What Worries You, Masters You!

Fiji Sun's new Editor is already showing his true colors, as belligerently displayed in his last job as the former Fiji Times Editor. Sun Fiji News Ltd. shareholders include C J Patel and Co Ltd, Vinod Patel and Co Ltd and Fijian Holdings Ltd.

Kakaivalu biased political stance, obviously slanted towards the SDL party, may have prompted to him to establish a flawed position (since the article bears no author's name)about the Peoples Charter and the amendment of the 1997 Constitution.

The excerpt of the Fiji Sun article:

The constitution and the People’s Charter
Last updated 11/16/2007 8:58:01 AM

The new vehicle for the way forward for Fiji is the Peoples Charter.
Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga in a media statement said the military would force changes in the charter for the people to see better future leaders of the country. He also said the military remained firm on its stand that politicians seeking to contest the next general election would see what the charter will have on them.

So we must expect changes in the Charter. In his address at the 68th United Nations General Assembly in New York Interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama told delegates that “Fiji’s situation is not only complex; its problems are deep rooted”. There are no quick fixes. The country now he says is at a very critical cross-road; its situation could escalate into more serious deterioration and instability. It is imperative that any such greater disaster or civil strife is averted.
[Bainimarama] urged the international community to help develop for Fiji a political and governance framework that would be truly democratic, accountable, inclusive, equitable, and non-racial and which unified Fiji’s diverse communities as a nation.
The Peoples Charter is the Government’s vehicle for this and will tackle the challenges at three levels and they are:

• to restore stability, law and order and confidence;
  
  
• to strengthen institutions for good governance including transparency and accountability and an independent and effectively functioning judiciary;
  
• to carry out major reforms in the economy
  

PM Bainimarama said at the UNGM: “The Peoples Charter, once formulated and adopted will provide the strategic framework or fundamental foundation within which the interim government and also successive elected governments will be expected to operate. “In the current absence of an elected parliament, there is the issue of legitimacy and mandates. To deal with this, the interim government is willing to consider putting the draft Peoples Charter to a referendum to get the mandate of the people for the fundamental changes, including changes to the Constitution of Fiji, as may be considered necessary.”

At the Pacific Islands Forum held in Nuku’alofa, Tonga the PM said: “To address our fundamental problems that have besieged Fiji and help us realise our vision, my government has launched a major national initiative which will see the establishment of a 40-member National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NBBF) and the proposal to develop the “Peoples Charter for Change and Progress (PCCP). Through the PCCP a broad cross section of Fiji’s people will be fully engaged through consultation and participation to develop a comprehensive agenda of action and measures to address in a systematic and comprehensive fashion the long outstanding fundamental challenges. It will then provide strategic framework for successive governments.”

Already there is opposition to the charter. The ousted Laisenia Qarase-led Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Government has strongly opposed the move. In an interview Mr Qarase said: “The SDL Party’s stand against the proposed People’s Charter for Change and Progress remains. We are opposed to the charter for very good reasons, some of which are:

- the preparation of a charter, if necessary, should be left to an elected government
- the interim regime lacks the popular mandate necessary to prepare such an important document
- the proposed charter cannot bind future elected governments
- the legality of the charter would be questionable
- the charter cannot supersede the Constitution which remains the supreme law of the land
- the rights of indigenous Fijians are excluded from the charter.

We should accept changes in the new Charter. The question that we need to ask is: How will the People’s Charter merge into the constitution? Pacific Island Forum leaders have given their support to Mr Bainimarama for the changes.

However, speaking on behalf of the Pacific leaders Tongan Prime Minister Feleti Sevele said: “I think we have made it quite clear that Fiji will continue on the existing constitution and the laws ... Anything beyond that is not acceptable.”
He made this comment after the Fiji PM said his government might change the constitution before the election.

From the outset we can confirm that some changes that have to be made will not be in accordance with the constitution thus making it unconstitutional. One change is the removal of the communal voting system which will end communal seats in the next parliament.

Communal seats date back to the early 1900s. In 1904, the British colonial authorities reserved seven seats in the Legislative Council for European voters; in 1929, provision was made for wealthy Indians to elect one representative also. Indigenous Fijians were represented by nominees of the Great Council of Chiefs and did not vote directly for their representatives until 1966.

In the 1960s, the Indo-Fijian dominated National Federation Party (NFP) began to press for universal suffrage on a common voters’ roll. Indigenous Fijian leaders opposed this demand, fearful that it would favour Indo-Fijians, who then comprised more than half of the country’s population. As a compromise, a number of national constituencies were established, allocated ethnically but elected by universal suffrage, but 25 of the 36 seats in the Legislative Council remained communal.
In the 1970 Constitution leaders then agreed to establish a 52-member House of Representatives with 27 communal and 25 national constituencies. Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians were each allocated 12 communal constituencies; minority groups were allocated 3.

After the 1987 coup and with the abrogation of the 1970 Constitution a new 1990 constitution was put in place. It made all parliamentary seats communal, with a built-in indigenous majority. 37 seats were allocated to indigenous Fijians and 27 to Indians, despite the near parity of their population numbers at that time. 5 seats were assigned to minority groups. The 1990 constitution was revised again in 1997-1998. Again the communal seats were retained with 23 seats allocated to indigenous voters, 19 to Indo-Fijians, 1 to Rotuman Islanders, and 3 to minority groups; the remaining 25 represented open constituencies.

The new change will have to be made but we need to answer this question: How can this change be done when we don’t have a parliament with the 1997 Constitution still intact? Amendments or changes to the constitution can only be done in parliament. Can it be done through a referendum? The constitution is silent on referendum so the outcome if the interim government goes ahead with it will be unconstitutional.

Commenting on the matter New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark said and I quote - “I don’t think the commodore himself has a clear idea of how these changes can be accomplished in a constitutionally credible manner.”

The process forward in Fiji she said had to be credible. That rules out, I must admit, any changes to the constitution. The problem now faced by the interim government in moving the country forward has been created by the Prime Minister when he dissolved parliament when he had executive authority with him after the 5th December military bloodless coup.

PM Clarke said: “This is the problem when you close down your parliament and act in a way that is clearly unconstitutional and illegal and finding a pathway back from that is tortuous.” So what is the way out now to make the Peoples Charter work?
We know for the fact that the constitution cannot be changed or amended without a parliament.
The charter if passed, will be a dictatorial document as it will force successive governments to adhere to something that they do not support.
What will happen if a new government throws out the Charter because it is not part of its manifesto? Will the military come in again with their guns and take over power?
To make it work the only other option is to abrogate the 1997 Constitution but this as PM Clark had said, it would be tortuous.

Another question that we need to ask is: What will be the new course taken by the interim government if the people through the referendum reject the Charter?

Although, the Fiji Sun Editor raises some serious questions about the amendments to the 1997 Constitution; the Constitution has provision for it to be amended, however under the Parliament. However, since there is no Parliament, the proposed referendum, may rest the matter of legitimacy for good because referendums are more of a direct democracy than Parliament. Since a referendum was not called in the establishment of all 3 Fiji constitutions, 1970, 1990 and 1997 respectively; all have failed the nation. Perhaps a referendum was the missing link. What if the people choose not to have the People's Charter inquires the Fiji Sun Editor? What if they do, retorts S.i.F.M.

The purest form of democracy in Fiji may in fact be unconstitutional. So what is better, 100% octane democracy or Constitutionalism which may in fact be a watered down version of democracy?

In a paper by Constitutional Expert Yash Ghai and Jill Cottrell titled "Constitution Making in Fiji: Context and Process" highlights the hindered process called democracy, when the timing and sequence of events are called into question:

A quick count of individual submissions (relying on names 18) indicates that presentations were made by 114 Fijians, 88 by Indo-Fijians and 21 others. Among the organizations that made submissions, local churches clearly predominated. It is clear that many of the views presented were orchestrated. A bit like an Amnesty International campaign, standard forms of presentation were made available by political parties and other groups for their members to sign and submit. Lal wrote of a submission by the Arya Samaj ‘which will be repeated – worse, read word for word – countless times in the days and weeks ahead’. 19

But by no means all were of this type. The speed with which the commission embarked on tours around the country and overseas was only possible because it made no attempt to undertake any form of civic education (neither its deadline nor resources allowed any other option). Although the level of literacy in Fiji is relatively high, and the previous few years had been very political so there was probably a high degree of awareness of the broad concept of a constitution, the population at large was almost certainly uninformed about the details of the constitutions which had prevailed in the country, and certainly of the options.

Indeed,the events of the previous 6-8 years would almost certainly have led the ordinary person to think merely in terms of the system of government and electoral systems - in other words of the question of how the constitution could prevent (for Fijians) or not obstruct(for Indo-Fijians) the coming to power of another ‘Indian dominated’ Government.

It is easy to criticise the commission for lack of civic education, as we do ourselves. But we must remember the constraints of resources and time over which it had no control. We should also note that the commission was under some pressure to dispense even with public hearings (including from both Reddy and Chaudhry), on the grounds that there had been sufficient articulation of constitutional options and presentation of submissions to previous commissions.

Fiji as a society has come to an important political junction. The calls for Fiji to return to democracy by the international community has been heard before, first in 1987 and then again in 2000. On both occasions, Fiji followed the garden path of legalities that twist and turn. The question that is often trivialized is whether, the path used in 1987 and 2000 actually brought Fiji back to the direct democracy-the purest form?

While Fiji Sun Editor quotes from the New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark on the subject of Constitutionalism:

“This is the problem when you close down your parliament and act in a way that is clearly unconstitutional and illegal and finding a pathway back from that is tortuous.”

Sadly, the Fiji Sun editor either neglects the fact or selectively omits that New Zealand does not have a constitution. New Zealand's supreme law is a collection of statutes (Acts of Parliament), Treaties, Orders-in-Council, Letters patent, decisions of the Courts and unwritten constitutional conventions. There is no one supreme document — the New Zealand constitution is not codified or entrenched. It would appear, that Clark or the New Zealand Government as a whole should be the last to talk about unconstitutional matters, as an article published by International Herald Tribune outlines.

In addition, Fiji Sun Editor quoted Tonga's Prime Minister, Feleti Sevele:

“I think we have made it quite clear that Fiji will continue on the existing constitution and the laws ... Anything beyond that is not acceptable.”

With all due respect to the Tongan Prime Minister, it is beyond the pale for a Country ruled by a monarchy to place any caveats on a democratic country that was torn by racial inequities and eroded by the ingrained corruption, compounded by a civil service run on Ethno-nationalistic paradigms.

It is also reprehensible for Tonga or her Prime Minister to comment on Fiji's multi-racial society when, their own nation places a quota on the number of person of Indian heritage living within their borders. Has this form of ethnic cleansing, ever been addressed by these egalitarian nations. Or does this just underscore the depth and width of hypocritical reasoning by people; who are willing to turn a blind eye to these nuances in good governance for their political agendas.

The Scottish Philosopher, John Locke who published "The Second Treatise of Civil Government" in 1690 is perhaps more knowledgeable and enlightened than Helen Clark. Locker lays out guiding legal principles and logic which Fiji as a society should examine, at this political juncture. The 19th and final chapter is titled "Of the Dissolution of Government" and present some justifications for Unconstitutional acts.

Sec. 211. HE that will with any clearness speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government.

Sec. 214. First, That when such a single person, or prince, sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws, which are the will of the society, declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed:

for that being in effect the legislative, whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed; when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended, and inforced, than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed.

Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorized by the fundamental appointment of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

Sec. 220. In these and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new legislative, differing from the other, by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good: for the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative, and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it.


Sec. 240. Here, it is like, the common question will be made, Who shall be judge, whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? This, perhaps, ill-affected and factious men may spread amongst the people, when the prince only makes use of his due prerogative. To this I reply, The people shall be judge; for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well, and according to the trust reposed in him, but he who deputes him, and must, by having deputed him, have still a power to discard him, when he fails in his trust?

If this be reasonable in particular cases of private men, why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment, where the welfare of millions is concerned, and also where the evil, if not prevented, is greater, and the redress very difficult, dear, and dangerous?

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Doctoring the Truth- Across the Great Divide of Two Patriots with PhDs.

Fiji born Historian Brij Lal, who is based in Australia National University, recently made legal interpretations on the 1997 Constitution; regarding the issue of GCC members.

GCC suspension unlawful: Dr Lal

Sunday, August 12, 2007

A co-architect of the 1997 Constitution, Doctor Brij Lal, says the institution of the Great Council of Chiefs still exists because the laws of Fiji have not been abrogated.

Dr Lal said any suggestion that the GCC had been suspended was unlawful. "The membership of the GCC is provided for in the Fijian Affairs Act," Dr Lal said.
"The Act would have to be amended to provide for any Fijian Affairs Minister to make any intervention at all to the august institution as that move is against the current laws that exist," he said.

Dr Lal said the idea that the GCC was to be part of any government of the day was incorrect because the council was an autonomous institution as clearly stipulated in the Constitution.

"The prevailing feeling within the community is for the council to remain autonomous so it can discharge its responsibilities to the nation as a whole rather than to the tune of any particular government in power," [Lal] said.

"Dr Lal said the chiefs wanted to be seen as a voice of reason and wisdom providing guidance to all the people of Fiji regardless of race. "

"If need be the chiefs can be critical of the government which is within their moral authority. Making the council part of the Government would be completely inappropriate because the country wants to see them for everyone and free from any political affiliation or agenda. After all, they are not just a rubber stamp as members of the council, elect the President and the Vice-President of this country and people need to respect that important role," [Lal] said.

Interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau has announced plans to revamp the composition of the council.

On the four chiefs and their legal team who filed for legal redress over the council's suspension by the interim Government, Ratu Epeli said they had misinterpreted the revocation of the regulation that formalised the suspension.

The chiefs include ousted GCC chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini, Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, Bau chief Ratu Epenisa Cakobau and Ratu Ratavo Lalabalavu. They were seeking a judicial review of the council's suspension and termination of its membership by Ratu Epeli.

After the revocation of the suspension was announced, [GCC members] asked the court that the case be discontinued. [GCC members] said they had reached an amicable arrangement in which the regulation of April 17 which suspended the council had been revoked.

Ratu Epeli later said there were no conditions attached to the agreement with the chiefs to revoke the regulation.

The following excerpt, is another opinion article of Dr. Brij Lal, who speculates on the events arising in the wake of Fiji's 2006 coup.

Fiji: Like a duck treading water

BRIJ V LAL
Saturday, August 11, 2007

Fiji today is like a duck treading water, a Fijian political operative told me the other day. 'All calm on the surface, but unknown currents churning beneath.' As a description of the current state of affairs in Fiji, the imagery is pretty apt.

From various government quarters, the talk of change and improvement is optimistic. The so-called 'clean up campaign' is proceeding apace, we are told, the economy is on the mend, the country is at peace, and the people are 'moving on.' That is the official line: nonchalance in some circles, assertive self-confidence, arrogance even, in others.

" It is true that the country has not descended into the kind of civil strife some feared when the coup took place and people in all walks of life are muddling along, coping as best they can with what they have. But there is a palpable sense of fragility in the air, the sense that things could go wrong at any time."

Mr Taniela Tabu's experience is a case in point. With the Public Emergency Regulations suspended, Mr Tabu thought he was entitled to his freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

He believed the interim administration was in charge of the country. But arrested and taken to the barracks, he was, he has told the country and the international community, physically humiliated and his life threatened if he continued to speak up. The military council was apparently still in place and in control, very much so. There were the predictable denials from the QEB, but Mr Tabu's account was credible, his injured outrage believable.

The extreme touchiness of the interim administration and the military to any criticism of its action is evident. It instills fear and fosters self-censorship in the populace. To be issued death threats for calling for the resignation of a minister from government says a great deal about the state of affairs in Fiji today.

The revocation of the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs by the interim Minister for Fijian Affairs is widely welcomed, encouraging the hope that it may be a harbinger of things to come. The dropping of the cases against Superintendent Josaia Rasiga and Mr Ali is also noteworthy, suggesting perhaps that the State's case against them lacked credible evidence. Is this too a harbinger of things to come? The legal fraternity's mettle will be sorely tested in the months ahead as other notable cases come up before the courts.

The interim administration's optimistic claims about the economy go against the assessments of virtually all the leading businessmen with whom I have spoken.

Contraction is the order of the day, they tell me, in some sectors by as much as 30-40 percent. There is no new investment, and many projects with huge investment and employment potential have been frozen.

They are not likely to re-activated any time soon. 'We are in a shock,' a leading businessman tells me, after attending a board meeting of his company.

What, I ask, will it take to kick-start the economy?

Firm commitment to returning the country to parliamentary democracy, the businessmen tell me. They place much hope on the interim administration's undertaking given to the European Union that the next general election will be held by March 2009. Without that, the country is looking down at the barrel of the gun, so to speak.

The question is: will general election be held within the time frame stipulated by the EU?

There are those who are optimistic, but I have deep doubts. The Fiji Labour Party has stated that holding general election should not be the country's priority; getting the essential electoral infrastructure right should be: conducting a census, drawing up electoral boundaries, educating the voters. Accomplishing these before 2009 may not be feasible.

The interim Prime Minister has said on various occasions that the timing of the next general election is a matter for Fiji to decide, not for the international community to dictate. The 'clean-up campaign' should be seen through to completion. Then there is the so-called 'President's Mandate' whose fulfilment forms a critical justification of the interim administration's existence. The deeply fraught proposed charter to build a better Fiji with the assistance of the civil society is another story, possibly another delaying tactic. But there is a deeper fear that drives the interim administration.

" That is that if elections were held today, or in 2009, the SDL will be returned to power with a thumping Fijian majority. In this assessment, they are correct. Fijian support for the SDL has strengthened, not lessened, in the last six months."

And it will not diminish any time soon. The more the Fijians feel marginalised and excluded, the greater the support for the SDL will be.

'Qarase is not coming back,' Commodore Bainimarama and others in the military have said over and over again. Delaying the election would hopefully achieve that goal, given the former prime minister's advancing years.

The SDL's party infrastructure too could be weakened, if not dismantled in the intervening period, paving the way for a political party, so it is hoped, more acceptable to the military and more understanding of its plans for Fiji. But this thinking is myopic and victory, if there is one, will be pyrrhic.

If the Fijian community continues to feel marginalised and excluded from power, its cherished institutions symbolically humiliated and sidelined, there will be Qarases galore in the future. And they could well be less mindful of multi-ethnic sensitivities and the need for multi-ethnic accommodation than Mr Qarase and other politicians of his vintage.

Talking to Fijians on the streets in Suva, admittedly a small sample, I get the definite sense of frustrated silence in the Fijian community. They feel helpless, hobbled and humiliated. 'What can we do,' a man says to me. 'The guns are there.' There is a silent but definite hardening of race relations. The signs are everywhere.

Every issue, every challenge, is viewed through the prism of race. Predominantly Indian trade unions struck an early deal with the interim administration while predominantly Fijian ones struck, I am told. It is not as simple as that, for support for or against the interim administration is divided across the communities. Not all Indians support the coup, nor all Fijians oppose it. But perceptions, right or wrong, do matter. And the omens do not look good.

The government's handling of the strike has left a bitter taste in many mouths. Its rigid and even vindictive approach to industrial relations, its unwillingness to go to arbitration, its determination to frustrate and break up the trade union movement not willing to succumb to its pressure, all done ironically with the support of some compliant trade union leaders, leaves a sad legacy. The government says its coffers are empty, but then spends funds on purchasing vehicles and paying private attorneys to fight its cases. Somewhere, the priorities have gone wrong.

Repairing or in some instances rebuilding bridges of understanding and tolerance between the two main communities is an urgent challenge for the interim administration.

Preoccupied with its own survival amidst unrelenting international pressure unlikely to end any time soon, it has adopted an ad-hoc, fire-containing, approach to the challenges facing it: an enquiry here, a raid there, a plea for aid and assistance and skilled personnel from this country or that.

All this points to one inescapable truth: Fiji is a part of the international community; it is an island, yes, but an island in the physical sense alone. We cannot afford to thumb our noses at the international community and then expect to escape retribution. Sooner rather than later, the larger challenges of the proper way to build a multi-ethnic nation will return to haunt the nation.

The revocation of the suspension of the GCC augurs well for the future of the country. One hopes that the currents underneath are as calm as the surface upon which the duck treads water. Any other scenario is simply too terrible to contemplate.

Brij V Lal is a historian and writer based at the Australian National University. Views expressed here are his own, not his employer's.

Dr. Lal's selective perspective was fact checked and rebutted by a 'Letter to the Editor', published in Fiji Daily Post from newly appointed consultant to Fiji's Media Inquiry, Dr James Anthony. The following is an excerpt:

Brij-ing that gap
JIM ANTHONY (PhD)
21-Aug-2007

T
he public has been treated to two recent statements (Saturday August 11 and Sunday August 12) by Brij Lal, a historian who is attached to the Australian National University in Canberra.

Dr Lal, it should be noted, is a historian – he is not a lawyer or a political scientist by professional training. More importantly, Lal, as far as I know – does not speak or read Bauan – or, if he does, his command of the language is brittle and limited at best.

1. The “duck treading water” article in one of the dailies is full of unsupported Brij Lal speculation. Some examples: “… there is a palpable sense of fragility in the air, the sense that things could go wrong at any time.” People who read Brij Lal’s newspaper speculation are entitled to know what are the “things that could go wrong”, what evidence is there, besides Lal’s bland speculation, for the suggestion that there is a “sense of fragility” in the air. Or, are these kinds of generalisation designed to create a general sense of unease, a tendency to create instability?

2. Lal speculates that “Fijian support for the SDL has strengthened, not lessened.” Has Lal conducted any polls to reach such a conclusion or is this assessment born of his “talking to a small sample of Fijians on the streets of Suva – in fact, talking to a small sample of Fijians on the streets of Suva in English?

3. Lal said that he gets the definite feeling that Fijians are possessed of a sense of frustrated silence and says that they feel “helpless, hobbled and humiliated … and that there is a definite hardening of race relations”. Granted that Lal has a right to voice these musings but he does not have the right to foist them on us without evidence.

4. And then there have been shallow and simplistic statements: “Not all Indians support the coup, nor all Fijians oppose it”! Do we need a historian from the ANU to tell us this? That all Indians do not support the present government and neither do all Fijians, is a glimpse of the obvious.

People’s opinions on recent and not so recent political events in Fiji differ. They have always differed – the sign of a healthy society where different views exit and compete with each other for acceptance. Perhaps we don’t do this very well or very elegantly in Fiji but, nevertheless, we try: we are learning … perhaps too slowly for Lal but we are learning slowly and perhaps, painfully. But we are learning.

The second article headed “GCC suspension unlawful” is pretty thin by any standard.

"First of all, Lal is not a lawyer. To blandly pronounce the GCC suspension unlawful is to engage in what Americans call the “unauthorised practice of law.” The tenor and substance of Lal’s arguments on this issue are thin at best. "

But there is a larger issue at stake here. I have learned from many years in Hawaii, looking at and studying indigenous people’s movements and the dynamics of their politics, that one has to realise that these are complex matters possessed of many layers, many sinews, many shades of meaning.

The metaphor of indigenous people’s cultures and their cultural motifs are subtle and often times possessed of a complexity that is elusive. All of us – and that includes historians, perhaps, especially historians, are all ill equipped by reason of intellectual preparation to analyse politics and the ebb and flow of indigenous people’s political events, need to be especially careful in our pronouncements about indigenous matters.

In this great debate about sovereignty that has occupied native Hawaiians for the last 40 years – one thing has been made manifestly clear: Hawaiians resent and are deeply suspicious of non-Hawaiians offering speculative and other thoughts on what Hawaiians think or – what might be good for them.

Lal, who has spent time in Hawaii, appears not to have learned that important lesson. That’s unfortunate. When Lal, under cover of his historian mantle and his connection to the 1997 Constitution makes pronouncements about current events in Fiji he is not a duck treading water but acting like a tourist, unaware that he is in shark-infested waters, ventures sufficiently far away from shore that he leaves himself open … well … for want of a better term … shark attack.

The complex issues that have to do with indigenous people’s politics – indeed all politics of whatever culture, Fijian, Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan – whatever else – are areas of intellectual inquiry into which we should tread carefully, and with great respect – particularly – if like Dr Lal, we are hobbled by the fact that we force ourselves into the mine-ridden field of indigenous politics presumably without speaking their language. Lal’s observation – and there have been many in recent months – ought to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt – full of apparent sound and fury, not signifying very much.

The views, opinions and arguments expressed in the article above are entirely those of the author and not the Fiji Daily Post.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs