Sean+Agustin+on+Tribal+Rights

= Traditions are not mere activities done by a group of people or by tribes. Traditions have a deeper meaning when it comes to family history and human culture of a particular tribe. As traditions are significant to groups of people and show the "continuity" of their cultural affinity, I believe that it is time for the tribes around the globe to "restructure" some of their laws and traditions. Personally, I am not in any way against the tribal rights or the tribal traditions. But on another note, I may not support it IF the tribal rights or traditions will go against a tribe member's personal rights and his/her free will. As all of us are people who are capable of deciding for ourselves, we must always keep in mind that although there are norms that people need to follow, we must not deprive a person to choose or decide for his/her life. =

As related to the Papua New Guinea case, I believe that the personal human rights of the young woman who was supposedly the "payment" for the killed tribal leader was not respected and was, in all aspects, unjust for the part of the young woman. Although there are tribal traditions that have been followed for decades or even centuries now, not all of these traditions are rational enough to be continued. Case in point, the tribal members particularly women as "payment" for damages done to other tribe members. These young women are people with lives, with families and with personal dreams in life and I believe that it is not right to equate the value of these people to "things" that can be "given away". The value of a person is definitely more than just the value of a "payment". If for example the young woman gave her consent to be offered to the other tribe members, then I guess the tradition is okay to be implemented. But if the young woman did not want to be offered, then I believe that no matter how high a tribal member's position is, they must respect the decision of the woman. By forcing the young woman to be the payment to the killed tribal leader, the tribe is stripping away the woman's right to free will and is as well, "stealing" the woman's future. In addition, I believe that by restricting the tribe members to decide for their own life is the same as restricting progress and improvement in their tribe. As much as the tribes want to keep what has been practiced for decades, they must also consider "adapting with the changes" and the progress of the modern society. Restructuring laws or discontinuing irrational traditions such as payment of women in exchange for livestock, or anything of that sort does not mean that the tribes are putting their traditions to waste, nor does it mean that the tribes will forget their ancient practices. It will, in my point of view, show that the tribes are able to adapt to the changes of the modern world WHILE still holding on to their ancient traditions which define them as a person, which defines their life as a people.

Although the tribe has their own traditional/customary ancient ways of hearing the case, I believe that they must learn to "adapt" to the modern laws that are implemented in Papua New Guinea's democratic constitution. As mentioned in the case, the tribal laws and the democratic constitution CO-EXIST, thus, no one law must be followed in this case. I believe that both the tribe members and the other party must compromise or meet halfway, without stepping over another person's individual human rights. I believe that the modern, democratic law must be applied as for Ms. Wilngal's side since it concerns human rights and her, not being a tribal member, but her being as a person equipped with ; the ancient traditional laws, on another note, must be followed when it comes to livestock and money as part of compensation for the killed tribal leader since it only involves material possessions and not human people.

Bottom line, the tribes must consider restructuring their laws, in relation to the established Papau New Guinea democratic constitution or if not, just be open to compromises and meet halfway, with consideration to an individual's human rights and not just the tribe as a whole.