The US financial system reform Bill is currently in Senate. Albeit, some provisions within the Bill would not meet the liking of Elizabeth Warren, chair of a U.S Congressional Oversight Panel; also featured in interviews in an earlier, award winning documentary: "Maxed Out", an in-depth micro-analysis of the macro beast: "The Corporation".
Recent NY Times Caucus blog post, (and re blogged by Huffington Post); provides some additional background on Elizabeth Warren.
Video archived footage (posted below) shows Warren grilling current U.S Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner.
Warren's principles should be highlighted to all practitioners of corporate governance and additional experts (self declared or otherwise) on Fiji's economy.
One of Warren's major point has been plainly, simply and outrageously absent in current banking practice. Paraphrasing the words of the Professor of Contract Law at Harvard; Warren did not understand or comprehend most of wording and legalese within a majority of credit card/loan agreements.
Fiji Live article, covers the recent civil service workshop reviewing the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) banking scandal that occurred in the mid 90s. It would also be prudent for the Fiji workshop participants to become well appraised with the ideas and solutions Warren is advocating, as a possible panacea.
This important proviso should be an essential operating prerequisite, in Fiji's banking industry.
The excerpt of F.L article 1:
Failure to follow procedure ‘led to crisis’ March 24, 2010 06:12:52 PM
The failure of Government procedures to be followed usually means a lot of money being defrauded, says former judge Nazhat Shameem.
While facilitating a corporate governance workshop in Suva, Shameem said the National Bank of Fiji saga was allowed to go on in the mid-1990s because certain procedures were not working.
“All procedures in place were not working and these included the Ministry of Finance audits, the Auditor General and even Cabinet where reports were being submitted.
“So all the mechanisms put in place by the Public Service failed! Why did they fail? How come all of them failed?”
Former Navy Commander Viliame Naupoto responded saying, “perhaps it is a case of government authorities being either too close (to the bank) or too far away”.
He said by being too close, the minister concerned may have been involved in the fraud, and by being too far, meaning the Auditor General would come in only at the end of the year to carry out his audit.
“It would have to be an oversight by authorities. That perhaps might be a contributing factor?” Naupoto suggested.
The workshop was attended by senior civil servants and the head of corporate organizations.
The F.L article quoted from vignettes within the workshop discussions. Parts of the Corporate Governance workshop topics explored the issues of regulation, role of media, regulators and the accompanying culture of silence that gave rise to the 1990's bank scandal in Fiji.
Rabuka govt was ‘dictating NBF policies’ March 24, 2010 01:03:08 PM
The government of former Fiji coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka was playing a lead role and dictating the policies of the National Bank of Fiji when it collapsed in the mid-1990s, a corporate governance workshop in Suva has heard.
Participants, mostly from statutory bodies in Fiji, were of the view that most board members of the bank at that time were reluctant to make a decision because the government of the day was dictating the bank’s policies and procedures.
Former High Court judge and workshop facilitator Nazhat Shameem then asked to what extent a government could dictate policies to a corporate body.
People benefiting from the bank she said, were not indigenous Fijians and Rotumans.
“What was happening at the bank was political influence. Could the board of directors at the NBF have said ‘no, we won’t implement such policies’, when it could mean a loss of jobs?”
One participant agreed that it was a moral question.
“The problem of not being able to speak out is a social issue. The board of directors, the Reserve Bank of Fiji and the Auditor General did not speak out except for the media.
“Witnesses were reluctant to come out and when they finally did, they changed their stories,” said Shameem, who was Director of Public Prosecutions at the time the NBF collapsed.
“It’s actually a huge social dilemma in Fiji,” she added.
Given the global economic situation and the debate on reform of the US banking industry, there are some slight commonalities, when or if compared with Fiji's NBF scandal.
Media’s role in NBF crisis questioned March 24, 2010 06:39:12 AM
The media told the public about the National Bank of Fiji crisis because no other organisation did, a workshop in Suva heard yesterday.
Former High Court judge Nazhat Shameem made the comment at a corporate governance workshop at Suva’s Holiday Inn.
Participants discussed whether the media responsibly reported the crisis or whether it just sensationalised the issue.
“While we understand, the role of the media, why was it allowed to inform the public when information could have been disseminated in a responsible manner,” one participant asked.
In response, Shameem said by the time the media got the story, the bank had already collapsed.
“If the media had not exposed the NBF fraud, who would have done it?”
“The question we need to ask ourselves is why the media told the story? The Auditor General could have done the audits.
“But no one did their job. All else failed, so the media stepped in” Shameem explained.
When the question of whether the media ‘mischievously’ reported on the issue was raised, Consumer Council chief executive Premila Kumar said the media did a good job of informing the public.
“After all, money in the NBF was all public money,” Kumar said
As a indication of the power of blogs, this interesting posting from Bronte Capital, reveals its role in uncovering a Ponzi scheme lurking deep within Australia's privatized Social Security (Superannuation) fund.
The coverage of Fiji media restrictions has drawn a lot of criticisms from regional news organizations lately, clamoring on to the media veneer of independence. This particular issue was raised by a recent posting by Croz Walsh's blog with respect to a NZ Dominion Post editorial.
SiFM has repeatedly pointed out the collusion between some Trans-Tasman media organizations and their respective Governments, pro-actively skewing, slicing and dicing facts to suit their given agenda in the region, at the given time.
The outcome of the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations and the recent legal tribulations of Julian Moti; has now become the embarrassing crown jewel of this Trans-Tasman belligerence; forever squandering the trust built up over past decades.
Based on this postulation of Trans-Tasman media collusion, it does not surprise many regional watchers, that this subject of media bias(out of bounds for some) have been pointed out, alluded to, outlined by many objective and independent regional researchers. Sadly, the mainstream media outlets have buried the lead on these insidious developments within the Pacific.
Sanjay Ramesh's recent opinion piece does touch on that segment. Partly related to the media bias, is the use of Australian and New Zealand radio broadcasts to the Pacific region. Unfortunately, the Trans-Tasman radio outreach, is perceived in the region, as an extension of these re-occurring themes of neo-colonialism.
Radio Australia's F.M transmission were touted in a blog posting from Radio Netherlands. It appeared that Radio Australia had used Tebutt Research, a firm based in Suva, Fiji to measure the local weekly audience listenership of ABC’s Radio Australia, across 5 Pacific capitals- a feather in their proverbial cap.
No Money, No Funny
Tebbutt Research was also once used extensively by the Fiji Times to gauge public perception on the issue of the day.
This controversial practice had raised many eyebrows and is similar to the issue of credit ratings agencies colluding with Hedge Funds to ensure a favorable rating. The poll or rating company are paid to provide a service.
As a service provider, the polling organization or ratings agencies are well aware of who the pays the pied piper. To guarantee that this revenue stream is kept intact, these ratings/polls seek blessings of their client, whoever that may be, prior to its publication.
First, Tebbutt is not a scientifically based opinion poll because it fails to highlight the margin of error of their surveys. Salon posting offers a basic explanation for Polls and Margin of Error.
Creatively and deceptively enough, it was these same skewed talking points, initially raised in a Fiji Times article; which are then polled on by Tebbutt.
The following excerpt is a Fiji Times article, using a Tebbutt poll published in 20 November 2006.
The excerpt of the FT article:
Fiji impasse to be solved without trouble: Poll
Monday, November 20, 2006
Tebbutt/Times Opinion Poll
Dates: 14-15 November
Sample: 1018
Method: Personal interview
Question: Which of these statements is closest to how you feel about the current situation?
- I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble;
- I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble;
- I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.
Conducted by: Tebbutt Research on behalf of Fiji Times
The majority believes the current standoff between the military and Government will be resolved without trouble, according to the latest Tebbutt Times Poll.
A total of 1018 adults were surveyed for the latest Tebbutt Times Poll on 14 and 15 November 2006 and were asked which of three statements they most identified with either I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble, or I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble, or I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.
Overall the Tebbutt Times Poll showed that 54 per cent believe there will be no trouble in the resolution of the standoff and are not worried at all.
Of the remainder, 28 per cent feel somewhat nervous and are concerned there might be trouble, and 18 per cent claimed they were very nervous and worried there will be trouble.
Fijians are the least likely to be nervous, and the most likely to have confidence in a trouble-free resolution.
A total of 62 per cent of all Fijians surveyed claimed they were not concerned at all, while 26 per cent of Fijians were somewhat nervous and 12 per cent were very nervous.
In contrast, one in four Indo-Fijians (25 per cent) were very nervous, 29 per cent were somewhat nervous and 45 per cent were not worried at all.
Digging further into the Tebbutt Times Poll data revealed that there was no difference in any segment of the Indo-Fijian sample but there were differences in the Fijian sample.
Among Fijians, an inverse relationship is seen between nervousness and age, meaning that as age goes up nervousness goes down.
Specifically, while 18 per cent of Fijians aged 18 and 29 years are very nervous, only 11 per cent of 30 to 44 year old Fijians are very nervous and just 5 per cent of 45+ year old Fijians are very nervous.
The Tebbutt Times Poll data also showed that those living in Suva were more concerned and nervous overall than those living in the West.
Overall, while 50 per cent of Suva residents are not worried at all, this confident group is 63 per cent of the sample in the West.
Interestingly those in the West were also more polarised in their views, with 22 per cent being very nervous and 63 per cent being not worried at all, leaving just 16 per cent sitting in the middle claiming to be somewhat nervous.
The Tebbutt Times Poll is collected in strict accordance with the global polling guidelines published by ESOMAR the world association of professional market research organisations.
Question
Total
Fijian
Indian
Other
Suva
West
I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble
18%
12%
25%
17%
17%
22%
I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble
28%
26%
29%
28%
33%
16%
I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble
54%
62%
45%
55%
50%
63%
The issue of Radio Australia transmitters closure and subsequent removal, were zealously covered by the Australian and New Zealand outlets; playing the innocent victim, as well as the used and abused media freedom card.
Psychological aspects like false scarcity, social proof, perceived value are intrinsically related to the use of opinion polls, skewed news articles, which share a common thread used by pitch-men in TV infomercials. The industry of "Pitching" was covered in a recent "On The Media" (OTM) article. The podcast of the OTM program is posted in MP3 player below.
A recent opinion article by Australian academic and former Fiji resident, Sanjay Ramesh, actually underscores that particular point of biased media in Fiji and dove tails with US academic Bruce Buene de Mosquita's ideas featured later in this post.
The excerpt of Ramesh's article:
Lament over Democracy in Fiji
Sanjay Ramesh
January 4, 2010
A recent wave of articles, mostly from New Zealand and Australian media, criticized the direction taken by the Fiji authorities following the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in April 2009.
These articles should be seen as yet another example of "parachute journalism," where journalists are sent to political trouble spots to compile informed analysis when they have little understanding of the socio-cultural context. On the face of it, it is claimed that Fiji is under a dictatorship, but Fiji had gone through this path before, so why overseas media and their willing interviewees are surprised and shocked by the unfolding political events in Fiji begs belief.
In 1987, the democratically elected multiracial government led by an indigenous Fijian doctor, Timoci Bavadra, was deposed in a bloodless coup by Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who was quickly promoted to the rank of Brigadier General by the late Governor General of Fiji, Ratu Penaia Ganilau. In 1987, Indo-Fijians were a majority in Fiji, and they complained to the international community that an elected government was ousted at gunpoint and democracy was destroyed by indigenous nationalists.
However, the same international community, including Australia and New Zealand, remained silent, and policy makers in these countries actually accused the Indo-Fijians of undermining indigenous interests, thus supporting the nationalist position.
At best, both Australia and New Zealand allowed skilled Indo-Fijians to emigrate, and this trend has continued since. Fast forward 20 years later, and the indigenous Fijians who benefitted from the 1987 coup suddenly found themselves, like their Indo-Fijian counterparts in 1987, under the gun of an indigenous military leader Frank Bainimarama, who became fed up with indigenous nationalism and the associated cronyism and patrimony.
The very people who supported the destruction of democracy in favor of indigenous rights in 1987 are now champions of democracy and rule of law, while Indo-Fijians—reduced from close to 48 percent of the population in 1987 to just little under 37 percent in 2006—have transformed into avid supporters of the "undemocratic" actions of the commander.
The contradictions in both these communities are caused by the complex trajectories of history that Australian and New Zealand media are refusing to comprehend and policy makers overseas are adamant to acknowledge.
Hot on a mission to sensationalize and exaggerate Fiji's political situation, regional media played a major role in the 2000 coup where anti-Indo-Fijian arguments were published in the local press, unchallenged by the Australian and New Zealand journalists, as indigenous thugs held an elected government hostage for 56 days and unleashed unprecedented terror and violence against Indo-Fijians living in rural Fiji.
With unrestricted access to the 2000 coup leader, George Speight, local media created a misguided view that indigenous nationalists were once again reacting to the tyranny of Indo-Fijians and, in particular, their leader, Mahendra Chaudhry.
In 2000, indigenous Fijian traditional institution—for example, the Great Council of Chiefs—was divided along indigenous confederacy and provincial lines because indigenous cultural logic dictated that chiefs from the provinces involved in the Speight coup supported them, despite the fact that rule of law had been effectively compromised.
The Australian Government, which has now taken a moral position on democracy and is deeply worried about the impact of a coup culture in the South Pacific, remained an impotent regional observer, along with its counterpart New Zealand, as Fiji descended into anarchy.
The political establishment that came into power following the Speight coup continued with the agenda of the indigenous nationalists. In 2003, reports surfaced that the commander of the Fiji Military Forces, Frank Bainimarama, had become increasingly uncomfortable with the elected government, in particular with its policies to appease indigenous militants.
A series of events started over a three-year period resulting in the December 2006 coup. Initially, the military government attempted to work within the 1997 Constitution, but this position became untenable following the judgment by the Fiji High Court that the 2006 political order established by the 2006 takeover was illegal.
Overseas media alleged on many occasions that Commander Bainimarama executed the coup to scuttle the investigations into the deaths of eight Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit soldiers who were allegedly involved in a mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva in November 2000. These allegations, while sounding quite serious, ignored the fact that there was a bounty on the head of the commander in 2000 for refusing to acquiesce to the demands of the indigenous chiefs who supported the Speight coup.
It was a dangerous situation of kill-or-be-killed. Supporters of the commander rounded up and interrogated the mutineers and their associates, and some interrogations resulted in death. Human rights conventions abhor deaths in custody, but following the events of 2000, there were deep divisions within the army that had the potential for prolonged violent internal conflict.
Moreover, following the 2006 coup, the military discovered a number of irregularities in the manner in which the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) conducted its business with respect to indigenous land. Much has been written and discussed on the rate of return on indigenous land leased by Indo-Fijian farmers, but a greater and a more interesting story relates to the way elected indigenous nationalist governments conducted business with overseas commercial interests with total disregard for indigenous land rights.
As a result, the military government "cleaned up" the NLTB. There are endless volumes of information compiled by the Fiji Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption that point to past indigenous Fijian leaders exploiting indigenous Fijians and their resources for personal gains. The details of official corruption in Fiji make for very dry reading and do not fit into the agendas of Australian and New Zealand media and, as a result, we never hear about them, except claims that "corruption and mismanagement is often overstated by the military to support their own agenda."
Overseas media are interested in understanding the resilience of indigenous Fijians who have yet to rebel against the Bainimarama regime. The media hopes to overturn an authoritarian system and in its place establish a nationalist indigenous government based on ethnic division as it existed from 1970 to 2006. There is no choice for the Indo-Fijians who are currently supporting the Bainimarama Government because, on the face of it, the Bainimarama regime has offered a "non-ethnic political solution" while the indigenous nationalists want continuation of "positive discrimination," as stated in the deposed government's political manifesto of 2006.
The question is still asked as to why the Fiji regime has suspended freedom of the press indefinitely in Fiji. The answer is quite simple.
The press has, in the past, attempted to instigate ethnic hatred and destabilize the Fiji government. Overseas-owned newspapers in Fiji have continuously emphasized the need for quick elections and democratic rule, but they have yet to make a case for addressing deep-rooted institutional and ethnic problems in divided communities.
What could be done to cement multiethnic democratic values does not fit within "commercial parameters" of contemporary journalism. Overseas media have little idea of the socio-cultural history of Fiji, including the emphasis on communal politics established by the British colonial rulers to support their indirect rule of the colony.
While many indigenous soldiers have sacrificed themselves for the Commonwealth and the empire and continue to volunteer to fight in failed states like Afghanistan and Iraq and replenish war-weary soldiers from "democratic" nations, there is lack of appreciation on the part of Australia and New Zealand journalists for the complexity of Fiji's multidimensional problems.
Past indigenous Fijians as well as Indo-Fijian leaders have failed Fiji because they were interested in protecting their own communal hive. Since independence of Fiji in 1970, Fiji has oscillated between ethnic conflict and conflict between elected and appointed entities, and these conflicts are yet to be resolved.
To argue that democracy is a "magic bullet" that will solve Fiji's problems is naïve. Previous initiatives to move Fiji towards a non-ethnic model were comprised by indigenous nationalist assertions, and the current regime should be allowed to implement its reforms without interference.
Sanjay Ramesh is an adjunct research associate in transforming cultures at the University of Technology in Sydney and is currently completing a research degree on inter-group conflict in Fiji at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.
Send comments to sanjay.ramesh@uts.edu.au
The contenscious issue of regional media bias and false reporting addressed in the above opinion piece by Sanjay Ramesh, among other notable moderate opinions, is buttressed by a revealing Broadcasting Green Paper on Radio transmissions to the South Pacific region by New Zealand and Australia and their 5 year spectrum outlook 2010-2014 (posted below).
The following images (posted below) are screen shots from the above mentioned paper, that features technical and geo-political issues; undoubtedly a pitch to increase the respective government budgetary allocations to Radio NZ and Radio Australia.
One particular interesting concept of game theory in geo-political forecasting, raised by a US Academic Bruce Bueno de Mesquita was presented in a recent World Affairs Council program. (video posted below).
Much of the ideas presented by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, have wider regional applications, or had been demonstrated recently by one form or another. Particularly, when these issues dove tail neatly into alternative academic perspectives from the Pacific area.
The United States Government bought a home to construct a rear entrance for its new embassy site. A Tubou Street resident said they were offered $50,000 for their home which was worth more."The $50,000 is not enough because Suva is getting crowded and it's hard to find land[...]
The issue of de-reserving native land in Fiji seems to be blown out of proportion by the use of negative connotations framed by the local media in Fiji, underscored by the article in Fiji Times.
Deregister plan
UNAISI RATUBALAVU Thursday, February 14, 2008
There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land. This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.
The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.
The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming. The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday. Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.
Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming. "They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.
Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value. He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.
"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.
"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership." But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.
Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions. He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low. Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act. This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu. It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.
Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.
"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.
Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations. "I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.
Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.
"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.
Fiji Times Editorial also fails to point out the distinctions between the Lands Use Commission and the De-reserving Proposal.
The excerpt:
Give them a fair hearing
Friday, February 15, 2008
THE interim administration might mean well by commissioning a report which proposes the deregulation of native reserves. But it has failed, as many governments have failed in the past, to involve the most important stakeholders of all from the very beginning of the project. This single move has the potential to derail plans.
Any dealing with the land strikes at the heart of even the most moderate Fijian. That is why it is very important that every dealing any government has pertaining to land, must involve discussions with the landowners.
They must know exactly why the report was commissioned and what the proposals in the document will mean to individual mataqali. In the present political climate, it becomes even more important for the authorities to assuage the fears and distrust of the indigenous people.
"Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole"
Already, the tone of discussions in the villages, in homes and around the yaqona bowl has taken on an alarming slant. This is because the people who own the land do not know or fail to fully comprehend what is happening.
Force will not work, neither will the gubernatorial approach. Involve the landowners now, show them the benefits that new land legislation will bring. The way to the landowner's heart and mind is increasingly through the pocket. An equitable return and security is what the landowner wants and deserves.
What government should aim to achieve, however, is to make the indigenous people less reliant on handouts such as the Agriculture Scam or, to some extent, lease payments. As the Krishnamurthi Report points out, Fijians do not have enough incentive for farming and returns from indigenous land are meagre, at best.
It goes further to say that successive governments, the Native Land Trust Board and the chiefs have not done enough for the welfare of the people. The Fijian must be allowed to play a more active role in the use of indigenous land and reap maximum returns.
This means the indigenous people must run the business be it a farm or backpacker resort themselves. The NLTB should provide funding, training and administrative support for these ventures.
It is time for the Fijian to destroy the myth that the indigenous people are lazy and cannot run farms or successful businesses.
The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come."
If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for." (Niko Naiwaikula: Fiji Times Weds. February 13, 2008)
The story took on its own life when, many commentators ill-informed of the two different aspects of the Lands Use Commission and the "Krishnamurthi" Report, which some labeled as a land grab because it proposes (the key word) to de-reserve native land tracts in Fiji.
Some of the comments are from the usual instigators, who continue to broad side the proposal of de-reserving native land in Fiji, as if it was signed, sealed and delivered. Most importantly, most of scathing of comments come from entrenched Chieftains from the North-East sector, who view this proposal as a 'coup de grace' to their spheres of influence, which indirectly affects their future political aspirations.
Among the notables, the convicted Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove and former Minister for Fijian Affairs, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu whose comments appeared in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Touch not, Tui Cakau sounds warning on de-reservation
Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, has warned the Native Land Trust Board against steps to de-reserve native land until the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Agreement is resolved.
Speaking from Taveuni yesterday, Ratu Naiqama expressed concern and urged the NLTB, interim Prime Minister and the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, to reconsider any effort to de-reserve land.
"They should not make any hasty decision here. Precedents of reserve land being de-reserved which fell in the ambits of ALTO (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Ordinance). A classic example was Korovuto in Nadi and NLTB has records to prove my point. They should not shy away from history. Tenants of reserve land have now been taken over by ALTO in the 1970s," Ratu Naiqama said.
He said de-reservation of land was here to stay but changes would only come about if it had the numbers in the House of Representatives.
Ratu Naiqama who was Fijian Affairs Minister in the ousted SDL government and held a managerial post at NLTB, said there was no guarantee landowners would not lose their land, given the history of landowner losses under ALTO.
"Why are they trying to touch reserve land when ALTA has not been resolved? Is this another way of hoodwinking Fijians as they did during Mahendra Chaudhry's one-year reign as prime minister?
"In all this, landowners will be the ultimate losers," he said.
This issue of land solutions has seemingly prompted the ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase and other SDL patrons, who continue to issue their dime's worth, as demonstrated in a Fiji Times article. Qarase like other politicians with ulterior motives, unapologetically gravitate to the limelight like a baby in a christening, a bride at a wedding and a corpse in a funeral; all rolled into one.
The excerpt of the FT article:
Qarase condemns plan as land grab
Sunday, February 17, 2008
OUSTED Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has labeled a move to dereserve native land as a "land-grab" by Mahendra Chaudhry.
"I believe that it is an initiative by the interim Minister for Finance, Mahendra Chaudhry and he is just using the consultant from India, Dr Krishnamurthi", Mr Qarase said. "This is nothing less than a grab for land for Mr Chaudhry and his followers," [Qarase] said.
Mr Qarase added there are 600,000 hectares of land already used for cane farming and that was more than enough for cane production. He [further] added the optimum level of cane production for farmers is from four to five million tones a year.
"The problem is the low production. At the moment, Fiji is producing around 50 tones of cane per hectare, but that needs to be increased to 70 or 80 tones in order to meet the optimum target level," Mr Qarase said.
Mr Qarase added if the proposal to de-reserve native land goes ahead, the interim Government would be treading on dangerous ground.
"Land to the Fijian is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition."
Other even keeled commentators like the former NLTB lawyer, Niko Nawaikula has urged that landowners should be fully consulted in the matter according to a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Inform landowners properly: Nawaikula
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Update: 11:18AM A FORMER lawyer for the Native Lands Trust Board said landowners should be informed fully why their land was to be dereserved.
Niko Nawaikula, the deposed Deputy Speaker of the House of representatives, former secretary of the NLTB and lawyer said getting approval or consent for dereservation was not a problem.
Replying to a consultancy report from Dr Krishnamurthi of Sakhti consultancy in India prepared for interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, Mr Nawaikula said the important part was to inform landowners properly what they were derserving the land for.
"It took the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna 20 years of extensive consultation and planning to dereserve native land," Mr Nawaikula said.
"The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come. If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."
Mr Nawaikula said for dereservation one needed 50 per cent of mataqali to give their handwritten consent.
On de-reserving land for sugar, Mr Nawaikula said from a landowners point of view they should be trained in the industry and farming and have an equitable share in the Fiji Sugar Corporation.
A chief from the Vuda and former diplomat and politician highlighted the sensitivity of the subject and urges for an extensive consultative process that should be presented to the grassroots and the layers above or beyond, according to a Fiji Times article. The stark difference in rhetoric between the Western and Eastern Chieftains has been such a contrast. Easterners (including parts of the North) reject the proposal outright, even though most have not even read the report. Some westerners can be more approachable and may take the time to consider the pros and cons.
The excerpt of the FT article:
Dereservation 'too sensitive'
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Former diplomat and landowner Ratu Tevita Momoedonu believes that dereservation of native land was a sensitive issue that would stir up the emotions of indigenous Fijians.
Ratu Tevita said that it would invite all sorts of problems. He said that the land was a sensitive issue for the Fijian people, so any plans to do anything to it should be considered carefully. Ratu Tevita said extensive consultation should be done with the landowners.
"If anyone wants to touch the land that is reserved for the Fijians, they must make their intentions very clear and consult the whole Fijian system from the village level right up to the provincial level," he said.
Ratu Tevita said landowners must be consulted and made aware of what the land would be used for.
"This is a very sensitive issue that will surely stir up the emotions of the Fijians. They just can't impose it from the top, it is dangerous." Ratu Tevita, like other chiefs, has expressed his concern on the proposal for native land to be dereserved to help boost the ailing sugar industry.
The nationalist Taukei Movement western branch assistant secretary Isikeli Uluikavoro Qoro said: "It is too sensitive to the Fijians. Please leave the native reserve land alone."
" People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use ". (M. Chaudhry Fiji Times Sun. Feb 17th 2008)
"This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators". (Krishanmurthi report- Fiji Live Feb. 18th 2008)
Despite the chorus of uninformed voices, the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) spokesman has officially stated that plans for the de-reserving of all native land will not get their approval, according to a Fiji Times article.
The excerpt of FT article:
NLTB no to native land proposal
UNAISI RATUBALAVU Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE Native Land Trust Board has made it clear it will not agree to de- reserve native land.
"The NLTB will never agree to the proposal that all native land be de- reserved because we have to think of the indigenous generation," said NLTB public relations officer Ro Alipate Mataitini. Ro Alipate said even though many landowners might agree to the de- reservation of native land, the NLTB would have the last say on any development proposal.
"If the NLTB thinks the decision by the landowners will not benefit them in the long term, the process will not go ahead unless the NLTB is satisfied it will be in the long-term interests of the landowners and their descendants.
"This is important information since people must not think that just by getting the majority of landowners to approve de-reservation that it will automatically happen," he said.
About 37 per cent of native land is set aside as reserves from the total 87.75 per cent of native land in Fiji. Freehold land is about 6 per cent, state land is about 4 per cent and land for Rotumans is about 0.24 per cent, NLTB statistics say.
According to Dr Krishnamurthi, the first major step was to de-reserve all native land. "It is obvious that the 4.0 hectare farms are uneconomical, thus lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership," Dr Krishnamurthi recommended.
He said ownership would be vested on the title holder and investments would be by the lessee at a lease period of 75 years or more.
However, a segment of the Krishnamurthi report, according to a Fiji Live article actually identifies the reason for the lack of social mobility in Fijians, stems from the neglect of the Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB), successive Fijian Governments and the influence of Chiefs.
The excerpt of the FL article:
NLTB, Govts, chiefs accused of neglect 18 FEB 2008 The controversial Krishnamurthi report has accused the administrator of native lands, the Native Land Trust Board, successive Fiji governments and Fijian chiefs for neglecting to contribute to the welfare of indigenous Fijian people.
It highlighted that members of the mataqali (clan) had to lease their own land from NLTB, and that the board was very slow in facilitating processes including disbursing monies due to land owners.
Large amounts are still outstanding, the report alleges. “The land owners remained poor with poor standards of living,” the report stated. The NLTB is expected to reply later to these accusations.
The report by consultant M Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the Fiji sugar industry recommends de-reserving land for lots of 40 to 400ha to be created and leased to one individual or company to undertake commercial sugarcane farming.
Native land comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass. The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.
At least two chiefs have spoken strongly against the idea – Nadroga high chief Na Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu and Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa.
The report goes on to say that the major cause of productivity decline for sugar is land reservations for landowners. It said while the concept was good the practice of it did not fit any logic, that is, the land owner had to lease from the NLTB his own land and pay rentals.
“This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators.”
The report claimed that it was found that NLTB was and is very slow in facilitating processes. According to the report, the share of land proceeds to Fijians were negligible and hence of no value. Thus the cropping area fell down to some 60,000 ha with an average of 25mt per ha, it maintains.
But a University of the South Pacific academic Professor Biman Chand Prasad has described the 12-page Krishnamurthi Report proposal as poorly written and lacking depth and discussion of the changed conditions that the sugar industry is operating in at present.
Professor Prasad says the report was misleading in saying that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.
“The report fails to refer to the many studies on the efficiency of sugarcane farming that have identified several factors which have led to the declining sugarcane yields. These include poor farming practices, rising costs of labour and farm implements and poor extension services to name a few.”
While uncertainty of tenure contributes to lower productivity, it is misleading to say that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners. “On the contrary, many of the leases which were not renewed since 1997 have been renewed and leased to new tenants. For example between 1997 and 2003 about 5506 leases were renewed.”
According to the report, Dr M Krishnamurthi hails from Fiji where he spent 30 years, of which 18 years was as director of Sugarcane Researches and later Sri Lanka, Thailand, India in establishment of research centres and implementation of highly profitable programmes.
Sadly, some of the most vitriolic objections are being echoed by individuals who conveniently have morphed the land issue into racial overtones, as CCF President alluded to in a Fiji Times article. The except of the FT article:
Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.
"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.
He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar industry collapsed.
Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry promotes the positive returns for landowners, derived from this de-reservation policy, as published in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:
Chaudhry defends land proposal
Sunday, February 17, 2008
INTERIM Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has defended the proposal to dereserve all native land, saying it was in the best interests of the indigenous community.
Mr Chaudhry said the proposal would lift the Fijian community out of poverty by guaranteeing financial returns for their most treasured asset.
Mr Chaudhry also reassured the indigenous community that dereservation would not result in them losing their land. "The Fijian people own 85 per cent of the land and this proposal would put millions of dollars into the pockets of landowners," Mr Chaudhry said.
"People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use," he said. "This proposal would result in landowners being given the lease then allowed to hire contractors to work the land while they get financial returns through cooperatives that would be set up for them. "How can we let the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty when they own assets worth tens of millions of dollars," [Chaudhry] said.
"We do not want to take the land away from the landowning community but to see that they receive financial returns from their resources," he said.
Mr Chaudhry said the proposal by Dr M Krishnamurti was made in light of the mill upgrades underway that would eventually require an increased cane volume of about four million tones by 2010.
Mr Chaudhry said Mr Krishnamurti had suggested dereservation to bring all available unused cane land into production. He said the proposal was handed over to the Native Lands Trust Board for consideration and the decision was left to the board on whether to go ahead with the initiative.
He claimed some people were trying to "create mischief" by opposing the plan.
Interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama also warns those in Fiji who prey on emotions, not to mislead, confuse and divide the community in an article in Fiji Village.
The excerpt of the FV article:
Interim PM clears govt stance on land issue Publish date/time: 15/02/2008 [17:11]
The Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama stresses that the interim government has not taken any formal stance on the proposal in relation to the de-reservation of native lands.
In a statement this afternoon, Commodore Bainimarama said the comments which have been made on the report by Indian Consultant Dr. M Krishnamurthi, have as usual, attempted to politicize and sensationalize the land issue by selectively highlighting the recommendations in the report.
Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole.
He said in this context the interim government has set up the Committee on Better Utilization of Land and its proposals were endorsed by cabinet. However, the Committee was not even aware of Dr. Krishnamurthi's report and as such the report never featured in its deliberations.
The Interim Prime Minister said to set the record straight, the Committee's recommendations and Dr. Krishnamurthi's report are two different matters and should not be confused with governments intentions.
The Commander reveals that the Committee on better utilization of land's recommendations is a direct result of its deliberations with the NLTB and the relevance, viability and acceptance or otherwise of the NLTB's proposal for incentives to be offered to landowners.
Commodore Bainimarama states that the interim governments intentions is very clear and through the incentive packages as recommended by the NLTB, landowners should expect more rental income in the future with an increase in native land rentals to 10 percent of unimproved capital value.
He revealed that under the new proposed arrangements, the NLTB will consider waiving the 15% poundage to be charged on the proposed rental subsidy which will ensure maximum benefits are passed on to the landowners. He also revealed that the Committee on Better Utilization of Land has recommended that the term of native leases be increased from 30 to 50 years.
Bainimarama said the need to put in place an attractive incentive package that benefits both landowners and tenants is a pressing national issue that needs to be urgently addressed.
The Committee on Better Utilization of Land consists the Permanent Secretary of Indigenous Affairs Ratu Meli Bainimarama, Permanent Secretary at the Prime Ministers office Pramesh Chand, PS Land Dr. Rohit Kishore, PS for Provincial Development Manasa Vaniqi, Acting Permanent Secretary for Agriculture Dr. Rishard Beyer, Acting Deputy General Manager of NLTB Meli Benuci and Chairman of the Sugar Commission of Fiji John May.
The Interim Prime Minister stresses that the interim government fully recognizes the historical, social and cultural significance, which indigenous Fijians place on their customary land.
He said recognizing this the interim government has come up with a proposal which would accrue more benefits to the landowners, yet fully safeguard their rights to ownership as entrenched in the existing legislations.
Commodore Bainimarama stresses that it is time to put emotions aside and start looking at issues rationally.
The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.
The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.
Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.
While a blog posting by Babasiga discuss the report in a intelligent manner and in another post offers some comparisons to the island of Mauritius and the aspect of the declining sugar industry.
Zemanta Pixie">
