been some improvements in the way in which Solomon Islands has been responding to corruption over the past 15 years. But as Ruth has highlighted, it's still a serious problem. And I think that there is still a need to understand and respond to the networks of corruption. Often these are political networks. And in the past, you know, I'm particularly thinking of some of the critiques of Ramsey. These have not been as front and centre as perhaps they might have been. Strengthening transnational coalitions and responses is also important. But there's also a question around looking at other nontraditional ways of responding to corruption. Can the one-top system, for example, help to reduce corruption? And we could also have a look at the role of education, targeted messages and gender-focused responses. I've got some literature that I can share, some underlying research that has informed this presentation, which I'm willing to share, happy to share with anybody who might be interested. Just let me know in the chat or questions or what have you. But now I'll hand it over. And to you all to ask questions. Thanks for your time. Go ahead, Lide. I guess Lide is having a problem with the networks. So I'll take over. Mr. Grant, there's a question for you. So what happens between budget allocation and natural disbursement with those anti-corruption institutions? Why the gap and what could be done about it? This comes from Lina. Thanks for your question, Lina. Look, this is a really good question. There are often gaps when it comes to the disbursement of funding for various agencies. And there can be a range of reasons as to why they come about. Some of it could be to do with capacity and all government moving funding around. So I suppose that what we're trying to track is more as to how much the agencies are actually receiving themselves after the budget allocation. And that's not normally tracked. It's not normally discussed. So that's a point of our research. There is another step that needs to be taken, I think. And that is to get a much better sense as to whether or not these are targeted and deliberate underspendings or whether or not this has got to do with other issues. And on that, we're not, myself and Hosni are still working through some of that. But I will say that, so we're not entirely sure and we need more research with policy makers in Solomon Islands to kind of really to get to the bottom of this. But what we will note is that Solomon Islands, in terms of its allocations and spending on interruption is doing much better than from our research than Papua New Guinea is at the moment. So compared to Papua New Guinea, it's as a percentage of the budget is spending back twice as much. And so that's I suppose one cause for optimism, relative optimism. Thank you, Dr. Walton, for that explanation. We have another question from Pramila Kili Lorea. This is actually directed to Ruth. What are your thoughts of the Solomon's ICAC as it has now been four years since its establishment? A full-up question to that is, has anyone been prosecuted under Solomon's ICAC? Okay, thank you very much for the question. And that is a very important and relevant question to ask. I am a commissioner in the Solomon Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption. Since its establishment, this commission has been without any resources, both financial as well as human resources. And I think I can also add to what Dr. Grant has just shared, that you need research to look into why the actual budget and the budget are not the same. I think part and parcel of the problem is that the development partners are very interested in this fighting corruption. But the money goes through intergovernmental organization, international government organization like UNDP. That's millions in there. So that contributes to the fact that government does not really worry about what we do because in their mind and in their thinking, we've got enough being given by development partners to do our work. So that is to do, that is why currently we only have the commissioners and we only have the director general and the financial officer. And we're still trying to recruit four years on up the establishment. What was the second question? Sorry, the second question, the follow-up question was, has anybody been prosecuted? Nobody has been prosecuted here in Transparency Solomon Islands. We provide free legal advice and services where we put together victims and witnesses of corruption, their statement, their evidences and everything. And it has gone to that office. It does not have the manpower nor the resources, nor the know how to do its work at the moment. So nobody has been prosecuted by that commission to date. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ruth, for that explanation. I've got one question actually for both for Kran and for Ruth, probably Dr. Kran can go first and then Ruth can follow. Countries in Melanesians are deeply rooted to their culture. There are also perception that culture promotes corruption. What are your news on this or your thoughts on this? Yeah, that's a really important question. So a lot of my research, particularly in Papua New Guinea, but to a lesser degree in Solomon Islands, has been focusing on the role that cultural obligations play in people's understanding of corruption and their response to it. So in Papua New Guinea, we know that people in more remote areas and people who are disenfranchised are more likely to be concerned about local corruption. They're less concerned about what happens in government. They're less concerned about what happens with millions or hundreds of millions of kina compared to local issues. And that helps to frame their understanding of corruption. However, it's also the case that some of the research that I've been looking at and some of the research in Solomon Islands with those working to respond to corruption, people have highlighted the role that culture can potentially play. The Wontock system, for example, can potentially play in responding to corruption. So in communities in Papua New Guinea, people talk about the role that communities play in responding to local concerns about corruption. They beat somebody up if they think that they're doing the wrong thing by the community. In Solomon Islands, those that I spoke to are also, as the quote that I highlighted shows, were also of the belief that the Wontock system could play a role to respond to corruption. However, we know that cultural obligations also play a role in perpetuating corruption. It means that public servants might favor their Wontocks, their communities over other people, that they might distribute resources to them and that there is a really big concern about this in the community. So I think that, yes, it seems to, like the research seems to suggest that it plays a significant role in driving corruption, but there's emerging evidence to suggest that there are ways in which it can be tapped into to also fight corruption. I think we need to more research on this and we need to be looking at ways that actually the Wontock system can play a positive role in responding to corruption and not just say it is negative. Thank you, Mr. Walton. Ruth, would you like to say something on that as well? Yeah, I think whenever we don't find an answer, we always blame culture and custom. I am 72 years old and I disagree completely with that. People understand what corruption is in our cultural stem and it is not something that they talk about. I think what we really need to focus on is the big time corruption. And that is it's not the people of Solomon Islands that are corrupting the government and siphoning off the millions that should go into development. It's this Asian business people, loggers, miners. I think we really need to focus on what really does hurt, what corruption hurts Solomon Island than those very, very small things. And then the members of parliament using the taxpayers' money to buy votes and all of that. We have visited more than 40 constituency and many more communities in the work that we do here in transparency. People want to fight corruption. They are ready and willing, but they don't have the information and then access to justice is actually non-existence here in the Solomon's because it's unaffordable. The last election, this is people's activism. 29 petitions were lodged. It could not go on because the courts require 42,000 before they can accept any petition lodged before it. So I think it's more complex than just the culture or all of that. I think we really need to look at the big picture other than putting these really issues that have come out quite clearly in the global corruption barometer to address the real issues of culture other than this small-time corruption that people are dealing with in any case in their communities. And if there's any corruption inside the culture, nobody would be alive today in the cultural setting because they are looking after themselves. There is no government, no nothing. Only the church and the traditional system that is taking care of it whereas as right at the top there is the big-time corruption done by foreigners and their big business partners and the executive government that we have. So I think we really need to focus on what really hurts Solomon Island. What corruption? Who does the corruption that really hurts Solomon Islands and address that instead of, you know, dealing with, you know, blaming the church or blaming the culture as it is the case all the time with things that we don't have answers to. Thank you. Thank you very much Ruth for that. I think the questions that we are asking, we actually leave on both of you to answer. There's another question that I've got here is that they are messaging Dan on corruption but do you think it is effective and also how can messaging be improved? I think Mr. Walton, if you would like to go first please. Yes, so thanks for that. So in different contexts in Indonesia, for example, and also in Nigeria, they've found that in Indonesia in particular, when you test, when you actually test the impact that anti-corruption messages have on people's willingness to respond to corruption, if you give them any information about corruption through messaging, it can make people more, less willing to respond to corruption, less willing to report it and more favorable towards it, right? So there is some evidence, global evidence to suggest that anti-corruption messaging can actually backfire. The idea that if you talk about corruption and that people think, oh, other people are engaging in corruption, then it's kind of okay. There's still some emerging research on this. I can't talk to Solomon Islands specifically from the research that I've been doing. I'll just note what we've done in Papua New Guinea. In Papua New Guinea, the people are more willing to respond to corruption. They're more concerned about it. And this is based on research that we've done. If you highlight the impact that corruption has on their local communities, they are far more likely to be concerned about it to want to respond to it in a variety of different ways. So messaging can play a really important role in improving people's willingness to respond to it, but it doesn't always do that. In fact, sometimes it does the opposite. So the emerging research suggests that, yeah, I mean, that we need to be careful about what kinds of messaging we are putting out there in terms of corruption, because it has the potential, the research suggests to make matters worse. But I'll hand it over to Ruth to talk a bit more about the Solomon Islands experience and TI. Thank you very much. Messaging is very, very important. And I think from the work, not I think, but from the work and the experiences of Transparency Solomon Islands and the work that we do throughout the country. It is very important not to deliver an abstract message to the people in the community. They've got to be, where do they feature? How does corruption affect them, their children? And where does the government, how does the government make its money and what is it supposed to do with that money? That messaging needs to have a meaning for the people that you are talking to. It's, but the messaging that is going out from those who are the funds is that which you take out of the internet. And this is what is wrong with that. And at the same time too, it needs to be delivered with people or Solomon Islanders like myself and the organization that we are. To say the things that need to be said and to say it as it should be said other than worrying about, I mean, previously we had funding that came through UNDP and we are not allowed to say certain things because we are UNDP funding funded. These are the kind of issues that we have with the funding and all of that. Messaging needs to have a meaning, needs to place people. There is a human being behind that message and how it is affected and how much money does the government make from the people? For example, when it logs out their forestry, 25% of the royalty goes to the government and what is it supposed to be doing? These are the kind of messaging that needs to be delivered to the people and we know that they want to do something but all they've got is their ways. The institutions are too unaffordable for them because it's all centrally located and at national general elections are the only time that they can actually inflict punishment on those who have not done anything good for the country or involved in corruption. So our messaging is a kind of different here and it needs to build a whole picture and that picture where the people fit in, what is their political, their legal, their civil, their democratic rights. These are the kind of things that will make the difference for people to fight corruption. But this, I understand and we do acknowledge that development partners or other agencies that are in operation in Solomon Islands that have got the money cannot say those things because they are worried about their relationship with the government. But like transparency, Solomon Islands, we don't have to, we were lucky to find funding that leaves us to do what we needed to do except for customer that people. So I think I'd just like to say that messaging is very important but it delivers, it needs to be delivered by people that do believe in it themselves and not with just someone who's just sticking up deliverables. Thank you. Thank you for that. I've got a follow up question to that. How can cultural practices be used to tackle corruption? I hope you could go first. Okay, I'll go first. I think what Graham, Grant has said is very important and it needs people, each and every one of us to have a working, good working understanding of the cultural practices and where they operate and when they come into operation. Culture can actually help us fight corruption because there is trust and there is confidence in that. As Grant said, so yes, culture can help but you need to understand all that we do here in Solomon Islands is culturally sensitive and culturally savvy. So in the work that we do here at Transparency Solomon Islands, we do not work in isolation. We work with the community, governance structures or the constituency governance structures. We go to the communities at their request. We just don't go and impose on them. So this is how we have managed to get through and deliver our message and we end up being discussed in parliament for a day or more than an hour because they don't like us to educate the voters out there in their constituencies. Thank you. So this role of culture, I mean, I agree with everything Ruth Stun who's, I mean, she's really on the ground, the expert when it comes to understanding the cultural nuances and what's going on and what resonates with people. But I suppose that I wanna say that there is a potential for culture to play a role and I'm going to just highlight what I said in my presentation before. So one of the criticisms that's been made of the Ramsey intervention, the Ramsey Peace and Nation Building project was that in terms of corruption, it put in some really good processes, technical processes that highlighted where money was going and they had some really good systems. But when the money flowed through the systems, it wasn't very good at understanding who was receiving the check, who were they related to? How were they integrated into a political network? And so some of the respondents that I've been talking to have been critical of that because actually, it's been argued that whilst the technical processes were there, understanding of cultural and political connections weren't as put on the, weren't understood and that's why corruption continued and might have continued to a lesser degree but it's still continued on. So understanding the cultural connections, understanding who's related to whom, who are they a supporter of politically and those types of things? Where are they from? How those types of things really important, the political economy, the political networks that helped to facilitate corruption within and beyond the country are really important. Ruth's also right in saying that we can get too obsessed by looking at culture as a response. It's a part of it, but it's the petty corruption that might be facilitated by people who wanna get funding out of a candidate for their vote, for example, pay housing comparison in terms of what's happening in the logging sector and other grand corruption. But if we had to look at culture, there are some things that are already been done. I will also say that, and I'm drawing on my understanding in Papua New Guinea, there are cultural practices, which are very transparent often. Bride price, for example, in P&G, everyone knows how much money is available. Everyone knows how many pigs people have got, those types of things. There are transparent processes in customary practices that are not apparent in the modern world. You don't know how much money I've got in my bank account or how much money I'm receiving from various people. It's very non-transparent. So I think that we, I agree with Ruth. I mean, I think that we can turn the cultural issues into more of a positive. I think that from what I read, by and large, the Wontock system in particular gets a pretty hard time for being a key driver of corruption and perhaps we should be kind of flipping that a little bit to have a look at the ways in which it can help with responding to it. And I think there are a number of ways in which that can be done. I think I just want to share with regard to Ramsey that I think it was more worried about its own project than it does with the corruption in the country. But under the watch of Ramsey, this constituency development fund that is channeled through members of parliament stood up from 100,000 to 6.7 million per constituency. And that fund itself actually corrupts everything. Corrupts people, corrupts the members of parliament, corrupts the government systems. And it's the breeding ground for corruption. So that funding arrangement got its hold when Ramsey was here. They turn a blind eye to it. So it's one of the funds that was not audited. And Solomon Islander Auditor General wants to audit it. It was terminated. And up until with transparency, Solomon Islands did the work on that. Nobody knew just how much money, public money this members of parliament were playing with to make sure that they get back into parliament. So from 2000 to 2022 is more than 66 million poured into each constituency. And we have visited this constituency absolutely nothing to sow for it. But there are palaces and mansions of members of parliament here in town. So I think whilst I agree totally with Grant on the cultural thing here in Onera and in urban areas, it's the misuse and abuse of those cultural practices that are transparent is an issue because they are not in the community where they are being told of, no, you're misusing that. They are outside, they're in no man's land to do just as they want to do. So let's just want to add that. Thank you, Ruth and Dr. Walton. I've got a question here from Alani and she is asking, should there be targeted messaging when it comes to informing people from diverse backgrounds? Mr. Walton, would you like to go first, please? Sure, look, thank you for that question. That's a really good one. So I'm just going to draw on the research that I've been doing that I've done with a colleague of mine Karen Piper in Papua New Guinea. So what we found is that if you said to people that the corruption impacts on your Wontox and your community, it didn't matter which backgrounds you were from because people were just thinking, oh, I know who they are talking about. They're talking about my community, whether or not you were from the highlands or the islands or the coast or wherever. People were far more likely to, as a whole, respond to it. They were also far more likely to be positive about national responses to corruption, not just particular responses to their background, right? Not just their ethnic group. Now, I haven't done this research in Solomon Islands. I think it might be valuable to do so. But from that, it suggests that actually you don't have or you can have particular messages for communities, but there are also broader messages that you could roll out nationally that can help to speak to people from different communities. So our research has suggested that whilst diverse messaging might help, that there are broader national messages that actually could cut across. But again, I'm drawing on research from P&G and Ruth can talk a bit more about the Solomon Islands case. Thank you, Grant, for Solomon Islands. Targeted messaging is very important and it needs to be appropriate and have meaning for those with whom you are giving this key and critical information to. So for example, here we have an initiative we call Youth for Democracy camps. So the messaging that we give to them is different from the same messages that we also deliver at the community and constituency level on the same topics and all of that, but targeting that level, bringing it home to them how they fit into the overall picture, why is it important and what is their responsibilities as waters and duties as waters of the country and as the who need to all to account their representatives and explaining to them that they said we are the leaders, we are the chiefs, like chiefs, that's why we have to have all this money. Well, I mean, back in the villages, what we are telling them is that no, they are not your leaders, no, are they your chiefs? Those are your church leaders that are already here. These guys are your representatives, they are supposed to be your ways, they are your servants and you must talk to them and you have the right, otherwise they wouldn't come and ask for your vote. So it's kind of connecting the dots. So we do targeting messages here in transparency for the schools and then for the youth, young professionals and then the chiefs as well as the community at lunch. And we find that it is, it gets true to them, they have a meaning and they can relate to it. And it, I mean, you also need to know about the country which we do have, we do know here transparency and you have examples of how corruption affects them. For example, in the softlands, in the Temoto Perle, these kinds of things are very important. Putting a pace behind the messaging and not data works for us. Thank you. Thank you, Ruth. I think for that wonderful answer that you've given us and I definitely understand that a lot of us are taking all this knowledge and I've got another question from Sol Edward. What can I as an individual do to prevent corruption in my country? I think, Ruth, you should answer first on this. I think I just want to, that's a tough question to ask and it's a personal one as well, but for me in my educational journey, I did all I can, learned all I can, taking as much knowledge as I can of about my country, about where I fit into the site and everything you should, in order that it will help me to be a responsible and respectful and a good citizen of my country and also a useful member of my family and that of my community. I think if you have some principles behind under which you operate, then I think you can do. It is a lonely job and a very, very lonely place to be fighting corruption. So if you have some principles that you stand by and that makes you who you are, you live by, then I think you can do whatever you can in whatever area you want to apply yourself to. For me is empowering my people, my citizens with free and critical knowledge about their rights, but also their responsibilities and their duties as citizens of this country, the component part of the democratic state of Solomon Islands and to also understand that politicians and governments are temporary, but citizens are permanent part of any country. Thank you. Yes, Dr. Grant, would you like to elaborate on that? Yeah, look, it's a very, it's a difficult question because everyone, as Ruth said, has got different different capacities and also a different willingness to take on risk. So fighting corruption, as Ruth said, requires people to be able to have uncomfortable conversations to be in uncomfortable situations and many report being worried about payback. But I think that there are things that people can do. I think that raising awareness, talking to family, friends in both urban areas and in rural areas about issues of corruption, joining organizations like Transparency International and others that are working to address corruption joining organizations that are monitoring elections and helping to do that, I think also can help. So raising awareness is a general around these issues, I think is important. And with a focus on looking at solutions that can work. So I think one of the things that can often come out of discussions around corruption is a sense of hopelessness. Our country's really corrupt. It's one of the worst in the world and those types of things. And we can oftentimes really focus on the negative. But I think that turning that around a bit in terms of what I've tried to present in my presentation is that, okay, there are significant challenges in the Solomon Islands, but there are causes for optimism, for hope. Bills have been introduced. Civil society has been active and has helped to influence the government. Now, they might not be as effective as some might like, but there have been movements. There's a transnational community who's been working on responding to corruption in Solomon Islands and in other settings, connecting with those organizations and individuals. I think it's also a key part of the response. So look, it's a difficult road, as Ruth says, but I do think that in terms of responding to things in Solomon Islands and the broader Pacific, there's room for optimism. There are a number of points in which you can engage locally, educating, increasing awareness amongst your community, your friends, but also connecting to transnational groups like Transparency International and others so that you're connected to a global movement that are responding to that. And it's not just up to you as an individual. You've got a group or groups to draw upon, to give you strength to help to respond to this issue. Thank you. Thank you very much for that wonderful answer. We are about to hit the end of our webinar, but I've got one last question. And I think Dr. Grant and Ruthie can both take turns in answering this. Is whistleblower policy effective to country corruption? Sorry, is whistleblower policy effective to counter corruption, given the context of Solomon Islands being a small nation when everyone is connected? Do you think the secrecy will be maintained? Ms. Ruth, would you like to go first? The whistleblowers act that we have in the Solomon Islands, but it is not enough as yet to protect anyone. So that's number one. And the other thing is that all the information and all the stories that we write, we expose and et cetera, is coming from within the system itself. So there is determination by the public services and it still has really good people working in it. It's protecting them that is very important, but at the moment it's a hard ask for anyone, and especially in the public service, because we're talking about public sector corruption here to come out and be a bushel bore because the power rests with the prime minister and also the public service commission that is highly politicized already to terminate you. And for us here in Solomon Islands, the reality is that there may be, the person that is employed may be the only bread owner for our tribe or for our community that is supporting the families and all of that. So much of the information that is coming out, they don't trust anyone, it actually comes to our office and then we repackage it in a way that we're only looking at the issues and then posing other people to do the investigation. So yes, we do have a we shall blow us, at we shall blow us protection act, but currently it does not work. And as you said, it will take a long time before it works here in the Solomon Islands. The institutions of integrity and accountability need to step up and do their work on behalf of the citizens of Solomon Island. That way, that is how it has been done in the past. Now they are ill-registered and ill-educated about their work to do anything. They're just sitting on desk. So I think probably not a good answer, but that's all in actually shit. Thank you, Ruth. Mr. Walton? Yeah, look, I mean, the key issue here is how do you ensure anonymity? In other countries, we do see that there have been initiatives such as the phones against corruption initiative to help public servants report corruption and to keep their details anonymous. Now, there's also the internet. So it's possible to get anonymous forums which are encrypted to ensure that the people don't know who is actually reporting. Now, there are problems with this in terms of verification and other things, but and these responses need to have resources. But if you can get a credible intermediary like phones against corruption, internet website reporting sites like such as they have in India and other countries, you can get reports and have it anonymous. It has to be trusted though. It's really important that you don't have things like data breaches and other things. So yes, there is this collective action problem whereby at the moment, it's difficult to report or blow the whistle on what's happening, but there are some solutions that might be some technical solutions that that might help with that that have been tried out in other countries. Thank you, Mr. Walton. Thank you, Ruth. I've got the hands up here from one of the attendees, Hisha Niker. Just wanted to know if Hisha, would you like to ask a question? Hisha? Okay, I guess Hisha is shy to talk, but I've got another very interesting question here. It's from somebody who wishes to be anonymous. The question is based on Solomon Islands considered, has improved on corruption in the past 15 years. What are your thoughts on the outlook for the next 15 years? Ruth, do you like to go first in that? Yes, I'd like to go first on that. And I would say that there is a ray of hope for us to continue to improve and get- I like to go first in the video. Our current scores, because we have from the programs that we run for the youth, youth are not afraid to stand up and be counted and they're doing their own work at their own pace and all of that. So I think the answer is, yes, we will be improving and we have to think positive about our country because this is the only country that the God gave us. So we need to protect it and we need to make sure that it benefits everyone. So, yeah, I can see a ray of hope in the youths that are coming up, young professionals, as well as those coming up with the we're touching base with, there is hope for Solomon Islands to improve its score beyond what it is now. Thank you. Mr. Alton, over to you. Yeah, I think that there is hope. I think that in the Pacific and the region and across the globe, there is now more concern that's being expressed by citizens and political elites and others about corruption than has been the case for decades. The Pacific Islands Forum has endorsed a Tijuana vision which is a response from Pacific Island leaders around the importance of addressing corruption. Solomon Islands has, of course, introduced the ICAC. Look, there's a whistle-blower protection bill that strengthens the ombudsman. Look, all of these things aren't perfect. They, you know, there needs to be more that's been done. Along with civil society responses and the young population as Ruth has highlighted, there is some reason for optimism going into the future, but this is going to require ongoing engagement from citizens. It's going to require ongoing engagement and pressure from civil society. And it's going to require a transnational alliance. I'm, you know, happy to look at the glass half full. I think that the progress is slow, but it's been slow in many other countries. It's been slow in Australia. We still haven't got a national anti-corruption commission. Solomon Islands has, Papua New Guinea has, Fiji has, but the people in Australia are more concerned about corruption now, arguably, than they were 10, 15 years ago. And I think that this has become, this is on a global scale that concerns about corruption or ramping up. I think Solomon Islands is caught up in this and will end. And there are some good signs that people will continue to be concerned about it and that reforms will start to be meaningful over the coming decade or so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walter and Mr. Ruth for the wonderful answers. I just wanted to know, we are about to reach the end of our webinar. Is there any final remarks that you guys would miss, Ruth or Mr. Grant? Mr. Grant, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we close our webinar for the day, Mr. Ruth. For me, it's just like, from me, my final remark is, we thank you at Transparency Solomon Islands. We want to do a good thing with our youth democracy camps as well as our community outreach program. We just need assistance to mobilize resources so that we can cover more youth and we can cover more communities. Thank you. Yeah, I suppose I just want to thank the organizers for putting this on. Thanks participants for all your great questions. I like that we're living on a relatively positive note. I think that if we look into the future, there is cause for optimism and we should underline that. And whilst there are significant challenges, I think that there are enough indications that we can be optimistic about what's coming up. We just meet, I think that more people need to be involved. I also would add that I think we need more research on this topic. I think there's lots of things we don't know about what's going on with corruption in Solomon Islands. But even some of those gaps are starting to be built. So look, thanks everyone for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Walton, Mr. Ruth. I guess we have reached the end of our webinar too. Webinar series in the Malaysian region. International Idea Asia and the Pacific Regional Office would like to thank both the speakers and the audience for joining live to this event. We understand that it is a very busy time right now for you to take our time for this webinar. Very constructive and informative one that is. A lot of interesting questions was also asked. We hope that through the discussions, people have gained knowledge about the issues in the region. Please look out for the dates for our next webinar and we will be looking forward for your participation in the upcoming webinar that we will be holding. My sincere apologies from the moderator who dropped out due to some technical difficulties or technical issues but nevertheless, we were able to get all the questions in line. Thank you. Thank you very much from the IGE team, Vinakavakalyebu. If the panelists can remain in the session would be helpful. I would like to take a picture of the panelists with their cameras on please. Thank you. Thank you very much attendees. Thank you for your time and the beautiful questions that you've given. Thank you. Knock out.