Electoral Reform in Fiji- Beta Democracy 3.0

An exceptionally honest opinion article from New Zealand based writer regarding Fiji's political landscape, which was published in a Fiji Times article.
The excerpt:

Are we ready for elections

THAKUR RANJIT SINGH
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. I have said this before and reiterate that in the case of Fiji our leaders and politicians have short memories.

What we should have learnt from the 2000 attempted coup is that no political interests should be involved in any interim government. Qarase and his motley crowd used the interim period to use and abuse tax-payer resources to trump up their political parties and political career. Fiji paid a heavy price in the Agriculture Scam and a shady government. One would have thought we learnt from our mistakes.

When Frank Bainimarama made his move in December, 2006, one would have thought that he had learnt from the escapades of the SDL Party as interim government.
Therefore, we thought that the interim government of 2006 would be made up of apolitical people who would not aspire for political position or opportunity or abuse their positions to drum up political support and because of this may be placed in a conflict of interest situation. This conflict could arise between what is good for the country and what is good for your political party.

The interim Government has more than one leader and politicians from active political parties and this has given the interim regime some disrespect, disrepute and some actions and decisions that may be deemed to border on political-fertilisation rather than something that is good for the country.

With daily happenings in Fiji now, people like me have become very embarrassed. This is because when Frank took power in 2006, some considered it as God sent, and a saviour who had come to rescue democracy from irresponsible and racist leadership.

People like us in New Zealand went public and supported his actions, attracting a great deal of contempt from friends and relatives. However, the news of military personnel gaining financially from their positions embarrasses people like me who had regarded the military as a saviour. There appears to be a situation that all those who are in power have a habit of putting their fingers in the till.

It appears the military has lost its plot, and the sooner it is put on track the better it is for the nation as a whole, and for people like me to redeem our respect for supporting the initial assault on a so called democracy.

However, despite the antics of military and its political cabinet ministers, there is one thing that I still agree with Bainimarama and the interim Government that Fiji is not yet ready for elections.

I agree we have many problems that need to be sorted out before we can be ready for elections. Calls for early and premature elections in Fiji by the so called bigger brothers (and bullying ones at that) are unreasonable and unwarranted, and undue interference. These countries have achieved their political development and destiny of democratic civilisation without external interference that Fiji is facing from these countries.

Fiji is at a political metamorphosis where Britain was some 600 years ago, USA was some 250 years ago, Australia and New Zealand were some 150 to 200 years ago and India was about 70 years ago.

All these countries have gone through various stages of political development involving wars, civil unrest, partitions, racial wars, penal colonies, massacres and many upheavals before they achieved the democracy that they are proud of and chiding Fiji to emulate.

At least the consolation is that Fiji has been spared the loss of lives that others suffered; nevertheless it has been facing political unrest since its independence some four decades ago.

So many elections since then have not been able to solve its problems, so what makes them think that election in March 2009 will solve Fiji's problems. These countries need to understand that even in the past elections, real democracy had never been achieved. It had merely been a sham of democracy; in many instances autocratic leaders used their traditional powers and influence to masquerade as democratic leaders.

The international community has to realise and learn that democracy measured by election is not a solution. Despite so many elections, Fiji's problems remain unresolved. Every coup exposes wounds that need to be healed and the deep underlying problems that need to be attended to.

Before Fiji can gain stability and effectively return to some degree of democracy a number of serious issues need to be addressed and resolved.

While Father Kevin Barr, in his earlier writings, has already spoken of them, I wish to repeat them here. Among them is the agenda of the nationalists who want Fiji for Fijians and Fiji as a Christian state. Another issue is the racially explosive mix of fundamentalist religion and extreme nationalism found in Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji, which has a strong influence on the political and social process.

In addition, the inherent conflicts and tensions within Fijian, chiefly between families and confederacies, are a smouldering volcano, ready to erupt.

There is a need to remove the race-based politics and election and an electoral system and process that gives same weight and importance to every vote. The current system is flawed in this respect.

For example, while Peni in Kadavu is one of the three thousand voters who elect his representative, his cousin Viliame on the other hand is one of the some eighteen thousand voters who elect his Member of Parliament in Nadroga. What this means is that Peni's Kadavu vote is worth some six times more than Viliame's Nadroga vote.

There are numerous other examples of such anomaly, discrepancy and lack of fairness that smacks on the face of democracy which promotes same value for all votes. Therefore, Fiji's elections cannot be really called fair unless this problem is sorted out.

The other lament is influence of chiefs over their voters and conflict of democracy with the ascribed chiefly status.

While some chiefs and their followers have been crying for constitutional rule and rule of law, they did not blink an eyelid to prevent the Charter team free access to deliver information to Fijian villagers. I wonder whether they knew about the constitutional requirements and provisions on freedom of movement and information.

It is essential for Australia and New Zealand to understand how democracy works in poor Third World countries. They need to realise how the leaders in such countries can exploit it for their personal and political gains while showing all the niceties of a democratic government. Does Mugabe come to mind?

Deposed Prime Minister Qarase is already on record that he would bring back the controversial Qoliqoli Bill and other racially biased controversial laws that country like New Zealand has already thrown in their parliamentary trash bin.

What then, will New Zealand rescue Fiji from its democracy that the new government would have got through an unfair electoral system and a racially entrenched ultra-nationalistic slogan?

What then, who or what will then prevent the military from repeating its action and how long will the yoyo coup rule Fiji?

Mere timetables for elections are not permanent solutions to Fiji's problems. What we need is serious consideration and strategies to address the fundamental problems with a view to eradicating the coup culture.

We have gone so far towards looking for a solution that we are at a point of no return. We have suffered more than enough in search of a solution; we shall strive to find it. Fiji should be allowed time to resolve its problems, once and for all, at its own pace and in its own time.



- Thakur Ranjit Singh is an Auckland-based political commentator on Fiji issues, an advocate of good governance and a proponent of democracy that delivers social justice to all its people.

E-mail: thakurjixtra.co.nz

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

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

The Lady Is A Tramp.

Fiji Times article quotes from the Rewa Paramount Chief, who was part of a church delegation visiting the Chair of the People's Charter, Archbishop Petero Mataca. The excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Sorry: Ro Teimumu

Friday, October 26, 2007

REWA high chief Ro Teimumu Kepa has admitted to being a part of the delegation of concerned Catholic church members who visited Archbishop Petero Mataca.

The visit was to ask Archbishop Mataca to step down as the co-chair of the National Council on Building a Better Fiji. Ro Teimumu had earlier denied being part of the delegation that visited Archbishop Mataca.

"Yes, I was a part of the delegation but I did not want to say anything at first because I did not want to make it a public issue," she said.

"But now that the Archbishop has made a statement with regards to the meeting and the issue that was discussed, I felt it was time for me to say that I was a part of the delegation. "I really want to apologise for denying my presence at the meeting to the reporter who had called me and asked me about it."

Ro Teimumu, Ratu Suliano Matanitobua and Kenneth Zinck visited Archbishop Mataca. When asked if there was a possibility of a split in the Catholic church after the decision by the Archbishop, Ro Teimumu did not directly say there was a split but admitted there were a lot of people with strong feelings about the Archbishop's decision.

Raiwaqa parish priest Father Kieran Maloney said he strongly disagreed with Archbishop Mataca's decision to co-chair the National Council. He said the acceptance was disgusting but not surprising.

"We really want to urge people to continue to attend church because it is for the people too and not only for the Archbishop.

"The church is for us and we should continue to go to church and pray for the church and its leadership," said Ro Teimumu.

The failed defamation campaign against Archbishop Mataca, has forced those in the shadows to drag out the indigenous rights issue, in a feeble attempt to rekindle the flames of dissatisfaction in the minds of the ignorant. Their spin doctoring poorly and speculatively paints the People's Charter as a clear and present danger to the indigenous Fijian race. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fiji Times article covers the opinion of the Aristocrats in the Rewa province. This comes in the wake of another Fiji Times article quoting from representatives from Somosomo Taveuni warning the teams for the People's Charter stating that, the village was off limits.

The excerpt:

Somosomo bans People's Charter teams

1635 FJT
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Update: 4.35pm THE chiefly clan of Lalagavesi, Somosomo will not allow any teams conducting awareness programs on the People's Charter into Somosomo.

Traditional spokesman Epeli Matata said the teams may visit other villages on Taveuni but the chiefly village of Somosomo would be out of bounds for them.

The military has been holding awareness programs on the People's Charter.

Charter anti-Fijian: Rewa

Friday, November 09, 2007

REWA, one of Fiji's three largest provinces, yesterday rejected the proposed People's Charter on Building a Better Fiji largely because it disagreed with efforts to ignore the existence of indigenous Fijians.

Ro Dona Takalaiyale, the leader of the Sauturaga clan and spokesman of the Rewa Bose Vanua, issued Rewa's position in a statement yesterday. Ro Dona described the charter as "a creation of non-racial Fiji and written by two foreigners without input from Fijians or their elected representatives".

Ro Dona also voiced concerns about the interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's public statements about his desire to abolish all communal seats through the People's Charter.

"Also Lt-Col Mataitoga's statement that Affirmative Action will be abolished under the charter. Also the charter is inconsistent with the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People's Article 3-5 where indigenous people are entitled to participate in the political life of the state. "It is inconsistent with the 1997 Constitution where race is recognised as an integral element of the nation of Fiji," he said.

Ro Dona said the Bose Vanua also resolved to boycott any referendum or election that will be influenced by the Charter.

Commenting on the review of the Great Council of Chiefs, Ro Dona said the vanua remained steadfast in its support of the suspended GCC's stand that the interim Government was illegal and that its actions including the review of the GCC were illegal and unconstitutional.

"The Bose Vanua resolves that it will not accept the outcomes of the review of the GCC by the interim Government-appointed committee and that it would not participate in any reconstituted GCC arising out of the recommendations of the committee," he said.

Earlier this month, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, the nephew of Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa, warned the indigenous population to be wary of the People's Charter because it would not allow for indigenous issues to be raised in Parliament.

He said this would greatly affect the indigenous people.

It appears that the Fijian aristocracy have launched another mis-information campaign; to shore up support for their version of social slavery. While calling for Fiji's rapid return to democracy- a farcical suggestion because all right thinking people understand that, Chief's involvement in Democracy is an oxymoron.

It is also amusing to read the concerns about indigenous rights being undermined by the People's Charter; as if the aristocracy had been given a monopoly to exclusively comment of matters pertaining to all indigenous issues. It was this monopoly that reared its ugly head in Fiji post 2000 coup, when the Paramount chief of Rewa, Ro Teimumu Kepa paid a social call with George Speight and the Rebels holed up in Fiji Parliament; while dismissing any notion to visit hostages, who were still held in nearby meeting rooms within the Parliamentry complex. It was this monopoly of Fijian chiefs that indirectly formented the riots in downtown Suva both in 1987 and 2000.





Ro Dona described the charter as "a creation of non-racial Fiji and written by two foreigners without input from Fijians or their elected representatives". Ro Dona raises the issue of the 1997 Constitution and selectively omits that that document was written and compiled by two foreigners as well. It is also the high water mark of hypocrisy, not to question the formation of the Great Council of Chiefs, an aristocratic entity imported by the British. Of course, anything foreign that does not erode the cultural exuberance of the Chiefs is kept on a pedestal; while anything progressive and visionary like the People's Charter is denounced, ridiculed and disdained by the same layer of despots.




Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Measure of a Republic in Fiji.

Wikipedia definition of a Republic includes the different types:- A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people)have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic.

Fiji is amid many changes. According to the latest census data, the population of persons with Indian heritage have dropped, according to the Fiji Times article. However, an article by Micheal Field titled "Census reveals Indians fleeing Fiji" in Stuff online Magazine frames the census data in negative conotations. Judging from the sensationalism used by Field, the actual census data does not denote that anyone is "fleeing" and it appears to be another concoction derived from Fiji's census data that was not fully released by the Bureau of Statistics.


Fiji Times article quoted from two chiefs from the Rewa Province who took issue to the recent remarks made by the Interim Prime Minister in article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)regarding the Methodist Church of Fiji and their epoch of hatred preached from the pulpit.
The following is an excerpt of the SMH article:

Rumblings of a revolution

October 27, 2007


F

iji has never had a coup like this one. As it turns into a revolution against the country's chiefly and church establishment, Hamish McDonald talks to its leader. The grandly titled King's Highway leads from Fiji's capital into the hinterland of Viti Levu, but on leaving the lowlands it abruptly degrades to a muddy, potholed dirt road, winding between jagged mountains covered in vivid green trees and scarlet flowers.

On Sunday, up by a little village of corrugated-iron houses, a man we'll call Iona (Jonah) is walking back from church, dressed in a pale blue shirt and tie and grey lava-lava kilt. He seizes the chance of a lift back to Suva.

Inside his ramshackle house, Iona grabs clothes from trunks around the furniture-free matting floors, thrusts them into a sports bag, and we set off. Iona introduces himself as a farmer and Methodist lay preacher: "The Holy Spirit has sent you here today," he declares. "Amen. Hallelujah."

On the road down, through the shabby rice-milling town of Nausori, and then over a bowl of kava at the tin shanty on Suva's fringes occupied by his ailing 73-year-old father and some younger relatives, Iona talks about how Fiji's big events have affected people like him.

There was the coup attempt in May 2000 by the young failed businessman George Speight, who held the Indo-Fijian prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, and others hostage for 56 days, until outmanoeuvred and outgunned by Fiji military's commander, Commodore Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama.

Then came a new government under Laisenia Qarase (pronounced "nGarasay"), at the head of a party representing the taukei or ethnic Fijians, the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, or SDL, and after six years, a spectacular falling out with Bainimarama, who seized power.

Iona kept growing his cassava and taro on the plot of land allotted to him by his local chief, tribal land he is not free to sell, and seeking the will of the Holy Spirit in what was happening around him.

To him and his family, Qarase was a good prime minister. "He helped the poor. When there was flooding, Qarase gave money to replace the houses, and gave a small pension to my father," Iona says. "I don't think he ever steals, but maybe the money he gave out to the poor was not properly put down in the books."

Both Speight and Bainimarama come from Iona's province on Viti Levu's eastern side, Tailevu. The coup leader, now serving a life sentence on an island off Suva, gets a tick from Iona. "George would always give a cow for a big festival up in the province," he says. "He should get a pardon, because what he did was to help the poor people."

Iona and his family don't like what Bainimarama is doing and don't like the support he is getting from many Indo-Fijians such as Chaudhry, who joined the interim government as finance minister. "Indians are idol worshippers," he says.

They especially don't like the commodore's abrupt dismissal five months ago of the Great Council of Chiefs, the pinnacle of a traditional authority structure nurtured by the British that has some important constitutional powers, notably appointing the head of state, the president.

"He want to demolish all that system," says cousin Tevita, studying at a Methodist theological college. "He himself does not know what to do," Tevita adds. "He's relying on secret outsiders. They keep texting him on mobile phones and all."

So far, this view from the bottom, with its mix of patronage and conspiracies, hasn't counted much. Bainimarama's obstacles have mostly come from Fiji's institutions - the chiefs' council, the political parties, the legal system, some churches, the mostly Australian-owned newspapers, the human rights groups.

But the day that the grassroots voice will decide has suddenly grown closer, since Bainimarama agreed at a meeting with South Pacific leaders in Tonga on October 17 to hold elections for a new civilian government by the end of March 2009 and to abide by the result.

All settings unaltered, Qarase would probably sweep back in. He remains popular with ethnic Fijians whose vote is given extra weight in Fiji's electoral system. The ousted chiefs and Methodist leaders support him. Despite trawling through the files, Bainimarama's men have not found any corruption to pin on him.

But if Bainimarama has his way the settings will be altered. Pacific leaders pressed him to commit to holding the elections under Fiji's existing constitution and laws, but he didn't. Instead, as Bainimarama spelled out in an interview with the Herald this week, he hopes to sweep away the entire structure of racial-based voting that has ruled Fiji since independence in 1970.

"The countries that are urging us to return to democracy - I don't know if they understand how unfair the system has been over the last 20 or 30 years," Bainimarama says.

""Fijians live in a democracy with a mentality that belongs to the Fijian chiefly system. They decide for us who to vote for, our church talatalas [ministers] decide for us who to vote for. These are the Fijians living in the villages and rural areas. The provincial [chiefly] councils dictate for us who to vote for and we go along with that." "

Instead of voters having two votes, one for a general all-races constituency and one for a closed communal constituency, Bainimarama wants a single vote for all in multiracial constituencies.

"The common roll is the way to go," he says. "It takes away the race card."

He hopes the panel he co-chairs with the Catholic Archbishop, Petero Mataca, to draw up a "people's charter" will back this. Communal seats? "I am hoping they will do away with them altogether," he says.

Since most of the commodore's opponents, including the Methodist Church (sometimes called 'the taukei movement at prayer'), are boycotting the charter, there is a fair chance that it will do just that.

As Qarase observed this week, while waiting at his Suva house for a reply to his request for a meeting with the commodore: "I have a feeling that this guy, when he wants something, he must get it right or wrong."

But how to make it legal? Under the existing constitution, which Bainimarama has said is still in force, the only mechanism for amendment is by two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives, dissolved by order of the 86-year-old President, Josefa Iloilo, after the December coup.

"Parliament is not going to sit, that's for sure, so take away that option," says Bainimarama. "There's talk of referendum, we can do it through referendum. We have not stopped discussing how we can do it … there has to be some changes to the constitution because of the electoral reform, there has to be amendment."

The precise way then? "I leave that to the legal people," he says.

The chief legal person is the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, an Australian-trained lawyer formerly with the law firm Minter Ellison in Sydney, who lost his permanent residency in Australia as part of Canberra's "targeted sanctions" against Bainimarama and associates, including any identifiable soldiers.

Sayed-Khaiyum won't be specific ahead of the charter, but says a referendum can carry great weight. Fiji's first constitution in 1970 was negotiated with London "by a handful of leaders" and then simply promulgated, he notes. The army coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka's 1990 constitution, from which the present one is derived by amendment, was "shoved down our throat at midnight".

A referendum and the eventual elections will be battles for the mind of Fijians such as Iona, with the traditional chiefs and many of the preachers ranged against Bainimarama.

In coming weeks, Bainimarama will fire his next salvo at recalcitrant chiefs, with a dossier detailing how they have played politics, and creamed off rents on traditional lands. With about half the Fijians drifting away from ancestral villages to the towns, the hold of the chiefs on them may be weakening anyway.

The commodore is equally scornful of the Methodist leadership, whose flock includes 80 per cent of ethnic Fijians and who have rejected the charter, calling for an immediate return to elections.

"They had been "sowing the seeds of [racial] hatred" since they backed Rabuka's coup, and were part of a traditional conspiracy of power against ordinary Fijians. "The chiefs, the politicians and the talatalas keep them suppressed so that they can take advantage of them every now and then," Bainimarama says.
"

He will fight them on Christian principles. "You know it's very easy to tell the people in the villages, who go to church every Sunday, and the first thing you are taught there is love," he says. "And if you don't love your neighbour, what's the use? But they will understand that."

The fourth arm of Fijian supremacy used to be the military, which has just 15 Indians among its 3527 full-time members (thanks to its rigorous physical standards and low pay, not any exclusion policy, insists a spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Mosese Tikaitonga).

Bainimarama - and other officers contacted - insist the military has done a 180-degree turn since supporting Rabuka. "When 1987 came around we thought Rabuka was it, until we realised that the people who had backed Rabuka did it for their own interests," he says.

Whether the standing of the army can help carry the debate remains to be seen. In the first months after the coup, soldiers cracked down on dissenters and petty criminals, with at least two dead from barrack-room bashings and humiliations. The troops returned to bases in May, and incidents have abated, but the lesson lingers.

"People keep inside what they think of this government, because they are very frightened," Iona says.

The Methodist Church is not not lying down. Its head of "Christian citizenship", Mamasa Lasaro, says none of Bainimarama's charges against Qarase or the chiefs have been proven. Fiji was no more or less corrupt than any other comparable country.

The church had set up branches for its minority of non-Fijian believers and was trying to engage with a multicultural reality. "We are struggling,' he admits. "But to say we are very racial, we are very communal - it's quite unfair."

Levelling the playing field could take generations, he says. "I think that is a very superficial view by a few army officers," Lasaro says, "because on the ground there is a feeling of insecurity. On one side the Fijians are very insecure about their identity and their destiny in their own country."

The constitution can also fight back, with Qarase's case for reinstatement coming before Fiji's highest court in March. And once it gets to open politics, Qarase's SDL will not hesitate to play the accusation that December was an "Indian coup", with Chaudhry the Machiavelli behind Bainimarama. "He was very much part of the planning process," Qarase says.

One of the commodore's red-line issues leading to the coup - Qarase's attempt to legislate ethnic Fijian ownership of inshore fishing grounds, known as qoliqoli - is also susceptible to counter-charges of alien influence against native Fijian interests.

"I think he was very much influenced by a few people in the tourist industry," Qarase says.

For his part, Bainimarama thinks the military is the only entity that can bring change. "No other entity that has an influence with the Fijians is professional and apolitical like us," he says.

As for any external influence over the Qoliqoli Bill, it had come from the Maori figure and New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, he says. Peters had told Bainimarama he had personally headed off similar legislation because he foresaw "Maori killing Maori" over it.

Bainimarama throws up his hands at the idea Fijians need "generations" of protection. "They want us to remain in that shell, because they can take advantage of that," he says. "We should come out of this shell and think for ourselves, and do things that are right. And one of them is to recognise that another race is in Fiji. That's the only way forward.

"It's a revolution, but it needs to be done in Fiji … we were heading back into our cannibalistic days. We were going to get rid of the Indians and we would be just left on our own. And that would be worse for everyone."

This is an excerpt of the Fiji Time article:

Attack on church upsets chief

Thursday, November 01, 2007

REWA chief Ro Filipe Tuisawau described comments by interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama about the church and chiefs as inciteful and would definitely burn whatever bridges left between chiefs, church, the vanua and the interim regime.

Ro Filipe, the nephew of the Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa said, "we are just plain sick and tired of his childish and immature comments and shows that once again he is not of national leadership material."

He was reacting to Commodore Bainimarama's observations in an Australian newspaper that the church had been "sowing the seeds of hatred" since they backed Sitiveni Rabuka's coup, and were part of a traditional conspiracy of power against ordinary Fijians. "The chiefs, the politicians and the talatalas keep them suppressed so that they can take advantage of them every now and then," Commodore Bainimarama said in the article.

"The words of a leader must heal and build bridges but this leader destroys and hurts with his words and actions. We can only pray that this nightmare ends soon," Ro Filipe said.

"Despite the insults and hurt, all should be thankful that the Fijian chiefs and people have chosen to respect the rule of law. "As for the Charter, it cannot be a people's Charter because it did not originate from the people. The regime leader has publicly stated that the Fijian communal seats will be abolished and that the Charter structure will be used to achieve that. No right thinking Fijian must ever support this Charter which in the long term will make Fijians political refugees in their own land."

Although, the chiefs are entitled to their opinion however flawed it maybe; the truth of the matter may rest with the experience of Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) head, Rev. Aquila Yabaki as outlined in a Fiji Village article. The excerpt of the Fiji Village article:

Yabaki agrees with Interim PM
Former Methodist Church Minister, and CCF Executive Director, Reverand Akuila Yabaki said he agrees with the statement made by Interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama said the Methodist Church leadership in Fiji has been sowing the seeds of racial hatred in the country since they backed Rabuka's coup in 1987.

Reverand Yabaki said the church leadership supported the last two coups by Rabuka and George Speight, but the big question is why they have changed their stance on the events of December 5th last year.

Reverand Yabaki said he was part of the church leadership in 1987, but he was told to go after he opposed the military coup. Bainimarama said the Methodist leadership was part of a traditional conspiracy of power against the ordinary Fijians and the chiefs, the politicians and the church talatalas keep the ordinary Fijians suppressed so that they can take advantage of them.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Moving Forward Like A Crab.

Two exceptional letters were published by the Fiji Sun "Letters to the Editor" column. The following are excerpts:

Justice
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:56:18 AM

I can't really disagree with Mick Beddoes contention that justice delayed in justice denied. An argument he raises in accusing, rightly or wrongly, the Fiji Human Rights Commission for not doing anything for the victims of the 2006 coup. He of course assumes that these people who he is advocating for have been denied justice and that it was indeed the commission that denied or deliberately delayed it for reasons that have not been disclosed by Beddoes. Of recent Beddoes has been commenting rather negatively on all matters pertaining to the governance of Fiji by the Interim Government.

I wish he had shown the same level of enthusiasm in criticising the governance of this country when Qarase and his cronies were rather blatantly engaging in corruption and racism. I wish he had shown the same courage in raising issues, in the relative immunity of the Parliament, in exposing corrupt practices of the Qarase government. I wish he had shown the same due diligence, that he seems to rather hypocritically show now, when the nation's coffers were be pillaged and scarce national resources and assets exploited for personal gain by Qarase and his gang of rogues.

I am equally flabbergasted why Beddoes has never raised matters of justice that were so blatantly denied to other victims of the 19987 and 2000 coups. Many lost all they had toiled for in Fiji and in fear of further persecution and in complete absence any one raising a voice for them, they left the shores of Fiji for good to live abroad, in what for many them is tantamount to 'self imposed exile'.

Where was Beddoes then? What has he done about these thousands who were so blatantly denied justice? Or does Beddoes like other self proclaimed leaders of human rights who have mushroomed so suddenly in Fiji is only an advocate on a selective basis?
Beddoes would be well advised to be equally selective about when he should open his mouth. For Beddoes it might be prudent to remain silent, for as soon as he opens his mouth the world will know how hollow and biased his human rights rhetoric is.

The following letters was in response to the SDL stalwart, Mere Samisoni's perception of the proposed People's Charter:

Move forward

We hear much these days from the interim regime on the need to "move the country forward".

But if that is really such an over-riding concern, then surely the question needs to be asked as to why the military leadership found it so unavoidably necessary to "move the country backward" in December 2006.

The SDL-led Multi-Party Cabinet (MPC) had already set itself about the task of bringing the kind of desirable changes suitable for the 21st century information civilisation.

This was well documented in the Strategic Development Plans (SDP) 2006, rolled over to 2007-2011, which incorporated much of the legitimate manifestoes of the two major parties in the MPC.

That means that a workable and legitimate system was already in place to "move the country forward" pre-coup. Whats more, it was based on market metrics, implemented through the rule of law, and achieved through the democratic process as representative of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

This represents a far more legitimate and sustainable foundation for "moving the country forward" and "bringing the races together" than what the IG is trying to shove down peoples throats.

Despite this, the Military Council (MC) supported by the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), and other opportunists in the IG (MC/FLP/IG) still saw it fit to impose an illegal coup that violated those democratic and administrative processes already in place under the 1997 Constitution.

And now, the illegitimate regime is simply trying to achieve the same goals as the ousted Government, but from a far less popular and legitimate policy foundation framework, and with dictatorial style of leadership that is far less effective and popular.

Moreover, we now have the anomaly of the Peoples Charter (PI) with its Council of decision makers that renders the IG essentially redundant.

What is of concern, is the idea that the PI or what I call the Military Charter did not come from the people, it was not written by the people, there is no ownership by the people and it serves no obvious purpose for the people. That means the idea of a Military Charter is fundamentally disconnected from reality and peoples daily lives.

Moreover, the Military Charter and its dictatorial and impositional management style are incompatible with the new economic order of win-win relationships based on community human values.

Therefore, in the bigger picture, the MC is doomed from the start.

Also, at a global level, the latest trend in strategic business planning is to differentiate and segment markets along group demographics and psychographics so as to achieve better market servicing.

This marketing "best practice" is certainly transferable to the work of Government, where it can help to tailor and target policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ. Despite this, the MC/FLP/IG is still moving toward the complete opposite philosophy by embracing an obsolete 'one size fit all vision.

This just sweeps everything under the mat, including diversity of human and community values and choices, by preferring instead to manage things via an "out of sight and out of mind" approach.

How is the MC going to measure motivation, performance and success of target groups without differentiating its policy "market" for felt needs, values and special aspirations?

Mere Tuisalalo Samisoni
Lami

Apparently, the talking points issued by the SDL Headquarters was to resist and desist the People's Charter proposed by the Interim Government. Obviously, SDL's idea of movement for the nation of Fiji is akin to a crab's motion: side to side but never forward.

Back to the future
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:55:45 AM

We have heard of the saying that one becomes wiser after the event. However, Mere Samisoni's academically garbled theory and analysis of the Military Council's action and the people's charter shows that some people lose all sense of reasoning and logic if they are removed from their cushioned positions.
Being a post graduate student myself, I could not comprehend her far- fetched theories, so I feel sorry for the common Tomasi, Deepak and Hamid on Suva streets who would be scratching their heads and wondering what group demographics and psychographics mean.

She talks about transferring the latest trend in strategic business planning on differentiating and segmenting markets along group demographics and psychographics to government to achieve better market servicing, whatever that means.
She also spoke about tailoring and targeting policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ.

It is a pity she did not give this lecture to SDL caucus, and especially the chiefly minister and aunty- in- law of two existing interim Minister when she was the Education Minister. Assuming if they could understand what was lectured to them; one would assume that the country could have been saved from the doomsday that supposedly 5 December, 2006 spelt. Was this not the policy of one size fits all that she is accusing the Military Council of having now?

Qarase's blanket racist policies, based solely on race rather than needs dictated that a rich Fijian parent with a combined income of $200,000 could have free Form Seven education for their child while an evicted Indo Fijian with an income of only 2per cent of the Fijian parent still had to pay full fees under Qarase's racist policies. Where then was this bright academic who is acting holier then thought and preaching theories that common mortals like me, and many others, cannot comprehend?

Bread is a basic staple food that people would eat despite the falling economic situation of the country. Perhaps that is why Mere Samisoni could not have her finger on the pulse of Fiji's economy that was sliding down to bankruptcy. Just a basic example is sugar mills. People who could hardly maintain their vehicles and repair falling mufflers were made to run multi- million gadgets which never had preventative maintenance and capital input on a progressive scale.

No wonder, like a wrecked car in the heart of Suva City, the sugar mills are being rendered to scraps by an incompetent regime. Where were then these market servicing theories of the gold medalist graduate of SDL party?
You need not be a rocket scientist to see what was wrong with Fiji's sick economy which was exaggerated by equally sick racist policies that went against all the grains of academia.

I wonder where then were the arm chair critics and MBA graduates, masquerading as coup victims and professors from academic institutions, now coming out of woodwork and pontificating on the state of economy that a common cane cutter already knows.
Now that Australia and New Zealand has twisted Fiji's arm for another election, who will give a guarantee that this election will stick? Who says that elections are a panacea to Fiji's problems?

But my concern is, how democracy can save Fiji from a racially divisive party like SDL and how the country can be saved from academics who say so much without telling anything.

Fiji Times also published another letter responding to the Ex-Officio from Lami Open, Mere Samisoni.

Racist policies

I think I must be a masochist but I forced myself to read Mere (I will use 10 words when one will do) Samisoni's letter, of 19th October, 10 times to understand what she was saying.

In brief, the first part basically said the SDL led multi-party Cabinet was doing a fantastic job moving the country forward and the there was no need for the military takeover.

The second part was that the People's Charter was doomed for failure.

The third part interestingly says modern governments should use targeted marketing to give the different sectors of the community what they need. We have seen examples of this from the SDL. The Qoliqoli Bill: very targeted towards the indigenous community

The reconciliation Bill; again very targeted towards the indigenous community; not many Indians were going to be released from prison due to that? The list of such targeted policies is endless.

We also had the agricultural scam: you may think that only benefited the indigenous, SDL voting, rural poor. But, hold on a few rich shop owning Indians allegedly did very well. So that's okay. That was multiracial.

When you use market segmentation as a government and only put forward policies that benefit just one segment of a community and forget about the rest, then that is called a racist government. That sort of government has no place in the 21st Century.

So Mere, you have answered you own question. The Interim Government is definitely moving the country forward because amongst other things, they are trying to end racism in Fiji.

Mere Erasito
Brisbane

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

A Narrative of the Inquiry - Fiji's Vote Rigging.

The Report Findings:










The report of Fiji Human Rights Commission's Inquiry on the 2006 election, is yet to be released to the public according to a Radio New Zealand article.
The excerpt of the RNZ article:

New Fiji election not public, alleges vote-rigging

Posted at 05:22 on 19 September, 2007 UTC

The Fiji Human Rights Commission says the commission of inquiry report into Fiji’s 2006 general election has not yet been made public. Fiji TV reported last night that it obtained a copy of the report based on evidence given by 59 individuals and organisations.
It reported evidence of irregularities, bias, corruption, vote buying and vote rigging, and is also critical of the Elections Office. The commission says copies of the report have been given only to the state, the SDL party, and the Fiji Labour Party for review.

"The election was fair in terms of the international observers coming here and the report they gave and also the report prepared by the USP team. The big thing is that there was no protest after those or that report were publicly declared. But now they are coming up with new allegations that the elections was rigged and so on and so forth. That’s the problem right now."

The University of the South Pacific’s Dr Alumita Durutalo has been an election observer since the 1990s. She says observers from the EU, Pacific Islands Forum, Commonwealth and the USP deemed the last election in Fiji to be free and fair.

However, a copy of the report was made available to Fiji TV. Another article from Radio NZ confirms that Fiji TV were given a copy of the FHRC report.

The excerpt:

Inquiry claims Fiji 2006 election was flawed by vote buying and vote rigging

Posted at 22:49 on 18 September, 2007 UTC

A commission of inquiry into Fiji’s 2006 general election claims to have found evidence of vote buying and vote rigging. The inquiry was initiated by the Fiji Human Rights Commission and chaired by Suva lawyer G P Lala, with the other members being the former president of the SVT party and Rabuka government minister, Taufa Vakatale, and Dr David Neilson.

Fiji TV says it has obtained a copy of the report which is based on evidence given by 59 individuals and organisations.

"The report claims it found evidence of irregularities, bias and corruption, as well as inappropriate vote influencing in the 2006 general election to the unfair advantage of the SDL party.

It says there was a concentration of all these factors in key urban constituencies. The report says there were significant failures to ensure citizens’ right to vote, in particular against ethnic Indian voters. "

The report also criticises the Elections Office, saying there was a heavy ethnic bias in its employment of staff nearly all of whom were indigenous Fijians. The report has been sent to the interim government, the Fiji Labour Party and the SDL party for their responses.

All international election observers deemed the election to be free and fair.

The former Supervisor of Elections, Semesa Karavaki disputed the findings of the tribunal and described the Inquiry report as inaccurate because it brought up the issue of racial bias.



Karavaki even called into question the expertise of the tri-members in electoral procedures and exclaimed that the report also tarnishes the "Free and Fair" declaration stamped by the International Observers.



National Federation Party (NFP) stalwart, Parmod Rae declared the Inquiry report as a "load of rubbish" and took issue to "prominent and eminent persons like G.P. Lala, Taufa Vakatale putting their names to this piece of rubbish".

Rae further stated that, the Inquiry report into the 2006 Fiji Elections was not a report per say, but "allegations of vote buying and vote-rigging without evidentiary basis". Rae further added that, the 59 submissions were not proportionate to Fiji's number of voters, in excess of 500,000 persons.


FHRC's Dr Shaista Shameem also clarified the next series of steps for the tentative Inquiry report; stating that the draft report would be given to stakeholders for their comments and those additional comments will be taken into account by the Tribunal in their final report.

The Report Recommendations:






Radio Fiji article quoted from the Fiji Election Scoping Mission (FESM) preliminary report for the next General Elections in Fiji and stated that, the estimated cost may reach $F25 Million. FESM had tabled their report to the Pacific Islands Forum Joint Working Group(PIFJWG) in Suva yesterday.



Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs