De-constructing The Impartiality of Fiji's Media.

In a follow up to an earlier SiFM post, the media industry in Fiji, returns under the microscope.

Fiji Sun's Editorial Opinions are getting further scrutinized and the company had grudgingly published an analysis of their reportage, or risk being outed for non-compliance of the Fiji Media Council's Code of Practice: Article 2 or The Right Of Reply.

The excerpt of the Analysis:

No evidence for charter claims


9/15/2008
This is a content analysis of the Fiji Sun Editorial (Sept 2) against the NCBBF that we ask to be published in compliance with the Fiji Media Council Code of Ethics and Practice. Article 2 of the Code headed OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY says:

Media have an obligation to give fair opportunity to reply to any individual or organisation on which the medium itself comments editorially.

This is not the first time that we have cited the provision of the Code of the Media Council of which the Sun is a member and you have ignored the Code and refused to publish.

There is a word for those who preach the rule of law but do not feel bound to follow their own rules.

Like lying publicly that you had not received Mahendra Chaudhry's letter after the Media Council had asked you to print them!

This communication is being copied to the Media Council to whom a complaint will be made if this reply that was sent to you last week is not published.

Paragraph 1

Fiji Sun alleges: “As the draft Peoples Charter “Consultation process gets into full swing, it is already clear that any claim of public acceptance will be hopeless, unreliable and without credibility”

Comment

The Fiji Sun does not provide any evidence to support its claim that the current NCBBF consultation process will be unreliable.

The NCBBF response form to be filled in by members of the public was professionally prepared to provide reliable data about people's opinion for or against the draft Peoples Charter.

The Fiji Sun's view logically follows from its stated public position calling for the rejection of the draft People's Charter. Fiji Sun reporters in the last 10 months have never covered the public consultation meetings of the NCBBF and thus its claim dismissing the result of the consultation process, when it has just started, is the wishful thinking of the foreign Editor and his local lackey, reflecting the desire of the owners of the Fiji Sun who support the SDL Party.

They want the public consultation process of the NCBBF to fail and be discredited.

The Fiji Sun is afraid that the majority of the people of Fiji may support the draft Peoples Charter so this Editorial wants to say before the result is known that it will be unreliable.

The Fiji Sun Vodaphone TXT Poll last week answer to the question whether people regard the Peoples Charter as the way forward for Fiji showed 75 per cent Yes and 25 per cent No.

The Fiji Sun does not even accept the result of its own Public Opinion Poll!.

Paragraph 2

Fiji Sun alleges: “First there was to be a referendum on the Charter. Then, as widespread opposition became apparent, there wasn't”.

Comment

In August, the NCBBF in response to a similar claim by the Sun, wrote to the Editor a letter [that was never published] explaining that the NCBBF had considered the option of a national referendum at a meeting in April 08 and decided to defer this option because it is like convening an election and would cost as much as having an Election.

The letter said the referendum option is still open and can be reconsidered. In response to a statement by Laisenia Qarase in the Fiji Times, the NCBBF advised him that he could raise the national referendum option for serious consideration at the Presidents Dialogue Forum later this year.



Paragraph 3

Fiji Sun alleges: “Then we were told there will be consultation among stakeholders, followed by equally wide consultation with the general public. It hadn't happened and isn't happening.

Consultation implies explanation and exchange of views and that is exactly what is not taking place in this process”

Comment

Again, this claim is totally false. It has no factual foundation.

The Sun has not named which promise to which stakeholders they are referring to.

If the Editors mean the political parties and other organisation leaders that had refused the invitation to them as stakeholders to be part of the NCBBF, then the claims is clearly false.

If the Fiji Sun means the public of Fiji, there have been already two phases of consultations by the NCBBF outreach teams that had taken place over the last 12 months involving dialogue in over 1000 villages and settlements all over Fiji.

The third more intensive phase has just begun. The Fiji Sun was invited many times to cover some of these consultations but the Paper never did and still has not done so. No wonder the Editors believe such consultations are not happening!.

Paragraph 4

Fiji Sun alleges: “The consultation” programme is an effort to sell the Charter and as such the “consultation” team are extolling the virtues of the document while glossing over - or simply omitting its highly controversial and potentially dangerous aspects”.

Comment

The Fiji Sun does not explain what are the controversial and potentially dangerous aspect of the Peoples Charter they are referring to. Calling the draft Peoples Charter “dangerous” is naïve scaremongering because this only compels people to obtain a copy of the draft Peoples Charter to read and find out if the Fiji Sun's view has any substance.

They will find it has no substance.

Thanks to the Fiji Sun for inadvertently encouraging people to read the draft People's Charter!

Paragraph 5

Fiji Sun alleges: “Now we discover that people who tick Yes or No in this charade of a public vote will be asked to give their names, addresses and telephone numbers.

Why? Well we are told this is for verification purposes but if people decline to divulge their addresses and telephone contacts, their “votes” will still be counted.”

Comment

There is nothing unusual about filling official survey response forms that ask for respondent's contact addresses, including telephones numbers.

This is a voluntary consultation form and respondents are merely requested their address for future verification [including by the news media], to strengthen the integrity of the NCBBF consultation process.

The Fiji Sun need not worry about the internal verification system of NCBBF.

It seems that the Editorial writer has not closely read the response forms it is criticizing and further, he has also not been reading or hearing the NCBBF repeated statements to the media that filling of the Response forms is voluntary.

Those who do decide to fill the forms will be under no compulsion or threat, for the forms provide for them to state their opinions freely if they support or do not support the draft Peoples Charter. It seems the Fiji Sun would like people to believe the Police and soldiers will be at these public consultations to intimidate people to support the draft Peoples Charter! The Fiji Sun will allege anything to discredit what it has already decided to oppose. The Response Form is transparent and it is simply a way of recording people's attitude to the draft Peoples Charter.

The Fiji Sun desperately wants the NCBBF public consultation process to be everything that it alleges. They are going to be disappointed because the consultation process was designed to have integrity.


Paragraph 6

Fiji Sun alleges: “But lets be under no illusions. This Charter will be declared accepted. It will be declared law, the Constitution not withstanding and this document that blatantly undermines the Constitution will be declared adopted in support of it”


Comment

The Fiji Sun Editorial writer obviously has been deaf to the NCBBF explanation that the draft Peoples Charter is merely a statement of commitment to certain principles and proposals for development.

It is not a legal document.

It will strengthen, not undermine the Constitution.

The Sun has not explained how the draft Peoples Charter undermines the Constitution.

Paragraph 7

Fiji Sun alleges: “This world of “newspeak” , as envisaged by the NCBBF, a world in which the Constitution in which Big Brother always knows what is best for us”

Comment

The attempt by the Fiji Sun to portray the NCBBF as promoting an Orwellian world of totalitarianism is a ridiculous fantasy.

The Fiji Sun in fact has created its own world of totalitarian propaganda by refusing to publish NCBBF responses to critical comments on articles that appear in the Fiji Sun, in blatant breach of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice that require the Fiji Sun to practice balanced reporting and publish comments that respond to its editorial and opinion articles.

It is sheer hypocrisy for the Fiji Sun to talk about democracy and the rule of law when it blatantly breeches its own media rules, to be fair, continuously and without shame.

Fiji Sun knows best what its readers should know and alternative views from the NCBBF it suppresses at all cost unless we are willing to pay to advertise them.


Paragraph 8

Fiji Sun alleges: “A world in which we end all coups by putting the military beyond Parliament and the Constitution”.

Comment Another preposterous claim! It is obvious that the Fiji Sun Editorial writers are unwilling to recognize that the NCBBF has the support of the RFMF to establish a better Constitutional democracy where the role of the RFMF is well defined and accountable to the Constitution and the Government. The Fiji Sun has never articulated a better, more practical path back to constitutional democracy than that espoused by the NCBBF because it seems mentally incapable of doing so.

Former Fiji Times journalist and columnists, Kamal Iyer, whose latest opinion article attempts justify the media bias:

And prominent academic Dr Biman Prasad on page 11 of the Sunday Times commented, "Journalists must add to the making of better policies by reporting in a neutral manner". This was part of a feature "In the face of poverty" written by Fiji Times senior journalist Robert Matau [...]If journalists stay neutral and just re-write press releases or take "no comment" as a non-story, then Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward would not have won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the Watergate scandal that resulted in the downfall of US President Richard Nixon.

If Fiji's media wasn't vigilant then the quarter billion National Bank of Fiji scandal would not have been exposed if journalists just took Jai Ram Reddy and David Pickering's accusations of corruption as just cheap politicking[...]

Dr Prasad's statement of journalists sta[y]ing purely neutral is similar to the desire of the State and politicians to control the media. This also has been a relentless campaign since our Independence. There are those in government, or indeed in the wide spectrum of the society, who will not want the media to dig up the truth. They will want to control the media from reporting on what already is common knowledge amongst our citizens[...]

Dr Prasad's neutrality theory therefore has no logic. It is like a driver consistently engaging the neutral gear on his/her car to save fuel without realising the damage being done to the gearbox.

In the same way if journalists stay neutral, shut their eyes, seal their lips and regard their profession as another job, the nation will suffer irreparable damage because of the misdeeds of devious, power hungry, corrupt and treacherous personalities and politicians.

Kamal Iyer perhaps is well read about misdeeds and corrupt politicians in Fiji, that it is quite difficult to separate his comments, as a independent viewer and he as a colluding subject.

T.R. Singh's perspective of the Fiji media's veneer of impartiality, is highlighted in an article titled "FIJI: The myth of a balanced, neutral and fair media" which was published on Pacific Media Centre website.

First and foremost, the connotations of neutrality, which Iyer so callously diminishes, is the corner stone of quality journalism. Unfortunately, those foundations have been seriously eroded in Kamal's Iyer's case, whose idea of neutrality is more closer to Robert Novak's outing of Valerie Plane.

It is beyond a stretch for Iyer to even consider himself and Victor Lal in the same league with Washington Post's Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, whose reports ignited the Watergate scandal.


On the aspect of accuracy and balance, a Fiji Daily Post article reports that the New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), has upheld the complaints by Fiji's Solicitor General regarding Michael Fields reports on Radio New Zealand.

The excerpt:

NZ broadcasting authority upholds S-G complaint
15-Sep-2008 08:24 AM

THE New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has upheld the complaint by Fiji Solicitor-General, Christopher Pryde against an item by journalist Michael Field broadcast on Radio New Zealand in March this year.

The BSA’s decision was received by the Solicitor-General’s office on Thursday.

Pryde had complained that the update on events in Fiji in the broadcast was an “uneducated, ill-informed, deeply biased, unbalanced, and false account of recent events in Fiji”.

The comments were in relation to the appointment of Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum as head of the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC), the deportation of Russell Hunter, Justice Scutt’s criticism of the Shameen Report, and the criminal attack on the judge.

Radio New Zealand had said that the statements complained of were not material to the discussion.

The BSA said that the public has a right to expect that news and current affairs programmes would present material accurately.

Having upheld the complaint, the BSA declined to make any orders but said that the publication of their decision would serve as a reminder to commentators that they must ensure the accuracy of factual statements.

Fiji Sun also published the news story on BSA's decision.

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

The Document in Question.

The allegations of emails being hacked in Fiji, are being spun heavily by the Fiji media. Concerns of privacy aside, what are the facts of the issue?
Local lawyer, Graham Leung admits to be the author of a document titled " Exposing the Lie" which was circulated to a Public Relations consultant, Matt Wilson for his advice.

Interim Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had summoned the Fiji Times Publisher to address the contents and accuracy of that particular document, in relation to the recent media coverage on allegations of tax evasion, which seemingly appeared to be unfair and unbalanced.

Background on Graham Leung.

Lawyer representing, Ballu Khan regarding the allegations of financing an assassination plot and also represents former Chief Justice, Daniel Fatiaki.
Leung, the Vice-President of LAWASIA was prevented from attending a legal conference in New Zealand, according to an article published by Lawyers Weekly online. Leung was also involved in pressuring LAWASIA President, Mah Weng Kwai to resign from the newly from corruption unit known as FICAC, the resignation was reported in a Fiji Times article.

Background on Matt Wilson.

Former Fiji Times journalist and speech writer for deposed Fiji Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase. Owner of Public Relations firm, Matt Wilson Ltd, Director and Major Shareholder of Communications Fiji Ltd, according to their website.


Fiji Sun article quotes from Telecom Fiji employee regarding the legality of phone tapping.

Phone tapping illegal: Telecom
Last updated 3/20/2008 8:19:52 AM

Any directive to tap into personal telephone lines can only come from the President, says Telecom.

Telecommunication Fiji Limited acting chief executive officer Taito Tabaleka said the permission to tap into any person’s phone calls could only come from Ratu Josefa Iloilo.

Mr Tabaleka said the company did not receive any such order from Ratu Josefa in the recent past to tap into telephone conversations.
“Under the Telecom Act, only the President can order to have a telephone tapped and only under extreme situations like for national security reasons,’’ he said.

“Only then does TFL implement necessary equipment to satisfy the request from the President. “Under the current situation we’d like to confirm that no such order has been received.”

Mr Tabaleka however did not say whether any other organisation in the country had the necessary equipment to tap into and listen to phone conversations. He also did not say if phone conversations were safe.

The revelation came after concerns were raised over the suspected tapping of phones and lines belonging to individuals and organisations.Meanwhile, a media consultant yesterday alleged to have been threatened by a military personnel over an article he had edited.

Matt Wilson, a public affairs and media consultant, said he was threatened by someone he suspected to be from the military over professional editorial services he had provided for a draft article sent to him by Suva lawyer Graham Leung.

In a statement, Mr Wilson said the article critical of the interim regime was similar to countless others he had done in his career. “Mr Leung’s draft contained some forthright comment but I did not think it was particularly strident,’’ he said.
“I have seen more outspoken commentaries on the local situation.

It was for Mr Leung to ensure that the final version was accurate.” Mr Wilson said at about 5.40pm a caller speaking in a loud and aggressive voice demanded to speak to him.

“I asked who was calling and I thought I heard the name ‘Sota’ or ‘Sotia’,’’ he said. “He told me to be careful and to watch out, and said “we know what you are doing”. “He said “we have intercepted your letter to the Fiji Times”.

Then he put the receiver down.” “Of course, there was no letter from me to the Fiji Times. There was a draft article that I believe Mr Leung intended to send to that newspaper.”

Mr Leung had told an overseas journalist that he had also been threatened by someone from the military over that same letter.

In an article on Radio Fiji website, Fiji Times Editor has disputed the recent comments of the Interim Attorney General, regarding the article written by controversial lawyer, Graham Leung.

The excerpt of the Radio Fiji article:

‘Come out with proof’ says newspaper
Monday, March 17, 2008

The Fiji Times has questioned the Attorney-General office to come out with proof of allegations he made last Friday of articles which the newspaper states does not exist.

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika in responding to the AG’s claims at a media conference says it’s unfair of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to make accusations on non-existent articles.

“To be intimidated over an issue which doesn’t even exist and which is being created by the Interim Attorney General himself I don’t think that’s fair on anyone.

“We have made a current check of our database and nothing existed there, I don’t know where he got the documents from and so it’s actually for him to say where he got the documents from and what is contained in them,” he said.

Rika adds the Attorney-General needs to support his claim against columnist James Bolavucu because as far as he’s concerned Bolavucu has been a regular contributor who lives in the United Kingdom.

On Friday, the AG also claimed that the interim government was reliably informed that Bolavucu was not corresponding from the UK but from Tamavua.

The excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Military threatened me, Leung tells Radio NZ

Monday, March 17, 2008

SUVA lawyer Grahame Leung yesterday told Radio New Zealand he received a threatening phone call from the military this week.

Mr Leung told Radio NZ the threatening call he received was over an article he was writing for The Fiji Times, criticising the interim Government. He is representing New Zealander Ballu Khan who is charged with conspiring to kill interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and some other interim Government members. Mr Leung could not be reached for a comment on the issue yesterday.

However, New Zealand lawyer Peter Williams, QC, who is also representing Mr Khan told Radio NZ he was worried for Mr Leung, given the number of incidents in which people had died or were beaten while in custody.

Mr Williams said there was the potential for violence, as there seemed to be a lack of control and restraint in Fiji at present. When asked yesterday if police had received any complaints from Mr Leung on the issue, assistant police spokesman Corporal Josaia Weicavu said they had not.

On Thursday last week, interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had summoned The Fiji Times Publisher Evan Hannah to his office.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said in a press conference the same afternoon that the meeting was to discuss the possible publication of certain articles that the Prime Minister's Office had received on Thursday afternoon. He said the PM's Office received a couple of articles from within The Fiji Times that apparently were going to be printed as an opinion piece.

[Sayed-Khaiyum] said the interim Government believed the articles contained factual inaccuracies, was highly emotive and discussed matters that were in court.

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika said Mr Sayed-Khaiyum had done himself, the media and country a great disservice by trying to create a situation that did not exist.

Mr Rika said perhaps Mr Sayed-Khaiyum should make known everything that he said to the publisher during their meeting.

Leung ratchets up his paranoia by another notch stating in a Fiji Village article that his emails are being hacked and phones tapped. That allegation was also covered by Radio Fiji article. The excerpt:

Leung believes ‘phone’s being tapped’
Tuesday, March 18, 2008


Suva lawyer Graham Leung believes his phone lines could be tapped. Leung had reportedly claimed he was being threatened last week for an article, which a local daily never published.

Speaking to Radio Australia, he says an overseas journalist had told him his phone was giving a lot of echo during the course of an interview.

“You can call it if you like a sixth sense, I do feel that my communication has been intercepted”.

Pacific Beat had asked the Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum if there’s email hacking or phone tapping activity going on. “Absolutely, I have never authorized anybody to tap phones or hack into emails.

“The point is its unfortunate it appears to me that if a certain group of people in Fiji makes an allegation, suddenly it becomes the truth and not the allegation,” he said.

Fiji Times article amplifies Leung's anger over the claims of hacked emails.

The excerpt:

Breach angers lawyer Leung

Thursday, March 20, 2008

SUVA lawyer Graham Leung is almost certain his office computers have been hacked after a series of electronic correspondence were intercepted by parties other than the intended recipient.

He said several weeks ago, an email by one of his colleagues (at Howards Lawyers) to someone in New Zealand was leaked.

"A list of cases that were sent to me from my New Zealand lawyer who I am assisting with the Chief Justice's case before a Tribunal, found its way into the hands of third parties unconnected with the case," said Mr Leung.

"The final evidence was when a media consultant whom I emailed a draft copy of an article I am researching, received a phone call last Friday about the same time as I did and was told 'Be careful, watch out. We know what you are doing. We have intercepted a letter to The Fiji Times'."

He confirmed yesterday the number recorded on the caller ID of his land telephone line was from the Queen Elizabeth Barracks 3385222 - although the caller did not identify himself.

Calls to the military's media cell yesterday afternoon were unanswered.

At a press conference last week, interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said the Prime Minister's Office received a couple of articles that were written as an opinion piece and was to be published by this newspaper. This is the same article Mr Leung was compiling but which had not been released to The Fiji Times.

Mr Leung said with the availability of modern satellites, spying on people thousands of miles away and computer hacking would be quite easy.

But, he said, his article that was in the interim Government's possession, could not be said to be stolen as there were no laws to criminalise hacking or unauthorised interference with computers and receipt of this information.

"But in many countries, the person or persons who hacked my computer would have committed a crime by what they did," he said.

"In any event, my legal right to privacy has been violated. I can't understand the fuss about the article. Like any other citizen, I have a right to freedom of conscience and expression. I am entitled to enjoy those rights because they are in the Constitution," he said.

Perhaps Leung should realize, that everyone's electronic communications are routinely sucked up by global intercepts.
These electronic intercepts are done globally and vacuums up tera bytes of data in the program known as Echelon, which actually makes Leung's unfounded allegations appear dwarfish in comparison.


The super network of electron filters is run by NSA and the organization is perhaps the biggest consumer of resources in all of America's Government agencies.

One thing is for sure, the proposed retroactive immunity for Telecom companies was rejected in the Democratic controlled House, according to a New York Times article. The US President has vowed to veto any legislation that omits Telecom immunity.

An interesting letter appears in the Fiji Times Voice of the People column in response to an earlier Fiji Times article regarding the allegations of local lawyer, Graham Leung.


The excerpt of the Letter:

Biased Report

Your article about Mr Leung's report of military harassment to Radio New Zealand is in itself a patently biased piece of reporting.

Mr Leung's report is just that it is nothing more than a claim, yet you jump from that to report instances of abuse in custody which Mr Leung is not and then go on to refer to the Attorney-General's attempts to pre-empt the publication of inaccurate and possibly contemptuous articles.

There is nothing of substance in the article whatsoever.

Mr Leung does not state what threats were made to him, the Attorney-General does not disclose the nature of the articles he is concerned about. Yet you seem to link all these nebulous events to create a web of political unrest and violence that doesn't exist and which defies logic.

K. Madigan
Hong Kong

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Yaqara Ownership-Half The Truth Is Often The Whole Lie.

In a follow up to the SiFM posts titled Fiji Water Carbon Trade-A Can of Worms and The Trouble With Native Land Administrators.

The ownership of Yaqara, is a question akin to a bad penny- one that keeps on turning up; much to the dismay of the Studio City project developers and Fiji Water owners.

The subject of ownership was covered in a Fiji Live article and the story of FICAC's involvement was first released by Fiji TV news.

The excerpt of the FL article:

Yaqara project faces another setback
20 FEB 2008

One of Fiji’s biggest projects, the Yaqara Studio City in Ra is facing another setback after some landowners claimed alleged irregularities regarding some land that the project will be constructed on.

Yesterday, some landowners handed the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) some documents relating to the multi-million dollar Yaqara project.

FICAC spokesperson Maraia Vavaitamana confirmed that they have received a complaint pertaining to the Yaqara Studio Project but would not reveal what the complaint is.

“We are in the process of assessing the complaint and the documents that were handed to us. We cannot give any specifics on the turnaround time of the complaint as we have other priority cases too which we are processing at the moment,” she said.

Yaqara Group Ltd (YGL) company secretary Thomasina Ah Ben says that the landowning unit is laying claims to a portion of the land in Yaqara (which is believed to cover not only the YGL land but also Fiji Water). She says it is an illegitimate claim and has been around for a while.

Fiji TV news yesterday reported that landowners have been told by FICAC inquiries will begin with two key institutions involved in the proposed project.

Ah Ben says she does not know what evidence they are pointing to, or what the corrupt act is all about. She says no one from FICAC has contacted them as yet. “We are pretty much in the blind as everyone else.”

Ah Ben says that a few years back the company had spoken to the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) regarding the land. She said NLTB did the research and wrote back saying that the claims are not legitimate.

Ah Ben admits that this latest development is not very good news for their project which YGL has been trying very hard to get off the ground for the past eight years or so.

YGL was hoping to finalise arrangements for investment in the project by overseas company Resort and Properties Ltd by March end. That would have given it the start it needed.

The first stage including residential and hotel development is estimated to cost almost $200m. It is as yet unclear how this latest development would affect the investment arrangement.

""Four years of waiting with no word from the NLC clearly states that politics is rife in that office. We have written to the interim Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama to look into the matter because that office needs a clean-up," "

The ownership question of Yaqara has been swept under the rug repeatedly by those who have abused their position, their authority and their people. It is hoped that the answer to that question will be finally answered and those who had concealed, obfuscated and profited by hiding those unalienable truths will be brought to account.

An earlier article posted on Fiji TV website describes the frustration of the landowners. The excerpt:

Claimant writes to interim PM to intervene in Yaqara land dispute
Fiji TV
3 Feb 2008 01:25:32

A claimant to the land in Yaqara has written to the interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama to intervene and resolve ownership of the land.

The Native Land and Fisheries Commission had conducted an inquiry three years ago to determine who the rightful owner is but landowners say no decision has been relayed to them ever since. The issue of who is the rightful owner of the vast land in Yaqara has been debated for many years now.

The Crown Land which spreads more than 5000 acres and includes both the proposed Yaqara Studio City and Natural Water of Viti Limited's factory. There are three claimants to the land, the descendants of Bicilevu and villagers of Draniivi and Rabulu.

One of the claimants, Eseroma Tuibua says they are still awaiting a decision on an inquiry carried out to determine the rightful owners of the land. Tuibua has now written to interim Prime Minister to look into the issue.

[Tuibua] says the delay is frustrating, adding that if it's deliberate than those responsible should be taken to task. The Native Lands and Commission says no enquiry was held at Korovou in August 2004. In reply to our queries, the NLC says Yaqara is a crown freehold property and is owned by Mataqalis and Yavusas.

The are several major discrepancies, that confuse those following the Yaqara ownership. In the Feb. 3rd Fiji TV article, a unnamed official from Native Lands Commission (NLC) is quoted as saying that "Yaqara is crown freehold property and is owned by Mataqalis and Yavusas".

In a nutshell, Yaqara is native land which has been de-reserved and issued a 99 year native lease #27470 for 778 hectares and a 99 year crown lease #15734 for 1092 hectares.



However, the lease of native land becomes extremely murky when the leasee, subleases land and markets, sells these parcels as freehold property as seen in this website. It is mind boggling to fathom how the authorities have allowed native land under 99 year lease to be sub-leased as freehold property. Freehold is defined by Answers.com as an estate which is held in fee or for life. This is the travesty of the century in Fiji, when those who preach about defending and protecting native land, are actually the master minds.


However there is a slight difference from Qarase as quoted in a Fiji Sun article (posted below):

Former Fijian Affairs Minister and Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase said the piece of land at Yaqara belonged to the State. "The NLC cannot verify who truly owns the Yaqara piece of land because it is State land at the moment. From what I know they have not verified who the true landowners are," said Mr Qarase.

Hansard for a Joint Sitting of Fiji Parliament on July 30th 2004; document Question and Answers regarding the progress of Yaqara Studio City.

Studio City Project

(Question No. 71/2004)


HON. V. SINGH asked the Government, upon notice:

Would the honourable Minister for Commerce, Business Development and Investment inform the House as to what is the reason for the delay with the Studio City Project and when is the project expected to begin?

HON. T. VUETILOVONI (Minister for Commerce, Business Development and Investment).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question asked by the honourable Member.

I must say, Sir, I am just as interested in getting this project started as anyone else, and I have been asked similar questions at the Provincial Council meetings. Sir, I am pleased to reply to this question, although I must say, I would have understood if the question was posed by my kaivata, the honourable Member for Tavua Communal (A. Babla). But coming from the honourable Member for Vuda Open (V. Singh), my mind boggles, there must be something he is working at.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is a complex development project that belongs to Paradise Entertainment Limited. The Government has done its task in putting together fairways legislation, what we can call "building blocks" to enable this complex development project to go ahead.

Sir, if I may just go through the various things that Government has put together since the year 2000. In October 2000, we established the Fiji Audio Visual Commission.

In January 15th, 2001, Government entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Paradise Entertainment, the NLTB and the Yaqara Pastoral Company Limited for the establishment of the Audio Visual Industry in Yaqara. In May 2001, we established the Audio Visual Tax Incentives as the fiscal framework for the Audio Visual Industry and the development of the Yaqara Studio City.

In December 2002 and March 2003, development leases over land at Yaqara were issued to Paradise Entertainment Limited by NLTB and the Department of Lands, for the establishment of the Studio City Zone. In June 2003, FTIB approved the Yaqara Studio City Stage I feasibility and business plan. On December 17th, 2003, we gazetted the Town Planning Order, creating Studio City Zone as a town planning area.

On 28th January, 2004, we gazetted the land covered by the leasehold area as the Yaqara Studio City Zone under the Taxation Act. In July 2004, we issued the foreshore lease, which is the final step in securing the leasehold area for the Yaqara Studio City development. These are the so‑called building blocks in the establishment of this quite complex development project and it has taken this time from October 2000 to July 2004.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, with the finalisation of these requirements now in place, Paradise Entertainment Limited has been able to move to the final master planning stage for the Yaqara Studio City. There is currently a team of staff (domestic and international consultants), working with the Department of Town and Country Planning in concluding, as quickly as possible, the master planning of this site.

It is the intention of Paradise Entertainment Limited that formal lodgement of the Master Plan with the Department of Town and Country Planning will occur by the end of September 2004, provided the lot's master plan meets the necessary requirements and can be approved expeditiously by Government. Paradise Entertainment Limited will commence site works at the Yaqara Studio City in the fourth quarter of 2004, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I hope that answers the question, but may I just add that the establishment of the Telecom Fiji Satellite Station at Yaqara Studio City also indicates that the first work to be done in this complex development was Telecom Fiji Satellite Station Yaqara, which will be opened in August and is the first of the anchor tenants of Paradise Entertainment.

HON. A. ALI.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do thank the honourable Minister for giving the progress development step by step. The question I would like to pose is; would the honourable Minister advise this House if there is any dispute among the mataqali landowning units who are claiming ownership of the land where the Studio City is to be situated?

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think we are all aware of the so‑called disputes, which are being highlighted in the press. Yes, there are claims being made but they have been handled through the normal channel and the process there has been established.

HON. P. MUPNAR.‑ A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, Sir. As regards Paradise Entertainment Limited, who are the owners or the shareholders of that company, when that company was given contract, which other companies were considered and what was the reason for Paradise Entertainment being selected?

HON. T. VUETILOVONI.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are so many questions in that statement and I do consider that as a totally new question.

MR. SPEAKER.‑ I agree. I think we have covered this question sufficiently.

HON. K. DATT.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I can have your permission, this is a very straightforward and simple question.

MR. SPEAKER.‑ I think we have covered this question, unless you want to play a leading role in the film.

(Laughter)

HON. K. DATT.‑ Thank you for giving me the lead in that question, Sir, but that was precisely the intention of the original questioner. What he really wanted to know is; when will the first film be made at Yaqara? That is the thrust of the question. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Sir, there have been lots and lots of delays for all kinds of reasons and I often wondered whether the honourable Minister in the meantime had considered an alternative site in the beautiful mountainous and rolling lands of Vanua Levu, with blue azure seas and all kinds of settings for all kinds of acting. The question, Mr. Speaker, Sir, has the Minister considered an alternative on another island like Vanua Levu?


HON. T. VUETILOVONI.‑ Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I just put this development and the time it has taken in some sort of better perspective. I just want to remind honourable Members that it took nine years for the Novotel Hotel to really get started, the same time it is now taking us Natadola. So we are talking here about something that started in 2000 and we are talking about something actually starting by the end of this year, but I do take the honourable Member's point. We will certainly be looking North as part of our "Look North" policy and the development of Vanua Levu.

According to the excerpt of the Fiji Parliament hansard that quotes Tom Vuetilovoni, the MP from Ra (Fijian Provincial Seat). In December 2002 and March 2003, development leases over land at Yaqara were issued to Paradise Entertainment Limited by NLTB and the Department of Lands, for the establishment of the Studio City Zone.

In other words, the NLTB and Lands Department had colluded to de-reserve, lease native land for the Yaqara Studio City project without first consulting or seeking consent from the landowner(s).

NLTB's website, describes the agenda on the bi-monthly Board of Directors meeting, held in Lautoka on 23rd Oct. 2003, months later, after the lease had been issued to Paradise Entertainment Ltd.

Item 4:
Yaqara Studio City Lease - The Board was informed that a recent meeting of the landowners of Nadokana (Rabulu) and Vatukaloko (Drauniivi) had agreed to support the developments following Native Land Trust Board's issuing of the lease. Whilst there are tracts of land where ownership was disputed, there appeared to be agreement to follow the dispute resolution mechanism that currently existed. This is important as the FNAVC was now looking at amendments to legislation to open up other areas for studio facilities.

These concerns have been validated by the complaints from the landowners which have falled on deaf ears. These complaints were quoted in a Radio NZ International article. The excerpt:

Fiji landowners oppose Studio City plan

Posted at 23:05 on 22 October, 2002 UTC

A group of indigenous landowners has threatened court action against the Fiji government and the Native Lands Trust Board over the site of the proposed 500-million US dollar Studio City.

The Daily Post quotes the landowners as saying they are the rightful owners of the land located at Yaqara in north eastern Viti Levu and they will go to court if it is not returned to them.

The spokesman, Noa Sakava, says finalising a lease with a foreign company without the knowledge of the rightful owners is a serious matter. Mr Sakava says the Native Land Trust Board is losing the trust of the Fijian people because it should sort out the ownership issue first before entering into any lease agreement with Paradise Entertainment Limited.

The company, which wants to develop the site for its Studio City project, has been forced to halt work because of the land dispute.

Mr Sakava says recent statements by Paradise Entertainment’s executive chairman, Philip Gerlach, that the company is losing business clearly shows that issues related to land disputes should be taken seriously.

Another interesting fact emerged from the research; while Paradise Entertainment Ltd. the Studio City developer was granted a 99 year old lease of Yaqara, among the listed leasors(according to the Annual reports of Yaqara Group-above image) were NLTB , Fiji Government and Yaqara Pastoral Company.
A recent news release regarding Yaqara Pastoral Company was published in a Fiji Live article. The excerpt of FL article:

YPCL leasing venture progressing
21 DEC 2007
Negotiation talks to lease out the State-owned Yaqara Pastoral Company Limited (YPCL) is still continuing with the two American-based joint venture companies, Rolls International and Harris Ranch, it was confirmed today.

YPCL, through the Ministry of Public Enterprise, had put forward its case to the two overseas companies and is awaiting a feedback. This proposed plan to lease out the company stemmed out from low returns generated from its core beef operations.

Company board director, Aca Lord says its beef operation was currently an “unprofitable venture”, and attributed it to the high expenditure incurred overriding its sales revenue.

“This is the prime reasons why we want to lease out YPCL to the two companies in order to derive the much needed capital, expertise and the state of the art technology to ultimately achieve optimum results for the industry,” Lord said.

It is expected that efforts to engage the two overseas companies given its level of expertise and resources will fast track the industry to greater heights. There are also immediate plans for repair works at the estate, maintaining cattle stock and further promotion of the local beef industry.

Lord made the statement while presenting YPCL’s dividend cheque of $385,018 to the shareholding minister Poseci Bune this morning. The amount reflects a 50 per cent increase from its dividend in 2005 totalling $245,122. Lord said the increase is a result of a hike in proceeds from Natural Waters of Fiji.

Bune acknowledged the company’s effort in continuously improving profits despite the current difficulties it is facing. He stressed the need to strive for higher production to meet the catering need of the local tourism market.

Bune said efforts to engage the two strategic partners who have the expertise and resources will fast track the industry to greater heights.

It may come of a surprise to learn that Rolls International, one of the two companies leasing Yaqara Pastoral Company under the convenience of developing a sustainable beef industry in Fiji; is the current owner of Fiji Water LLC.


Blog Solivakasama commenting on the recent debacle over the transfer pricing of Fiji Water; alluded that Fiji Water had in fact, made an offer to purchase outright the Yaqara Pastoral Company but was restricted by the powers that be.


It is no minor matter that, NLTB via its Directors (Dakuidreketi and Tabakanalagi et al) had no intention of determining who the native landowners of Yaqara were, let alone seeking their consent. The ownership question of Yaqara has been swept under the rug repeatedly by those who have abused their position, their authority and their people. It is hoped that the answer to that question will be finally answered and those who had concealed, obfuscated and profited by hiding those unalienable truths will be brought to account.

Dakuidreketi was later suspended from NLTB, as published in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt:

Dakuidreketi suspended

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

INTERIM Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau has suspended Native Lands Trust Board member Keni Dakuidreketi after the independant investigation team into Fijian institutions cited certain allegations against him.

In his letter dated June 25, Ratu Epeli wrote to Mr Dakuidreketi stating the allegations surfaced over his role and capacity as a member of the NLTB board, chairman and director of Viti Development Company Limited and director of Pacific Connex.

"In view of these rather unfortunate circumstances, it would not be prudent if you were to continue to sit on the board of NLTB," the letter stated.

"Therefore in the interest of the NLTB and as chairperson of the Fijian Affairs Board, I am suspending your FAB membership of the NLTB board pending the outcome of the investigations into these allegations."

Mr Dakuidreketi confirmed receiving the letter yesterday but described the wording as 'generic' as it talked about allegations. "They are citing certain allegations which I do not know therefore I cannot comment yet," he said.

"Anyway, I am meeting the minister tomorrow and hope to discuss the matter with him."

Mr Dakuidreketi said his position as chairman of VDCL was an appointment sanctioned by the NLTB board.

Both suspended general manager of the NLTB, Kalivati Bakani and IT manager Mojito Mua were handed their termination letters citing 'no cause' recently by Ratu Epeli last week.

The excerpt of the Fiji Sun article:

NLC in the dark on studio landowners
Fiji Sun.

Last updated 2/21/2008 7:24:26 AM

The Native Lands Commission cannot confirm the owners of the piece of land proposed for a multi-million dollar studio city. NLC deputy commissioner Isoa Nasedra said they were in the process of establishing who the landowners were.

"The NLC cannot confirm from its records the family believed to be the descendents of Bicilevu is the rightful owner of the piece of land in Yaqara," said Mr Nasedra.
He said they would meet members of the Raviravi clan, who were descendants of Bicilevu, after consultations with the Roko Tui Ra.

Acting Native Land Trust Board general manager Meli Benuci could not be reached for comment. However, NLTB officials said they had never distributed land rents or royalties to any of the Yaqara land claimants.

Former Fijian Affairs Minister and Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase said the piece of land at Yaqara belonged to the State. "The NLC cannot verify who truly owns the Yaqara piece of land because it is State land at the moment. From what I know they have not verified who the true landowners are," said Mr Qarase.

Raviravi landowning unit spokesman Eseroma Tuibua said the NLC was using delaying tactics to determine the landowner. "Four years of waiting with no word from the NLC clearly states that politics is rife in that office. We have written to the interim Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama to look into the matter because that office needs a clean-up," he said.

Although Yaqara Group's Secretary, Thomasina Ah Ben prematurely dismisses the claims of the landowners as illegitimate based on prior consultations with Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB). It must be pointed that, two representatives of NLTB (Dakuidreketi and Tabakanalagi) were actually Directors of the Yaqara Group during the time. Sadly, these improprieties has conveniently escaped the mind of Ah Ben for obvious reasons.

Ousted Prime Minister has contradicted his recent comments on the ownership of Yaqara and seems to have actually done what he accuses the Krishnamurthi report on doing- A Land Grab.
It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Yaqara native was de-reserved with out the consent of the landowners and Qarase was complicit in this dubious transaction.

Qarase's comments appear in a 2002 Radio NZ International article. The excerpt of RNZI article:

Ownership row in Fiji over Studio City land

Posted at 03:48 on 24 May, 2002 UTC

A row has developed in Fiji over the ownership of land which is to be the site of a proposed one billion US dollar Studio City. The land in question is at Yaqara in north western Viti Levu.

Answering questions in parliament, the prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, said the land belongs to resident of Drauni-ivi village. Mr Qarase said the former state land was allocated to them [resident of Drauni-ivi] because they satisfied certain conditions laid down by the Native Land Trust Board. [Qarase] said the land did not belong to the Naboulou landowning unit of Tavua and they could take their claim to the court.

But a spokesman for the Naboulou landowners has attacked the government for fooling them and told the prime minister to check his facts. Noa Sakava says they have proof from the Native Lands Commission that the Studio Cityt land is theirs and will take the matter to court.

The billion dollar Studio City development will mean enormous financial returns to the landowners as well as jobs in a virtually undeveloped part of Fiji.

It is also a concern that these landowners have been disenfranchised by NLTB the institution that was supposed to defend their interests.

With the discussion of the De-reservation proposal still lingering in the minds of some; it may be a worthwhile to consider the proposal by local Academic regarding bringing landowners on board commercial arrangements according to a Fiji Live article. The excerpt of FL article:

Landowners should be co-investors: Ratuva
19 FEB 2008
A University of the South Pacific academic says that he would rather see a partnership arrangement where landowners themselves directly and actively participate in the commercial farming process with tenants as co-investors.

Dr Steven Ratuva says he would prefer this than having an ethnically divisive division of labour as suggested in the (controversial M Krishnamurthi) report.

Being co-investors would ensure that landowners learn the farming skills which they have been deprived of, says Dr Ratuva, the head of the Division of Sociology and Social Work, School of Social Science, Faculty of Arts and Law.

The Krishnamurthi report suggests the dereserving of all native lands; that instead of 4 hectare farms which are uneconomical, lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership; that the ownership will continue to be vested in the title holder, and that all investments will be by the lessee and that the lease period to be a minimum of 75 years or more.

The report further recommended that the profits may be shared in a format acceptable to the landowner and cultivator, that is, the lessee may pay rentals, the landowner may undertake share farming, (the lessee will create infrastructure and cultivate cane); the owners will be employed by the lessee on fortnightly basis; and that the proceeds will be shared 30 : 60 after costs – 30 per cent to the owner.

But Dr Ratuva believes the landowners and tenants can become shareholders within a corporate type structure and the company needs to run professionally. He suggested that the ethanol plants which are expected to be built also need to be run along the same corporate partnership between landowners, tenants, government and other investors.

In this way, the benefits of the sugar industry are shared equitably and also it could help create good ethnic relations, he pointed out.

On the proposal to dereserve all native land which in the past few days has caused much alarm amongst landowners, Dr Ratuva pointed out that in the given political climate, just the mere mention of the term "dereservation" of native land is not a politically tactical thing to do.

“It was bound to provoke reaction.” He says there is enough native land available to be leased now without really touching the reserved land.

The suggestions for lease arrangements are not new at all in the sense that they merely reinforce the existing arrangements, he pointed out.

“For instance, Fijians provide the land and the tenants provide the capital and expertise.

“This is the same old colonial arrangement which has done very little to enhance Fijian commercial progress and improve ethnic relations,” he added.

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji: Native Land De-reservation Proposal- A Bridge to the Future Or A Bridge Too Far?

The issue of de-reserving native land in Fiji seems to be blown out of proportion by the use of negative connotations framed by the local media in Fiji, underscored by the article in Fiji Times.

Deregister plan

UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Thursday, February 14, 2008

There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land. This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.

The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.

The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming. The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday. Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.

Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming. "They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.

Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value. He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.

"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.

"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership."
But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.

Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions. He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low. Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act. This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu. It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.

Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.

"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.

Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations. "I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.

Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.

"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.

Fiji Times Editorial also fails to point out the distinctions between the Lands Use Commission and the De-reserving Proposal.

The excerpt:

Give them a fair hearing

Friday, February 15, 2008

THE interim administration might mean well by commissioning a report which proposes the deregulation of native reserves. But it has failed, as many governments have failed in the past, to involve the most important stakeholders of all from the very beginning of the project. This single move has the potential to derail plans.

Any dealing with the land strikes at the heart of even the most moderate Fijian. That is why it is very important that every dealing any government has pertaining to land, must involve discussions with the landowners.

They must know exactly why the report was commissioned and what the proposals in the document will mean to individual mataqali. In the present political climate, it becomes even more important for the authorities to assuage the fears and distrust of the indigenous people.

"Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole"

Already, the tone of discussions in the villages, in homes and around the yaqona bowl has taken on an alarming slant. This is because the people who own the land do not know or fail to fully comprehend what is happening.

Force will not work, neither will the gubernatorial approach. Involve the landowners now, show them the benefits that new land legislation will bring. The way to the landowner's heart and mind is increasingly through the pocket. An equitable return and security is what the landowner wants and deserves.

What government should aim to achieve, however, is to make the indigenous people less reliant on handouts such as the Agriculture Scam or, to some extent, lease payments. As the Krishnamurthi Report points out, Fijians do not have enough incentive for farming and returns from indigenous land are meagre, at best.

It goes further to say that successive governments, the Native Land Trust Board and the chiefs have not done enough for the welfare of the people. The Fijian must be allowed to play a more active role in the use of indigenous land and reap maximum returns.

This means the indigenous people must run the business be it a farm or backpacker resort themselves. The NLTB should provide funding, training and administrative support for these ventures.

It is time for the Fijian to destroy the myth that the indigenous people are lazy and cannot run farms or successful businesses.

The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come."

If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."
(Niko Naiwaikula: Fiji Times Weds. February 13, 2008)

The story took on its own life when, many commentators ill-informed of the two different aspects of the Lands Use Commission and the "Krishnamurthi" Report, which some labeled as a land grab because it proposes (the key word) to de-reserve native land tracts in Fiji.

Some of the comments are from the usual instigators, who continue to broad side the proposal of de-reserving native land in Fiji, as if it was signed, sealed and delivered. Most importantly, most of scathing of comments come from entrenched Chieftains from the North-East sector, who view this proposal as a 'coup de grace' to their spheres of influence, which indirectly affects their future political aspirations.

Among the notables, the convicted Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove and former Minister for Fijian Affairs, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu whose comments appeared in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:

Touch not, Tui Cakau sounds warning on de-reservation

Saturday, February 16, 2008

THE Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, has warned the Native Land Trust Board against steps to de-reserve native land until the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Agreement is resolved.

Speaking from Taveuni yesterday, Ratu Naiqama expressed concern and urged the NLTB, interim Prime Minister and the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, to reconsider any effort to de-reserve land.

"They should not make any hasty decision here. Precedents of reserve land being de-reserved which fell in the ambits of ALTO (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Ordinance). A classic example was Korovuto in Nadi and NLTB has records to prove my point. They should not shy away from history. Tenants of reserve land have now been taken over by ALTO in the 1970s," Ratu Naiqama said.

He said de-reservation of land was here to stay but changes would only come about if it had the numbers in the House of Representatives.

Ratu Naiqama who was Fijian Affairs Minister in the ousted SDL government and held a managerial post at NLTB, said there was no guarantee landowners would not lose their land, given the history of landowner losses under ALTO.

"Why are they trying to touch reserve land when ALTA has not been resolved? Is this another way of hoodwinking Fijians as they did during Mahendra Chaudhry's one-year reign as prime minister?

"In all this, landowners will be the ultimate losers," he said.

This issue of land solutions has seemingly prompted the ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase and other SDL patrons, who continue to issue their dime's worth, as demonstrated in a Fiji Times article.
Qarase like other politicians with ulterior motives, unapologetically gravitate to the limelight like a baby in a christening, a bride at a wedding and a corpse in a funeral; all rolled into one.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Qarase condemns plan as land grab

Sunday, February 17, 2008

OUSTED Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has labeled a move to dereserve native land as a "land-grab" by Mahendra Chaudhry.

"I believe that it is an initiative by the interim Minister for Finance, Mahendra Chaudhry and he is just using the consultant from India, Dr Krishnamurthi", Mr Qarase said. "This is nothing less than a grab for land for Mr Chaudhry and his followers," [Qarase] said.

Mr Qarase added there are 600,000 hectares of land already used for cane farming and that was more than enough for cane production. He [further] added the optimum level of cane production for farmers is from four to five million tones a year.

"The problem is the low production. At the moment, Fiji is producing around 50 tones of cane per hectare, but that needs to be increased to 70 or 80 tones in order to meet the optimum target level," Mr Qarase said.

Mr Qarase added if the proposal to de-reserve native land goes ahead, the interim Government would be treading on dangerous ground.

"Land to the Fijian is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition."

Other even keeled commentators like the former NLTB lawyer, Niko Nawaikula has urged that landowners should be fully consulted in the matter according to a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:

Inform landowners properly: Nawaikula

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Update: 11:18AM A FORMER lawyer for the Native Lands Trust Board said landowners should be informed fully why their land was to be dereserved.

Niko Nawaikula, the deposed Deputy Speaker of the House of representatives, former secretary of the NLTB and lawyer said getting approval or consent for dereservation was not a problem.

Replying to a consultancy report from Dr Krishnamurthi of Sakhti consultancy in India prepared for interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, Mr Nawaikula said the important part was to inform landowners properly what they were derserving the land for.

"It took the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna 20 years of extensive consultation and planning to dereserve native land," Mr Nawaikula said.

"The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come. If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."

Mr Nawaikula said for dereservation one needed 50 per cent of mataqali to give their handwritten consent.

On de-reserving land for sugar, Mr Nawaikula said from a landowners point of view they should be trained in the industry and farming and have an equitable share in the Fiji Sugar Corporation.

A chief from the Vuda and former diplomat and politician highlighted the sensitivity of the subject and urges for an extensive consultative process that should be presented to the grassroots and the layers above or beyond, according to a Fiji Times article.
The stark difference in rhetoric between the Western and Eastern Chieftains has been such a contrast. Easterners (including parts of the North) reject the proposal outright, even though most have not even read the report. Some westerners can be more approachable and may take the time to consider the pros and cons.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Dereservation 'too sensitive'

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Former diplomat and landowner Ratu Tevita Momoedonu believes that dereservation of native land was a sensitive issue that would stir up the emotions of indigenous Fijians.

Ratu Tevita said that it would invite all sorts of problems. He said that the land was a sensitive issue for the Fijian people, so any plans to do anything to it should be considered carefully. Ratu Tevita said extensive consultation should be done with the landowners.

"If anyone wants to touch the land that is reserved for the Fijians, they must make their intentions very clear and consult the whole Fijian system from the village level right up to the provincial level," he said.

Ratu Tevita said landowners must be consulted and made aware of what the land would be used for.

"This is a very sensitive issue that will surely stir up the emotions of the Fijians. They just can't impose it from the top, it is dangerous." Ratu Tevita, like other chiefs, has expressed his concern on the proposal for native land to be dereserved to help boost the ailing sugar industry.

The nationalist Taukei Movement western branch assistant secretary Isikeli Uluikavoro Qoro said: "It is too sensitive to the Fijians. Please leave the native reserve land alone."

" People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use ". (M. Chaudhry Fiji Times Sun. Feb 17th 2008)

"This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators". (Krishanmurthi report- Fiji Live Feb. 18th 2008)

Despite the chorus of uninformed voices, the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) spokesman has officially stated that plans for the de-reserving of all native land will not get their approval, according to a Fiji Times article.

The excerpt of FT article:

NLTB no to native land proposal

UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Saturday, February 16, 2008

THE Native Land Trust Board has made it clear it will not agree to de- reserve native land.

"The NLTB will never agree to the proposal that all native land be de- reserved because we have to think of the indigenous generation," said NLTB public relations officer Ro Alipate Mataitini. Ro Alipate said even though many landowners might agree to the de- reservation of native land, the NLTB would have the last say on any development proposal.

"If the NLTB thinks the decision by the landowners will not benefit them in the long term, the process will not go ahead unless the NLTB is satisfied it will be in the long-term interests of the landowners and their descendants.

"This is important information since people must not think that just by getting the majority of landowners to approve de-reservation that it will automatically happen," he said.

About 37 per cent of native land is set aside as reserves from the total 87.75 per cent of native land in Fiji. Freehold land is about 6 per cent, state land is about 4 per cent and land for Rotumans is about 0.24 per cent, NLTB statistics say.

According to Dr Krishnamurthi, the first major step was to de-reserve all native land. "It is obvious that the 4.0 hectare farms are uneconomical, thus lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership," Dr Krishnamurthi recommended.

He said ownership would be vested on the title holder and investments would be by the lessee at a lease period of 75 years or more.

However, a segment of the Krishnamurthi report, according to a Fiji Live article actually identifies the reason for the lack of social mobility in Fijians, stems from the neglect of the Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB), successive Fijian Governments and the influence of Chiefs.

The excerpt of the FL article:

NLTB, Govts, chiefs accused of neglect
18 FEB 2008
The controversial Krishnamurthi report has accused the administrator of native lands, the Native Land Trust Board, successive Fiji governments and Fijian chiefs for neglecting to contribute to the welfare of indigenous Fijian people.

It highlighted that members of the mataqali (clan) had to lease their own land from NLTB, and that the board was very slow in facilitating processes including disbursing monies due to land owners.

Large amounts are still outstanding, the report alleges. “The land owners remained poor with poor standards of living,” the report stated. The NLTB is expected to reply later to these accusations.

The report by consultant M Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the Fiji sugar industry recommends de-reserving land for lots of 40 to 400ha to be created and leased to one individual or company to undertake commercial sugarcane farming.

Native land comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass. The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.

At least two chiefs have spoken strongly against the idea – Nadroga high chief Na Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu and Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa.

The report goes on to say that the major cause of productivity decline for sugar is land reservations for landowners. It said while the concept was good the practice of it did not fit any logic, that is, the land owner had to lease from the NLTB his own land and pay rentals.

“This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators.”

The report claimed that it was found that NLTB was and is very slow in facilitating processes. According to the report, the share of land proceeds to Fijians were negligible and hence of no value. Thus the cropping area fell down to some 60,000 ha with an average of 25mt per ha, it maintains.

But a University of the South Pacific academic Professor Biman Chand Prasad has described the 12-page Krishnamurthi Report proposal as poorly written and lacking depth and discussion of the changed conditions that the sugar industry is operating in at present.

Professor Prasad says the report was misleading in saying that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.

“The report fails to refer to the many studies on the efficiency of sugarcane farming that have identified several factors which have led to the declining sugarcane yields. These include poor farming practices, rising costs of labour and farm implements and poor extension services to name a few.”

While uncertainty of tenure contributes to lower productivity, it is misleading to say that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.
“On the contrary, many of the leases which were not renewed since 1997 have been renewed and leased to new tenants. For example between 1997 and 2003 about 5506 leases were renewed.”

According to the report, Dr M Krishnamurthi hails from Fiji where he spent 30 years, of which 18 years was as director of Sugarcane Researches and later Sri Lanka, Thailand, India in establishment of research centres and implementation of highly profitable programmes.

Sadly, some of the most vitriolic objections are being echoed by individuals who conveniently have morphed the land issue into racial overtones, as CCF President alluded to in a Fiji Times article. The except of the FT article:

Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.

"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.

He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar industry collapsed.

Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry promotes the positive returns for landowners, derived from this de-reservation policy, as published in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:

Chaudhry defends land proposal

Sunday, February 17, 2008

INTERIM Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has defended the proposal to dereserve all native land, saying it was in the best interests of the indigenous community.

Mr Chaudhry said the proposal would lift the Fijian community out of poverty by guaranteeing financial returns for their most treasured asset.

Mr Chaudhry also reassured the indigenous community that dereservation would not result in them losing their land. "The Fijian people own 85 per cent of the land and this proposal would put millions of dollars into the pockets of landowners," Mr Chaudhry said.

"People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use," he said. "This proposal would result in landowners being given the lease then allowed to hire contractors to work the land while they get financial returns through cooperatives that would be set up for them. "How can we let the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty when they own assets worth tens of millions of dollars," [Chaudhry] said.

"We do not want to take the land away from the landowning community but to see that they receive financial returns from their resources," he said.

Mr Chaudhry said the proposal by Dr M Krishnamurti was made in light of the mill upgrades underway that would eventually require an increased cane volume of about four million tones by 2010.

Mr Chaudhry said Mr Krishnamurti had suggested dereservation to bring all available unused cane land into production. He said the proposal was handed over to the Native Lands Trust Board for consideration and the decision was left to the board on whether to go ahead with the initiative.

He claimed some people were trying to "create mischief" by opposing the plan.

Interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama also warns those in Fiji who prey on emotions, not to mislead, confuse and divide the community in an article in Fiji Village.


The excerpt of the FV article:

Interim PM clears govt stance on land issue
Publish date/time: 15/02/2008 [17:11]

The Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama stresses that the interim government has not taken any formal stance on the proposal in relation to the de-reservation of native lands.

In a statement this afternoon, Commodore Bainimarama said the comments which have been made on the report by Indian Consultant Dr. M Krishnamurthi, have as usual, attempted to politicize and sensationalize the land issue by selectively highlighting the recommendations in the report.

Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole.

He said in this context the interim government has set up the Committee on Better Utilization of Land and its proposals were endorsed by cabinet. However, the Committee was not even aware of Dr. Krishnamurthi's report and as such the report never featured in its deliberations.

The Interim Prime Minister said to set the record straight, the Committee's recommendations and Dr. Krishnamurthi's report are two different matters and should not be confused with governments intentions.

The Commander reveals that the Committee on better utilization of land's recommendations is a direct result of its deliberations with the NLTB and the relevance, viability and acceptance or otherwise of the NLTB's proposal for incentives to be offered to landowners.

Commodore Bainimarama states that the interim governments intentions is very clear and through the incentive packages as recommended by the NLTB, landowners should expect more rental income in the future with an increase in native land rentals to 10 percent of unimproved capital value.

He revealed that under the new proposed arrangements, the NLTB will consider waiving the 15% poundage to be charged on the proposed rental subsidy which will ensure maximum benefits are passed on to the landowners. He also revealed that the Committee on Better Utilization of Land has recommended that the term of native leases be increased from 30 to 50 years.

Bainimarama said the need to put in place an attractive incentive package that benefits both landowners and tenants is a pressing national issue that needs to be urgently addressed.

The Committee on Better Utilization of Land consists the Permanent Secretary of Indigenous Affairs Ratu Meli Bainimarama, Permanent Secretary at the Prime Ministers office Pramesh Chand, PS Land Dr. Rohit Kishore, PS for Provincial Development Manasa Vaniqi, Acting Permanent Secretary for Agriculture Dr. Rishard Beyer, Acting Deputy General Manager of NLTB Meli Benuci and Chairman of the Sugar Commission of Fiji John May.

The Interim Prime Minister stresses that the interim government fully recognizes the historical, social and cultural significance, which indigenous Fijians place on their customary land.

He said recognizing this the interim government has come up with a proposal which would accrue more benefits to the landowners, yet fully safeguard their rights to ownership as entrenched in the existing legislations.

Commodore Bainimarama stresses that it is time to put emotions aside and start looking at issues rationally.

The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.

The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.

Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.

Clearly the blog postings by Fijian Custom Culture and Solivakasama apparently fit that description of "preying on emotions".

While a blog posting by Babasiga discuss the report in a intelligent manner and in another post offers some comparisons to the island of Mauritius and the aspect of the declining sugar industry.






Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs