Snake In The Grass.

In a follow up to an earlier post in SiFM, a letter to the Editor published by the Fiji Times revisits the issue of race raised repeatedly by the SDL personality, Mere Samisoni and the response to her flawed perspectives. This is an excerpt:

Name Calling

Many people have called me names and thrown dirt at me in generalizations, without telling me what wrong I exactly said in the Close Up program of August 19, 2007.

During numerous articles I wrote about church hypocrisy, racist political stance, hoodwinking trade unionists, worthless politicians and exposing other wolf in sheep's clothing, it was obvious there were people out there to crucify me.

I did not respond to any of them because it was not worth it as none were specific in what wrong I said. It appears the only argument they have is that I have moved to New Zealand.

However, I could not let Mere Samisoni's pot calling kettle black go unchallenged. She calls me a racist, an extremist thinker and branded my comments as venomous and dishonest. She appears to think that such qualities are sole privileges of SDL party alone and their boorish and racist behaviour towards Indo-Fijians should be borne silently by us.

Is it all right for SDL racists to call Indo-Fijians names like wild grass and camel in a tent but when they get their own back, it pains? SDL members of Parliament had called Indo-Fijians names in Parliament and their policies have virtually marginalized us, yet so called academics like her and her exiled political boss remained criminally quite.

Truth hurts and absolute truth hurts absolutely. She talks about good leadership for different groups to come together and qualities such as good faith, self discipline and trust. This coming from somebody who allegedly fed the extremists at Parliament during 2000 is the height of hypocrisy.

She questions what criteria and policy does TV One have to protect the public from my type of extremism. I ask, what criteria does democracy have to protect the country from the brand of extremism, racism, corruption and mismanagement displayed by her SDL Party.

That is why I suppose somebody called Bainimarama's action as God sent. To get a response from her, I must have hit some raw nerves. If she wishes to be treated seriously, she indeed needs to rise above those hot breads and walk her talk about good virtues in life.

Thakur Ranjit Singh
Auckland
New Zealand

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

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

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

GCC suspension unlawful: Dr Lal

Sunday, August 12, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiji: Like a duck treading water

BRIJ V LAL
Saturday, August 11, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Singing the Blues.

New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has alot of things in Fiji not go her way, which probably sums up her latest vitriolic outbursts regarding Fiji's diplomatic re-shuffling.

Understandably, even the NZ media have found in Clark, an outstanding profile to lampoon; since the disappointing opinion poll found Clark's rival National Party slam dunk over her own popularity. A podcast analyzes the political forecast in NZ. Perhaps, there's nothing like positioning Fiji as a convenient whipping post to perk up Clark's poll rating or the issue could force her to an early retirement.








Club Em Designs

Latitudes of the Truth.

Two different takes on the sentiments regarding the comments of former Fiji Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi's opinion(PDF) on the post- 2006 coup events, appeared in the Fiji Times Letters to the Editor including a paper by the former CEO for Prime Minister's office, Jioji Kotobalavu, both of whom were invitees to the Australian National University workshop.

One must be appraised with palatial leanings of the participants to the ANU workshop in order to honestly analyse the multitude of opinions from the various players and prudently arrive at a unbiased, impartial and truthful conclusion.

The following are excerpts to the Letters to the Fiji Times Editor:

Wake up

I'm asking the Prime Minister of this country and his fellow ministers to please wake up.

Since December 5 last year, the nation has sat back and watched you parade the "clean-up" slogan.

It's been six months now and we are seeing otherwise; Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi eloquently described the latter in his paper that was presented at the Australian National University.

Yet he was being labelled a racist and an opportunist who is using the plight of the indigenous people.

For your information, Ratu Joni's presentation is actually the echo of the minds of the majority of this country.

The silent query about the real motives of December 5 last year.

Why are we now witnessing court cases that appear to be personal vendettas?

Why is the famous father (puppeteer) and son (puppet)' part of this regime?

Why do we feel that this is now becoming an ethnic issue as evident in the appointments of key positions?

Why do we feel that there is a new cloud of religious domination at the national level, as evident in the key positions in the judiciary, the HRC and elsewhere?

I'm just merely echoing the silent query of the many.

The silence is bound to break, usually via explosions.

Please, let's learn from the mistakes of past leaders. Your actions are speaking louder than your press releases. Wake up!

Sereana Raisili
Nasinu


Old adage

I think it's the Chinese who have a saying: A reputation takes many years to build but only seconds to destroy.

In my opinion Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi finds himself in this tragic situation.

His image for multi-racialism has suffered a severe setback with the comments he made in Australia.

No amount of defending his reputation now will restore the damage.

A person in his position should not have staked his credibility on mere perceptions' as he calls them, knowing full well that they were not true.

Was he trying to be smart at the expense of truth?

Kavita Singh
Nasinu

Club Em Designs

Ethnonationalism & Spin Doctoring in Fiji.

Fiji's former Vice-President has some objections to the forward momentum of the nation, reflected in his impartial statements published in a Fiji Times article. The following is an excerpt:

Ratu Joni: Coup weakened law

Sunday, June 10, 2007

THE military commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and his close advisers saw the military as the ultimate guarantor of the peace as echoed in their public statements and private discussions, says ousted Vice-President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi.

Speaking last week at the workshop on the Fiji Coup six months on, organised by the Australian National University Ratu Joni said with the military arrogating for itself the role of guardian and protector, the Police Force had increasingly demoralised.

He said the reformed and rebuilding of morale implemented by former Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes had dissipated gradually since his departure last year.

"The military has blurred the boundaries between policing and security roles at the cost of police independence and autonomy," Ratu Joni said.

Ratu Joni said paradoxically, the business community was quick to embrace the expanded reach of the military.

"They welcomed the presence of checkpoints and the involvement of the military in policing as having a salutary effect on crime and while such tunnel vision was understandable it was shortsighted.

"There has been a real undermining of the rule of law by the military's acts and while crime has not diminished, it has simply relocated elsewhere."

Ratu Joni said breaches in human rights had been on a wide scale culminating in the deaths of Nimilote Verebasaga, 41, and Sakiusa Rabaka, 19.

He said there were two related objectives for human rights abuses.

"The first was to intimidate and frighten opponents of the military where skills acquired in soldiering abroad have been deployed for such ends.

"The second was to consolidate their position by assuming policing functions in the months after the coup," Ratu Joni said

Ratu Joni said the military readily attended to inappropriate calls for intervention from many Indians, and citizens frustrated or dissatisfied with the level of police investigations on their behalf. He said the helplessness of the ordinary citizen was heightened by the inexplicable stance assumed by the Fiji Human Rights Commission in (FHRC) favour of the military.

Ratu Joni said a majority of the minority communities felt marginalised and deprived by the previous SDL government including the Catholic Church hierarchy, a significant section of civil society, elements in the judiciary as well as some in the private sector.

He said the interim Government formed by Commodore Bainimarama, in January was revealing.

"While multi ethnic in character, it has limited Fijian support.

"The Fijian politicians in the interim Cabinet were unsuccessful candidates at the last general election with the exception of one member of the SDL represented by default," Ratu Joni said.

He said the interim Government was perceived by Fijians as the handmaiden of Mahendra Chaudhry. [Madraiwiwi] said Fijians were convinced this was an Indian coup.

Irrefutably, the comments by the Madraiwiwi, reflects a pitiful attempt to stoke the flames of ethnic divisions in Fiji, which he as a chieftain has exploited. The broad brush used by the former Vice-President in painting the 2006 coup as, predominantly favoured by one ethnic race is among the greatest manipulations of the facts. Madraiwiwi's assertion on the issue of racial perceptions to the 2006 coup, lacks empirical evidence and should be considered as pure speculation designed to incite any remnants of ethnonationalistic fear mongering.

There is an overwhelmingly number of indigenous Fijians, exceedingly happy with this clean up campaign, which has injected "checks and balances" over these native institutions and exposed the mega scams in Native Lands Trust Boars like the Pacific Connex MySap debacle, the underhand dealings in Natadola, the scams in Fiji Sports Council and a host of other wiful and wholesale malfeasance.

Where was the moral virture of Madraiwiwi, when these misappropriations were repeatedly raised in the media and blogs?

This pandemic of corrupted chiefs and politicians are much more of threat to the rule of law in Fiji, than the concerns raised by Madraiwiwi. Clearly, the actions of the former Vice-President speaks louder than his comments.

The rule of law in Fiji had been despotically maligned by these native institutions which Madraiwiwi himself, is a benefactor of. This stains his integrity in being honest observer of Fiji's socio-political landscape. If anything, Madraiwiwi's mandate in speaking on behalf of all indigenous Fijians, is highly questionable with respect to the issue of equality under the law.

A similar styled misrepresentation was reflected in a recent Fiji Daily Post Editorial.

Misrepresenting the Dangers of Ethnonationalism.


The editorial by the Fiji Daily Post titled “Ethnonationalism, Yes. Ethnocentrism, No” published on 28th May, 2007 leaves an unpleasant reflection of fair and balanced coverage; as well as revealing the Editorial's selective use of the word: Ethnonationalism.

The following paragraph is an excerpt of the definition of ethnonationalism, used by the Fiji Daily Post:

“Ethnonationalism is a respectable idea. In it, one takes pride in one’s ethnos (i.e. people-group) and in the social organisation of that people-group into a modern nation. No human alive should be unhappy about one’s ethnos per se, and ethnonationalism is a healthy pride to have. It is the sentiment which has kept all of the world’s rainbow plurality of ethnic people-groups alive and surviving. If we lose our sense of ethnonationalism, we may as well cease to exist. We may as well give up our borders, our resources and our beloved ones to the invasion of alien peoples and cultures or to the majorities in which we may find ourselves. Ethnic pride is a condition of survival; it is a survival instinct.”

Ethnic pride can be safely demarcated from the questions of nationhood. Ethnic pride also means taking the time to re-examine the ethos of ethnic pride, with the fundamentals of moral values. It means questioning the inherent dichotomy of ethnonationalism and seeking accountability for the abuse of native institutions in Fiji. Confusing survival with ethnonationalism is among the chief motivations of the Fiji Daily Post and all those who pander to the same divisive ideology.

At this juncture of Fiji's political turmoils, the issue of ethnonationalism is a loaded subject many readers are familiar with. Although, the Daily Post suggests that Ethnonationalism is akin to taking pride in one's ethos; it is factually incorrect to extend that definition to the political sphere. Every person is proud of their own culture, as much as the next person, but aligning ethnicity with nationalism, demeans any rational and impartial objectives of multiculturalism.

The Editorial further fabricates the dangers of the border security incursions, in the absence of ethnonationalism. Claiming with questionable authority that:

“ If we lose our sense of ethnonationalism, we may as well cease to exist. We may as well give up our borders”.

It begs the question, what does surrendering Fiji's international borders have to do with domestic ethnonationalism? Fallaciously, the Daily Post attempted to tie the fears of self-existence, along with the concept of multiculturalism.

It is these similar threats that were used extensively in Fiji, that resulted in the 1987 and 2000 coups. Fortunately, the 2007 Interim Government has the diligence and knowledge to separate the issues of border security and ethnic incitement, as well as isolating those individuals who use these fears for political mileage. The constant referrals to ethnocentrism by the Fiji Daily Post Editorial is a convenient veneer, obfuscating the true meaning of ethnonationalism and racism in Fiji:

"Ethnocentrism is the unhealthy psychological attitude that one’s people-group is all that matters. That one’s culture ought to be the measuring stick of the value of all others. Ethnocentrism therefore promotes racism."

It is also a myopic view which the abusers of Fijian culture have maintained, at the expense of cohesive social empowerment. For one thing, ethnonationalism is the exact opposite of multiculturalism.The Editorial contradicts itself, by equating multiculturalism with ethnonationalism in this particular reference:

“Ethnonationalism is at the heart of what governments call ‘multiculturalism’. That is, multiculturalism, at its most fundamental premiss, is a policy which allows and encourages people-groups to celebrate themselves, to be proud of their roots and identity, and to maintain the dignity of their history.”(sic)

Unashamedly, the Editorial continues to create self fulfilling prophesies with a litany of falsehoods. It is sad reflection of the biased stance taken by the Daily Post, which tailored its verbatim with inconsistent uses of the truth. Similarly, the following paragraph from the Editorial alludes that multiculturalism promotes ethnonationalism; without referencing any independent sources proving that the statement is factual correct.

“Multiculturalism rejects the notion that the modern nation must require the submergence of historical identity and culture for the sake of another identity or culture. Multiculturalism promotes ethnonationalism because it sees it as a building block of ethnic or racial stability. Without ethnonationalism, self-hatred easily steps into the vacuum and fills a people-group with unhelpful psychological desires and expectations.”

The Daily Post Editor's professional capacity must be seriously questioned for this hasty, unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusion stating that: ethnonationalism in Fiji is inversely proportional to self hatred. Notwithstanding, the recent mistake of the Daily Post, erroneously publishing the results of the International Rugby Board's Sevens Grand Prix.

An inconvenient truth that bears testimony to the evils of ethnonationalism in Fiji, is convincingly demonstrated in post-2000 coup events. Particularly so, when the Great Council of Chiefs rallied their support behind the illegal takeover of Chaudary's Government. In fact, the 1987 and 2000 coups in Fiji underscored that, ethnonationalism threatens multiculturalism.

Undoubtedly, these very native institutions benefited from the seditious acts, by abusing the parallel structure of the chiefly hierarchy. Ironically, after the suspension of the GCC, several members sought legal address and questioned the authority of the Interim Government; without realizing the immense hypocritical position of their logic.

Neither GCC or its members questioned the authority of the Interim Governments that emerged from the 1987 or 2000 coups and their belated objections on the 2006 coup, is a fallacy of the highest order.

Legally, the GCC is in a tenuous position by challenging the State's authority over them and by extension of this question of authority, somewhat undermines the very sovereignty of state power; which the institution of courts derive their authority from. It is interesting to point out that the GCC had also advocated a separate Fijian court to specifically cater for cases within the native dominions. Realistically, it was clear headed thinking that pointed out the dual tracks of law, arising from such an arrangement.

Ethnonationalism is wrong then, as it is now. It is also equally wrong and morally irresponsible for the Daily Post to downplay the failures and dangers of ethnonationalism in Fiji.

Club Em Designs

The Collective Good.

In a follow up to the S.i.F.M post: The Squeakiest Wheel, aFiji Times article quotes NZ lawyer, Janet Mason who commented on the issue of incitement, made by the GCC lawyer.

This is an excerpt of that article:

NZ lawyer queries military over Dr Sahu Khan comments

1447 FJT
Friday, June 01, 2007

Update: 2.47pm A NEW ZEALAND lawyer, who fled the country last week, is questioning why the military did not take any action against Ba lawyer Dr Shamsudin Sahu Khan when he floated the idea that native land not used by landowners be returned to the State.

Janet Mason says despite a State of Emergency warning against incitement, the military took no action against Dr Sahu Khan for his comments, according to a report by Pacific writer Michael Field.

Ms Mason says when lawyers Kitione Vuataki and Savenaca Komaisavai, who are representing the Great Council of Chiefs over its suspension, questioned the paper, the military accused them of inciting the indigenous people and hauled them into their barracks for questioning.

Ms Mason, who worked with the two lawyers in the GCC case against the interim regime, found that curious.

''If Dr Sahu Khan has recently presented this paper without being detained for inciting instability then I would have imagined that, for instance, I should be free to present alternative views at workshops around the country without fear of being detained,'' she said.

The New Zealand lawyer fled the country after she and her husband were robbed in their Lautoka home.

Realistically, the comments by Dr Sahu Khan was made in his submission to the proposed Qoliqoli Bill, launched by the SDL Government. In addition, Khan's remarks did not address the indigenous populace or make innuendos advocating violence. Mason's remarks to the Fiji Times prompted a scathing letter to the Fiji Times.

This is the excerpt to the response:

Janet Mason

I have been reading with interest the comments by New Zealand lawyer Janet Mason. She indeed highlights a few interesting points about the situation in Fiji.

However, it is ironic that she now goes to the media to raise her voice. After all, she would have had a lot of information way before she came to Fiji for the GCC suspension case.

After all, her husband would have been reading daily reports and analysis of the Fiji situation. Her voice was never heard when Qarase was trying to resolve the impasse with the army. I am sure her husband had a lot of information in regards to information analysis at the time.

Never at any time did she voice her opinions on the army stance against the Government. That was at a time when her opinion may have made a difference for Mr Qarase and his deposed ministers.

Instead, like our so called "big brothers" she waits for the noose to tighten before she actually tries to make her presence felt. It makes it look like the "knight in shining armour".

[Mason] should leave our problems to us to solve. She has chosen New Zealand ahead of Fiji and we don't need her expatriate views on Fiji.

We certainly don't need her belated concerns and advice.

Josaia Sovea
Suva

Fiji Sun's new look website published an interesting "Letter to the Editor". This is an excerpt of the letter:

Democracy and NGOs
Last updated 6/1/2007 11:52:59 AM

It will be oversimplifying to say that democracy is a form of government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, because it is a bluff.
Having heard so much about the word recently, that is magic to some, I can only say that it is vile to me. The practitioners of democracy, and who are in Australia, New Zealand , Canada , USA are mostly Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Dutch, Scandinavian, Spaniards and Mediterraneans - in other word Europeans, a branch of the Caucasian racial group.

The natives of these states do not sit as a majority in their respective Houses of legislature. Why? In short, the natives were hunted and slaughtered like animals by new settlers (the polite term) who put strategies in place to starve them out of their God-given land.

These states have not been tested in the true essence and operations of this magic word. What is successful democracy to them is to be in a comfortable environment of compatible ethnic/racial groups. If not, then why are the natives of Australia, New Zealand and the Americas not represented as a majority in power sharing?
A century and a half and more has passed with this set up and mind set, making it difficult for them to perceive the reasons for the coups in Fiji; why Fijians are nervous about the Indians, which is yet another story.

One of the legs on which democracy stands is "the people's voice," but specifically the underprivileged groups. In brief then, the yardstick if democracy is really at work is to continually, if not continuously, monitor whether the lot of these groups is improving during the term of governments, or as some people like to hear, a democratically elected one.
What is an election, an opposition, all in the name of democracy, when the lot of the poor cannot be gradually improved to a decent level from one government to another?
We have had some 30 years of this system without success and peace. There are other models that would work better for Fiji; it is a matter of will to try it out; or we should be asking the 'experts' what type of democracy is best suited. They have had enough time to work that out.

Indeed the lot of the rich has got better in leaps and bounds. Those mushrooming 20 years age are now multimillion dollar organisations, well entrenched and self-serving. Which Prime Minister has not gained assets directly attributable to his Prime Ministership? The same question can be asked of cabinet ministers. Democracy is for the poor but instead it has been raped.

What is the NGOs' understanding of democracy, the underprivileged, and their human rights? Their comments seem to be rigorously channeled to the military only. What are 30 or 50 persons called to the camp compared to thousands whose human rights have been eroding throughout the years? If NGOs were true to their call we should have heard their rigorous criticism throughout the years a not only over the last five months.

Club Em Designs

Beta Democracy in Fiji?

The Pacific Island Leader's summit in Washington, has received some recent attention, as the S.i.F.M post described.

Below is the actual video of the US Secretary State, Condaleeza Rice's address to the invitees.



This particular reference to Fiji's political situation received a jibe by a local personality. The following is a letter to the FT Editor:

Tell us Rice

CONDOLEEZA Rice told the Pacific Islands conference of leaders in Washington that the Pacific must not devolve into an area where strongmen unilaterally decided the fate of their country and destabilise the democratic foundation of their neighbours.

It is a good message.

But would someone kindly tell Ms Rice that many nations of the world are fed-up of a strong superpower unilaterally trying to influence their fate and destabilising their nation in the name of economic globalisation and US-style democracy.

Father Kevin Barr
Suva

Several poignant articles appearing in Fiji Times regarding democracy and the issue of culture and modernity, prove that intellectual analysis is in demand. ECREA's official position on the political juncture is published on their website(PDF).

The first article was from Fr. Kevin Barr, a representative of ECREA, a local NGO in Fiji.

This is the excerpt:

Solutions before democracy

FATHER KELVIN BARR
Monday, May 14, 2007

There seems to be a great deal of international concern that Fiji should return to democracy as soon as possible.

Calls for democratic elections have come from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the European Union and the Commonwealth. We have had the report of the Eminent Persons Group. Recently we have been inundated with overseas visitors the UN fact finding mission as well as the Commonwealth Human rights fact finding mission.

Then the Pacific Islands Forum is organising a committee to advise on the holding of elections.

This great flurry of activity is very interesting. It seems the international community thinks that as soon as Fiji holds elections and returns to democracy, all its problems will be over. It will be accepted back into all the organisations from which it has been expelled and all will be right with the world. There can be great rejoicing and everyone can sit back satisfied that democracy has been restored.

All this is well and good. But it has all happened before. After previous coups in 1987 and 2000 Fiji was urged to have elections and return to democracy as quickly as possible. This happened and the international community was overjoyed to welcome Fiji back into the democratic fold.

But elections did not solve Fiji's basic problems and when those problems raised their heads again and caused serious tensions and upsets (as they did during the Qarase regime) the international community seemed quite unconcerned because a democratic government was in place.

No fact finding missions came from the Commonwealth or the UN. No Eminent Persons were selected to look into the problems. Our closest neighbours did little to put pressure on a racist regime to act in the interests of all its citizens. They had seen to it that a democratically elected government was in place and that was all that was required.

Yet, by now we should have learnt that democracy measured by elections is not a panacea. 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.

1. The agenda of the extreme nationalists needs to be addressed Fiji for the Fijians, calls for "Fijian unity" and the demand for a Christian State.

2. The racially explosive mix of fundamentalist religion and extreme nationalism found in the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji (ACCF) which seeks to have a strong influence on the political and social scene.

3. The conflicts and tensions within the Fijian chiefly families and confederacies.

4. The culture of corruption, nepotism and cronyism.

5. The economic policies which are creating greater poverty and inequality and giving rise to "two Fijis".

6. The electoral system which encourages racial divisiveness.

Besides all this we need:

A well conducted Census;

The establishment of fair and proper electoral boundaries; and Extensive voter education about the nature and purpose of democracy.

We don't just need a timeframe for a return to democracy, we need strategies that will address the big problems underlying our instability and giving rise to constant coups. We do not have a "coup culture", we have rather a number of serious unaddressed problems which will continue to cause instability until they are effectively acknowledged and addressed. Any attempt to throw a cloak of superficial democracy over them will be counterproductive.

The second of such FT article was from local academic, Ropate Qalo and the following is an excerpt:

There's a time when politics and chiefs cannot mix

ROPATE QALO
Monday, May 14, 2007

From left - Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba and the Tui Mavana Ratu Josefa Basulu at a meeting of the GCC.



It is common knowledge that most chiefs of the past 50 to 60 years live with their people in a face to face' socially integrated and structurally integrated society. Most were impressed with and followed Ratu Sukuna's plan for ethnic Fijians as a civil servant.

Today the social and the bureaucratic structures are divided and most chiefs live in towns and cities, if not physically at least mentally.

Many are politically motivated. Their view of the good life is based on urban standards like most people on the planet. Such a dominant view of so-called' modernisation is embedded in most development plans, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), and the evolving Pacific Plan.

This opinion is part of some of the writer's observations related to chiefs and politics and the loss of their integrity because of the differing context in which they now operate.

Social integration and structural integration just cannot mix if we follow Giddens sociological analysis. Of course there are many theoretical analysis that could be used. But if we use Giddens, therein lies what Nayacakalou "called a monstrous nonsense" or contradiction when chiefs and Fijians believe that they can preserve and change or do both simultaneously. But that is a matter of opinion when we consider monarchies of modern and not so modern states e.g. Britain, Japan, India, Malaysia, Thailand, and so on that are able to separate social traditional and bureaucratic structural institutions.

To those who have been following the news and the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) this perspective may add another dimension to some aspects of chieftaincy from an urban-rural Fijian point of view. Let me go back a decade and flag what appears to be the decline of chiefly integrity because of political and traditional' confusion of roles and conclude why Ratu Sukuna has become a symbol of chieftaincy to a great number of Fijians (Ethnic, Indo and those not included in those categories) because he could separate the roles he needed to play.

Ten years ago, Major General Sitiveni Rabuka was elected ahead of the late Adi Lady Lala Mara for president of the SVT in 1996 or there about. Many remember that election.

It may be called the end of an era'. That was the first public political interaction of Fijians suggesting an institutional shift, illustrating that a paramount chief can be moved from leadership in our now time'.

Although the earlier coup was claimed to place chiefs back as leaders with the late Ratu Mara who became the interim Prime Minister. We have so far had three significant interim prime ministers: Ratu Mara, Laisenia Qarase, and Ratu Voreqe via coups.

It was reported the Great Council of Chiefs had finally decided they should be independent of political parties in January 1997. This decision essentially admits the fact it had been politicised since 1970 and more so in 1987 by the coup leader and his SVT government.

He was made a life member and it might be recalled the SVT claimed to be the chiefs' party. This may also be attributed to the constitutional reform then being finalised.

The late Sakeasi Butadroka applauded the decision together with a great majority of this country (one must add, at the time). This is perhaps why it was called "Chiefs score major coup" two days earlier than the applause from the late nationalist. Perhaps it should be given a more sober title like "FA welcomes chiefs' move". This is a more subtle use of words that conveys culture, sensitivity, and thought relative to the reference to coups.

It was also later reported that "Government yesterday clarified that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga did not discuss a severance of ties between the BLV and the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT)". The same report stated "Assistant Minister for Fijian Affairs said, however, that the discussions during the meeting centred around the establishment of a secretariat and the appointment of a chairman for the BLV."

The above paragraph conveyed to GCC members the BLV was satisfied with the then arrangement of the BLV and SVT partnership. However, the GCC was serious that the members wanted a chief to be in the position of chair in a separate entity such as the one that has now been suspended. It was also put in the statutes that members of parliament were not to be GCC members. This is a far cry from the previous GCC membership that was inclusive of politicians and ministers.

This week and the previous, newspapers and television carried items of news articulating the older order of chiefs against the younger ones it seems. Time has exposed the bureaucratic structure was susceptible to traditional infiltration or social integration.

Those who conducted the latest coup are bent on bureaucratic structural integration. Some GCC members appear not to appreciate the contradiction. The structural integration separated from the social may be encouraged by Parliamentary Paper No. 71 of Fiji, Volume II (2002: 26-7) as well as Volume I besides the Fijian Affairs Act. It is also possible that it is backed by the LLM Thesis of the Interim Attorney General.

We all tend to agree that in the march of time the country must adjust itself to the reality of our now time' with rising sea levels which will definitely have a good number of our chiefly villages submerged. Globalisation, sustainable development, and good governance all become important as we move from a tribal system to a class system in the Pacific Plan.

Theoretically the tribal being the "face-to-face" social integration reciprocity relationship and structure integration reciprocity are one and the same thing. In the class society they are separate where the structure involves reciprocity between groups and collectives i.e. achieved over time and space (cited in Craib's criticism of Giddens Theory of Structuration in modern social theory: from Parsons to Habermas 2nd Edition 1992: 115).

Ratu Sukuna's words written just over ninety (90) years ago "The truth is that the theory of equality in relation to Fijian society is a destructive theory with all the defects of its kind" (23.01.17 in Scarr's Three Legged Stool 1983: 48) appears to be the interpretation embedded in the Fijian Holdings Limited (FHL) with the dividend of more than $2.046 million (Fiji Times May 5th, 2007: 20) to some.

It is straight out of Animal Farm in the words of Squealer "some are more equal than others". Such warped interpretation of tradition is more than interesting and is rumoured to be the focus of the Interim Government's so-called clean up campaign. FHL is legal as an entity but questionable ethically it seems. Herein is the debate of social responsibility or democracy first the egg or chicken first debate. The FHL interpretation also applies to the $60million that runs the GCC in such a view.

It also may be argued to relate to the BLV and SVT coalition. Some might even stretch it to the latest Sports Council audited report now making our so-called news.

These interpretations need to be examined in some detail and depth beside other specifically Fijian ones that we will consider below.

However, back to the words of Ratu Sukuna, these were spoken as he was contemplating the mammoth task of the codification and registration of Fijian traditions, especially on land, and culture in 1917. Demographic trend at the time and belief show that Fijians will be extinct in the near future.

Now we have the wisdom of hindsight. He stood up to protect the indigenes as the knowledge of time allowed. His lone work to his retirement and death was incomplete as noted in Scarr in the above book.

Today some chiefs through birth, great or small, have lost the use of knowledge, wisdom and tact from consultation with members of the clan in the service of their kin or veiwekani. Ratu Sukuna was selfless and stood for integrity rather than heroism given his time and space in our recent history. Chiefs today and coup leaders will be remembered by their fellow citizens in the fullness of time and perhaps judged publicly or privately.

Meanwhile, it seems that the preference for more and more still is all too obvious, unlike Ratu Sukuna. It appears integrity has been overcome by public relations, popularity, and the vote, needless to mention the pursuit for the almighty dollar one way another without scruples by some. In this sense it appears but cannot be confirmed that the latest coup leader has adopted the truism that sometimes you have to be cruel in order to be kind'. Only time will tell.

After 20 years, the coups have created more problems than they have solved. Coups are for those who refuse to see the obvious. The obvious being, one, two, three, four wrong or coups cannot make a right. As we look to the future realistically Ratu Viliame Tagivetaua in the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission has spoken out about the chiefly tradition of the need for consensus to install a chief in each yavusa. We have 1456 yavusa and 221 vanua and 192 tikina or district (PP No. 71 Vol. 1 of 2002: 50) in the whole of Fiji. The GCC is the pinnacle of the yavusa through consensus at district and provincial level.

Strictly speaking, traditions that are Fijian are determined by those yavusa. The independence of Fijians is thereby determined and practised as it is interpreted between the Navatu and Bau people for example, as veitabani within certain limits that are not defined and susceptible to abuse. Is this an interpretation in 1987 that gave courage rather than reason to those who carried it out?

This tribal system raises numerous obvious legal questions and the interpretation of common law that goes back to the Magna Carta between Rome and England over 800 years ago. It is maintained that in Fiji such interpretations and interactions resting on tribal ways and symbolism that needs to be examined for traditional, cultural, and political reasons. This seems to be the untouched area that Fijians are so sensitive about and to which most researchers find too sensitive to cover.

Work on Fijian tradition of thoughts on a topic about Thinking about thinking', Na vakasamataki ni vakasama may be the most unlikely solution to stop what some have referred to as the coup culture. Such a label may be correct in the era building up to the cession in 1874 which was reignited in 1987.

However, with all our present day knowledge, information technology, and mobility it is difficult to understand how Ratu Sukuna's work could remain untouched and incomplete for 49 years or half century with the view of a more realistic interpretation that will maintain the integrity that was central to his work.

After all our past is in the future when our descendants will find new knowledge and impress upon it their own interpretations. Failure to prepare for an institutional interpretation that evolves integrity is a preparation for failure.

This will mean prolonged chaos. We need to get our institutions like schools, church, districts, provinces, towns, cities, GCC and so on to do things like Ratu Sukuna with integrity. Put simply, integrity is what we do honestly, pure, and unselfish when there are no spectators.

As we celebrate Ratu Sukuna's life later in the month, on May 28, we might ask our leaders and ourselves to reflect, ponder, recognise the contradictions and the need for integrity that chiefs and everyone needs to promote our bleeding country.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of his employer, the University of the South Pacific.

Club Em Designs