Although I'd like to express my opposition towards this proposal, I understand that Roavin and anyone else who shall submit their proposal to the Assembly, that they shall have the right for their proposal to be given a fair hearing before deciding on which course of action to take, and that it shall be the responsibility of Legislators to debate this proposal in an impartial and rational manner, and if they can, provide constructive advices, feedbacks and opinions so that Roavin's proposal can be checked more thoroughly.

Now, I know that there are people who are entirely outraged by this proposal, I can say to them this, I feel you and I understand your concerns. I also see people, and I don't want to call out any names, being mentioned using words that may not necessarily reflect a true and correct description of their character. Some of you may have known or noticed that I have a close relationship with Islands of Unity. All I can say is that he's a good and decent person who has good intentions and big ambitions for this region. Let us not exploit this situation for our own benefits and purposes to make attacks or insults against a particular individual. Let us not call Islands of Unity a populist demagogue, and let us not call Roavin an oligarch and elitist just because he wants to speak his mind and share his ideas that he thinks will contribute to the betterment of this region.

I am very sure that everyone here cares as much about the region as I do and that I love The South Pacific as much as all of you do. That is the reason why all of you have chosen to come here and participate in this debate, I appreciate it very much and I think we can all appreciate that we are lucky enough to live in a free society where we are free to think the way we want and to say the things we want to say. And therefore I ask that all of us put region above self and let us all engage in a fruitful and productive discussion so that Roavin's proposal be considered carefully and thoroughly.

Let's get straight to the topic.

Roavin, I do have concerns and reservations towards your proposal so I have made several questions for you to answer.

QUESTION

On post #37, you have said, and I quote, "How does this sound: The requirement for Delegate is "eligible for DC", which somebody already on the DC implicitly is."

What is the justification for the additional requirements for candidates who seek election to the Delegacy?

Do you think that we would be better off if we enforce the requirements that you have listed, if so, why and how? 

Have you considered the implications of this action, if so, what do you think the implications would be and how would it impact, both short-term and long-term, the regional community? 

I strongly believe that a government which fails to command the respect of its people shall not stand. Do you think we can just let democracy do its job? In your opinion, does restricting the pool of candidates for Delegate elections contradict the very basic democratic principles, including the people's right to choose who they want to be the leaders of their region?

I will quote a part of the Preamble of the our region's Charter, "The Assembly of the Coalition of The South Pacific, representing our diverse community, convenes to establish this fundamental law of our region, to uphold democratic principles and rights..." If this proposal were to be agreed upon and became law, do you think there will be legal actions against this?

Do you think that this proposal contradicts the democratic tradition in The South Pacific and that there would be backlash from the interregional community?

I fear that this is quite a lot for you to answer so I want to wait after you've answered this, then, I would send the next set of questions so that you would be able to prepare detailed answers without it burdening you too much. 

Thank you very much and I look forward to your answers.