High Fidelity.

Fijian Coalition headed by political has-been Messr Tomasi Vakatora who must also face the acid test of historic reality. There is no guarantee that this coalition can reverse the poverty induced nation that has been dis-enfranchised by racial based programs. It is abundantly clear that this same coalition is based on nationalistic motives which has failed the Fijian landowners, miserably.

The same old political clowns in Fiji, begin their dance of oral persuasion; choreographed to the traditional beat of racial stereotyping and xenophobia.

New Bill empowering Fiji Auditor General's office is a well timed move, prior to elections.

Fiji Times editorial raise concerns about Fiji's obsolete electoral boundaries.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

There is no doubt that 2006 is an election year. But there are serious concerns that this country is not ready for the next elections.

Leaving aside the politics going on between parties, or politicking, the State machinery is simply not ready to take on such a mammoth task.

Under the Constitution, there are two bodies that influence the way elections are conducted here.

One is the Electoral Commission chaired by Fiji Law Society president Graham Leung, which controls the Office of the Supervisor of Elections and ensures that it is operating along set procedures and guidelines.

The other is the Constituency Boundaries Commission, chaired by Barrie Sweetman.

While much has been said about the Electoral Commission over the past few months, there is not much emphasis being put on the work of the Constituency Boundaries Commission.

According to the Constitution, 71 members are elected to the House of Representatives 46 of which is to be through ethnic rolls and 25 through universal suffrage.

The problem for the Constitutional Boundaries Commission is that the Constitution rules that equal population size is not an issue in only 17 seats which follow provincial boundaries.

For all other seats, however, the commission must ensure that population size is substantially equal in number.

The Elections Office has been proud to state for the previous elections in 2001 that seats were drawn up to have roughly the same number of votes, depending on the category involved.

But with massive rural-urban drift as a result of expiring land leases, ethnic tension, and job search, there is no doubt that population numbers in many areas have changed substantially.

One great example is the Suva-Nausori corridor where a major influx of settlers from around Fiji has boosted squatter numbers to record levels.

A major chunk of the country's population resides in that corridor alone. Yet no effort seems to have been made to check whether there is a need to increase the number of seats in that area or tighten up the boundaries a bit.

The Constituency Boundaries Commission cannot possibly tell all those residents that nothing has changed since 2001. In November last year, the commission first let out that the task of reviewing the boundaries might be an impossible one.

It seems that this basic constitutional guideline cannot be guaranteed. The State must act on this now to ensure that this Election fulfills all the criteria that the Constitution says it should.

Club Em Designs

The Usual Suspects.

Mud has started flying from the Prime Minister of Fiji. It's anyones guess if Fiji Labour Party leader will file another lawsuit after being labelled a terrorist.
It is official, the campaigning for Fiji elections 2006 is now gaining speed.The Grand Fijian coalition is now looking outside their
race as a means to gain support.

Army Commander Frank Bainimarama pictured with New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Club Em Designs

Towing the Line of Abuse.

Issuing of Fiji Government contracts has long been suspected of abuse by the very individuals suppose to be the guardians of resources. Yet Qarase and company have no idea of the waste in the Public Service and their own track record of un-constitutional behavior designed by the architect of legal wrangling:

Fiji's Attorney General; (pictured leading the S.D.L politicians in Fiji Parliament).

S.I.F.M echoes the sentiments of Fiji Vice-President on the need to change the electoral system from a racial based one to a plural system.

However to soley rely on retirees to educate rural voters is a eyebrow raiser due to voter mis-information.
This type of mentoring should be explored sincerely by Fiji Government, as a permanent establishment for rural adult education. For an example, this enterprising Fijian from New Zealand is an outstanding individual should be a source of inspiration to all Fijians.

It also exposes the fact that more Fijians are putting less emphasis on archaic institutions and seizing their own destiny.


Club Em Designs

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics in Fiji.

90% of Fijians in rural areas live under the poverty line if the reasoning of finance is applied to their case.

S.I.F.M believes that, the visit by current Ministers of cabinet to Fijian villages is no more than a Public Relations exercise to further their influence in the elections. However, the sad situation of lack of development, poverty will be the fundamental area of concern for rural voters.

In the exact words of Fiji Minister for Women and Social welfare in the "breakdown in Fijian culture" while the Great council of Chiefs and Fijian Affairs Board seem to be out of touch with the statistics and data pointing to that disintergration of culture, which is a reflection of in-competance.



Club Em Designs

Moving Violations in Fiji.

Fiji's political landscape is changing from ethnic confrontations to a cohesive discussion on the nation's progress.

S.D.L party's coalition with C.A.M.V, a predominately nationalist party with incidiary individuals on their ticket. Many of whom, are un-tested in any leadership capacity, in addition to being un-educated and un-reliable. It is this layer of Politicians, who stir up the volatile emotions in Fiji without substantiating their concerns.

The Nationalists claim they represent the rural Fijian dwellers, yet they have nothing to show for themselves. These unsavory characters gloss over the archaic land institution in Fiji called Native Lands Trust Board and their dubious track record.
It is apparent the N.L.T.B's shortcomings is the root cause for landowner's dis-enfranchisment.

Former Fiji soldiers looking for work in high danger areas of the world is the end result of the absence of state compassion and strategic planning.
Similarly in Fiji Hardwood Corporation, a financial vehicle to maximize the depletion of Fiji's plantations at the expense of social mobility and sustainable development.

Here's a copy of Fiji Sun article that announces Fiji Police Commissioner's flawed decision.

Hughes apologizes to CEO for charge

By Charlotte Peters

Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes has publicly apologized to a government chief executive officer for what he said was a mistake. He made the apology in the case of the CEO who was bailed and sent home after being tested positive on Dec 30 last year.

Earlier Mr Hughes stated that the officer who ordered the release of the woman had been questioned on his part in the matter and this had brought a new twist to the investigation.

Yesterday, Mr Hughes clarified the matter after seeking legal advice. He said the person was stopped at a checkpoint on the night in question and taken to the Central Police Station where a breath sample was taken.

The outcome of the breath test was 36 micrograms, said Mr Hughes.Under the LTA Act those in excess of 80 milligrams per 100mililitres can be charged.

To come up with the figure in milligrams, we took the 36 micrograms and multiplied it by 2.2 and came up with 79.2 which was below the prescribed concentration of alcohol.

Knowing this Mr Hughes said the officer ordered the release of the woman. He admitted that two others had been charged with the same offence and the police were doing everything within their power to rectify the matter.

Another scathing letter to Fiji Times Editor on the Double Standards applied by Fiji Police Force. S.I.F.M is not the only entity complaining about Fiji Police Force's inability to do their job, in an unbiased manner.

Double standard

I REFER to the letter by Tevita Bevu (FT 8/2) and would like to support his call for the Police Commissioner to come clean on double standards in relation to the release of a government chief executive. The commissioner should stop hoodwinking ordinary citizens and reveal the truth that there are two sets of laws in Fiji and that he applied the rule for the rich and untouchables in this case.

Stop making petty excuses and degrading the competence level of your staff, commissioner.

The excuse that officers made a conversion error reflects that you have incompetent officers in the force. I wonder how many citizens were charged by the incompetent officers and made to suffer for a crime they did not commit.

I would like to know why taxpayers of Fiji are made to pay for incompetent civil servants? Or was it the case of a junior biting the bullet to save a senior officer?

So much for the commissioner's assurance of "one law for all''. Or has he decided to follow the golden rule of "when in Rome do as the Romans do?''

Rakesh Chandra
Nasinu

Club Em Designs

Merging Concerns.

Minster of Communcations visit to Fiji's rural areas is a concern to
Fiji Labour Party because it mirrors the actions of 2001 involving voting irregularities.



The ripples of discomfort created by the trade agreement between China and Australia should be a wake up call to all those involved in export industry. Resting on the laurels of past opportunities is an indication of the absence of contingency plans in Fiji.



Club Em Designs

Sliding Scale of Law in Fiji.

Alcohol test

WHEN Adi Litia Qionibaravi was tested on the night she was stopped by the police, the testing device recorded an alcohol level of 35 micrograms.

During the alcohol test at the station where the reading was converted from micrograms to milligrams, it was found that the figure was two milligrams below the 80ml legal limit (FT 7/2).

I wonder if 35 micrograms is still equivalent to 0.035 milligrams. If it is, then the legal limit would be 2.035mg which is equivalent to 2035micrograms.

I am curious to know how this converted value was two milligrams below the legal limit of 80 ml when the amount of alcohol is in weight measurement while the limit is in volume measurement.

My point is that the formula the police used to justify their action to the case does not look right.

I urge Commissioner Hughes to come clean on this and tell the public the mathematical formula police used in withdrawing charges against prominent people.

Tevita Bevu
Suva

Apparently the reaction to the scathing article on the Driving Under Influence case of the C.E.O for Fijian Affairs Board is rattling the cages of Fiji Police P.R department. This is the usual dismissive attitude from official ranks that only makes a mockery of the intelligence of the greater public.

S.I.F.M recommends the instant dismissal of the incumbent and the institution for simply employing an individual with ill-repute.

Notwithstanding the Fijian Affairs Board's own shortcomings that has chained the Fijian race to an en-trenched feudal system which handicaps their progress in the modern global village.

[For further insight, refer to the Fiji Times Editorial, located at the end of today's posting.]



Fiji Post has been getting side-swiped with their decision to publish the controversial "Cartoon" that has been the cause of riots and embassy razing. S.I.F.M is confident that the same scenario wouldn't be visualized in Fiji.

The similarities of the Protest March cum riot cum Attack, in a Afghanistan N.A.T.O base as was witnessed in Downtown Suva, Fiji at the precise moment the May 2000 coup was being executed.

Fiji Sun contributor and human rights activist, Messr Thakur Ranjit Singh laments his anguish on the New Zealand "Parachute Journalists" who opinionate on the political issue of Fiji. Those who grand-stand as experts in the field, when they hardly understand the local situation.



Finally the Fiji Times Editorial decides to focus on Fiji's land issues. What the editorial fails to point out is that, the archaic Native Lands Trust Board is the root cause for this miserable stagnation of land and mind. Unfortunately the Editorial falls miserably short of real solutions. Typical print-media mentality that uses minimization pre-tense and does not rectify the problems in Fiji.

Land ownership
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
IT is a pity that some landowning units claim to be poor yet make no effort at all to utilize their land or allow portions of it to be leased.

It is sad to see so much land lying idle including that which had been previously leased but was taken back by clans after the expiry of leases.

This is evident in the cane belts in Vanua Levu and western Viti Levu and more recently in the dairy farm districts of Tailevu and Naitasiri.

The landowners are not willing to renew the agricultural leases arguing that their members need to utilize the land for commercial or subsistence farming. The excuse is that their numbers are growing and they need the land back.

While the land lies idle, no one, least of all the owners themselves, stand to benefit from it. They do not receive six-monthly rentals from the leases. There is no return because there is no investment. The Government has been too timid in promoting land use among the owners. It fails to convince some landowners of the immense wealth they are missing out on when the land is not utilized. Some of the landowners it has managed to convince eventually lose interest when the markets arranged by the Government for their farm produce fail to materialize.

We have yet to see a government effectively address the land use issue and raise its voice sufficiently to push landowners into getting the maximum returns from their land or making it available for development.

The Government's policy of handouts and special treatment for landowners has to stop. It is not the right way to help them "catch up" with others in lifting their standards of living.

A very few Fijians can honestly claim today that they do not own any tribal land. They have this vital resource which will generate so much for their families if it is utilized. Perhaps through the provincial and district councils they can be educated and counseled on how to benefit from this valuable resource at their disposal.

There used to be by-laws in the Fijian administration system requiring that each male in the village produce a certain quantity of farm produce a month. This was closely monitored and encouraged them to farm the land. Maybe a similar system should be introduced today.

Landowners have to get out of the thinking that they'll lose their precious "God-given" asset if it is leased out or once they use it for farming. They should realize that there are relevant laws in place which safeguard their ownership.

But they must use the land to help themselves, others and the country as a whole.

The wealth they look for is buried in the land. To realize it, the land has to be utilized.

End of story.

Club Em Designs

Muddying the Issue.

Respect for G.C.C is a two-way street. G.C.C has shown their allegiance to the divisive R.T.U Bill.
If the National Alliance Party Chairman wants to water down the rule of law, then his sentiments are flawed simply because of bias.

It is a well-known fact that he is also a chief and his support for G.C.C also infers support for the controversial R.T.U Bill. As a potential statesman he must learn to draw the line between institutions and the Fiji constitution.

The vocal excuse by Fiji Police Commissioner on the Zero-tolerance and No-Drop policy for Driving Under the Influence was just a Marketing hype. This case is an example of dual standards applied to the influential members of Fiji's society.

S.I.F.M believes this is a farce and exclaims that the Fiji Police are still being on pressured by people in higher places at the expense of the unbiased rule of law.

Club Em Designs

Counting on Heaven.

S.D.L Government to implement the R.T.U Bill is being opposed by more international organizations and
only drives the point home to Fiji Prime Minister. It seems he is out of touch as usual, seeking religous support with Methodist Church of Fiji.

Stuck in Fiji echoes the calls to establish a permanent Elections Office in Fiji. It is now clear that these civil servants who take up positions during elections should be scrutinized to prevent interference.

It no longer surprise for the people of Fiji on the vast amount of lip-service dished out by civil servants, by covering up their incompetance.

Club Em Designs

Final Destination.

Landowners of Fiji have been perpetually dis-enfranchised by organizational in-efficiencies.

Stuck in Fiji Mud believes this trend will not change anytime soon, due to the lack of implementation within Fiji Government agencies.

The rumors of Fiji President retiring has now been compromised by the un-elected members of the Great Council of Chiefs.
It is yet another miserable example of an anachronism, attempting to justify their incompetence.
Here's letter to Fiji Times Editor that encapsulates the double- standards applied to indigenous issues, by the same Fiji Government that routinely reminds the world of it's hollow accomplishments.

Next leader

A MOTIVATOR, a man or woman of principle and convictions. One who sets goals and leads from the front to achieve them is a man or woman of vision.

Fiji right now is at the crossroads to make this choice. We have to choose one who will unite us all for the betterment of Fiji, someone who is identified with everybody.

Fiji needs one who can bring the best out of everyone. One who creates an environment where people excel in what they do.

Enough of a leader who relies on others to make decisions for him or her.

Enough of one who is just a spectator.

Enough of one who goes with the flow.

Enough of one who goes around trying to please everyone. Fiji needs a leader whose life and actions permeates different races, religion and culture to bring out the good in people.

One that all of Fiji, with its different ethnicity, will stand up and ask "what can I do for Fiji?" rather than "what can Fiji do for me?"

Choose well Fiji.

Save Tabualevu
Rakiraki

Foreshore development

I noted in the dailies last week an application for foreshore development in Volivoli, Ra. I quote "to complete and regularise the partly completed Marina and Channel in front of the applicant's property".

As this has been a frequent practice, I am just wondering if the State Act (Cap 132) Section 21 (2) allows for such "reclaim foreshore first and regularise later" practices.

To make it worse, these public notices in the dailies usually have very small letters that require a magnifying glass to read.

Has the Tui Navitilevu been consulted or is he expected to read the public notice in the dailies and to come running to the Director of Lands? Protocol wise, this is far out and insulting.

Furthermore Qoliqoli owners at the village level hardly read such public notices in the dailies let alone understand the legal write-ups.

With livelihood opportunity foregone from the reclamation of the qoliqoli, what financial equity status will the qoliqoli owners in Volivoli, Ra have from the Marina?

Even the Tui Suva is living in a squatter settlement near my Vatuwaqa home. Yet the reclamation of the Vatuwaqa industrial subdivision and the Rokobili container terminal is reaping profits for the developers while the poor qoliqoli owners are just living in shacks from these unfair system, not to mention the rubbish and the contamination of their qoliqoli.

The extent of the implementation of Queen Victoria's letter in 1881 to Governor DesVoux is yet to be experienced but as for now, there is continuous abuse of Qoliqoli owners' human rights.

We are owners by name only but in fact we have been ripped off. Frustration is really an understatement of our burning feelings at the moment.

I am wondering if Qoriniasi Bale's legal firm representation of developers and resorts is having a conflict of interest with his role as a A-G to legislate the Queens wish in her 1881 letter through the Qoliqoli Bill.

Jone Mavia
Suva.

Club Em Designs

Tragedy of the Commons.

Fiji easily writes off taxes from a Government agency yet it pulls out all stops in other tax payers. Exemplifying parallels to "The Tragedy of the Commons".

Fuel Quality is the reason is why the Big 3 of oil have managed to earn profits on the backs of pollution to Pacific islands.

It is concerning issue for S.I.F.M, that there is no official agency in Fiji Government to scruntinize Fuel Quality and establish legislation on existing Environmental Laws in Fiji.

Unfortunately there are no brilliant minds in Fiji Government to create more tax concessions for importers of plumbing fixtures that uses a conservative water-flow rate. It is the un-obstructive waste of water in Fiji that has created this demand.
So it would be prudent to penalize the cronic water wasters and establishing a reward-induced conservation programs for water and energy.



This is a provocative piece by Rotten State on the issue of Great Council of Chief's new building. Welcome back Rotten State!




Fiji Times Voice of the People.

Polluted harbor

Your article on the polluted harbor (FT 1/2) is very concerning. If research showed that it was polluted in 2000/ 2001 then what is the condition of it now?

The Lami dump as claimed which contributed to its situation only ceased to operate last year but still exists. Therefore one would presume it is still contributing to the pollution.

Even more concerning is that seafood from the harbor has been consumed by so many since then. I am sure others like me would like to know where this research was until now and who is responsible for telling the citizens.

God bless Fiji.

Gyanendra Lachmaiya
Suva

Polluted sea

With the high level and rate of pollution in the Suva harbor, one wonders how much longer can we guarantee our safety by consuming seafoods from other safety zones.

The seas and oceans have now become dumping grounds for all toxic substances posing greater risks on living organisms but more so on humans who depend on seafoods.

We love the fish and other living organisms used for food which daily feed on these waste and toxic material. How can we be assured that these seafoods are clean when their natural surrounding is filthy?

Fish and other seafoods are delicacies but which now should be ignored. No one will die from a lack of fish or seafood.

Sicknesses can be caused by poor diet and dietary habits.

Sanaila Ravia
Nadawa


Stupid advice

Once I was told by the an officer at a police station that any person who does not hold a Fiji passport or holds a PR of any other country and living there can neither enter nor discuss politics in Fiji.

It is an offence and they could be charged. I wonder if people staying abroad and using this column to air their opinions should be charged under any law.

I reiterate that we do not need their stupid advice because they have left this beautiful Fiji. They should leave us alone. Your correspondent from Sacramento (FT 31/1) should know that Iraq needs him more than us in Fiji.

Surendra Kumar
Nadi

SKY Plus

Fiji Television Group CEO Mesake Nawari in a public notice attempts to pacify the ever increasing number of disgruntled Sky Plus subscribers by reassuring them that for 2006 they will receive no less for their subscription than what they received in previous years (FT 31/1).

Does this also mean the same number of repeat programs especially on the National Geographic and Hindi channels?

And can Mr Nawari confirm that major sporting events will continue to be aired live and not relegated to delayed broadcasting? I'm sure his response will influence the decision of many subscribers whether to continue paying $40 per month in 2006 for this service.

S. Singh
Lautoka

Television license

I reply to Eddie Chan's letter (FT 1/2) re TV2 Fiji.

Other than through his letters to this column no one at TV2 has heard of Eddie Chan but we sincerely thank him for his support over the years.

As he quite rightly points out, "pay" TV is the domain of the wealthy elite. To quote the late Dr Ahmed Ali, Minister for Communications (from Hansard) "Television viewing opportunities should be available not just to a wealthy elite but to the ordinary person. We cannot make television viewing exclusive.

I have said previously that monopoly is keeping our children in the dark ages. If television goes down the same insensitive path, we will revert to glacial times, in the context of knowledge dissemination as readily available with the rest of the world. Today, the availability of access to this knowledge through television is a human right, as many would correctly say, and indeed, a fundamental right, intended for all human beings, not just the wealthy and the privileged few".

TV2 has written seven letters to the current Minister for Communications Mrs (Marieta) Rigamoto since last August inquiring about the status of our application.

She had advised at that time that it would require "a few more weeks" deliberation before the Cabinet sub-committee passed it to Cabinet.

Six months on we are still waiting for a response from the minister. TV2 is ready to bring a new world of "free" television to Fiji and our Pacific affiliates - programs on healthy living, cooking and lifestyles, children's educational programs, current mini series, movies and series, primetime documentaries and specials (that are currently only available on "pay" channels), and much more. As shown by Fiji TV's massive tax-free profits, constantly increasing share value and returns to shareholders, the marketplace will be more than able to support a second commercial operator.

To believe that TV2 will take half of Fiji One's advertisers is ridiculous.

TV2 will generate new advertisers who, no doubt, will also wish to advertise on Fiji One. TV2 may take half of the advertising pie, but that pie will be made much much larger by TV2's sales team.

Minister Rigamoto has stated "we are determined to open up the TV market", but at the same time "we have to think of Fiji TV first".

Why? Why not think of the people of Fiji first rather than "Fiji TV" or more accurately, its rich influential shareholders?

Who, exactly, is delaying TV2's licence submission and why?

Ken Stratton
TV2 Fiji

Club Em Designs

Power of One.

Interesting Letter to Fiji Times Editor.

Power of landowners

WE see much written in the press about the power of the landowner when they block development or take extreme action.

I have first-hand experience in my family about how powerless landowners are unless they are prepared to take direct action.

A couple have moved on to a piece of reserve land where my family have lived and farmed for 50 years. They are Fijian but from another province. They have no right to live on our reserve. They claim to have a lease but according to the NLTB it is not the case.

They have cleared the land and are planting. They have polluted the water in which my family use to drink and bath. They have threatened women members of my family.

The police have been called but merely told us to keep the peace. I am told that the court has no jurisdiction here. The NLTB said it is reserved land and no lease has been issued but does nothing to enforce it.

What recourse has my family in this situation? We have no wish to resort to direct action but who else will enforce the law?

What recourse have we against these trespassers who steal our land and foul our water?

Doctor FS Dewa
Suva

Club Em Designs

Stuck in Fiji Mud would like to share excerpts of a new book, from a former Legal officer for the Fiji Government.

SPEAKING OUT

Excerpts:

“While those who lusted for undeserved power, and their many misguided followers, were embarked upon a malignant enterprise against their homeland and its leaders, most successors to ancient warriors and the ethically naked but finely attired retailers of divine wisdom sank deeper into the ashes of their own vice”

“…the merchants of malice continue to ply their wicked trade at every opportunity by maligning a whole race that is innocent of any wrongdoing against Fijian custom, tradition or their land”

“Instead of celebrating the richness of our diverse cultures, our distinguishing features became cruel dividing walls to keep us apart in ministering to the affairs of our common home.”

“The marchers claimed to express their extreme disapproval that the Prime Minister is an Indo-Fijian … one may well ask how they reconcile their repugnant racist sentiment on the weekday with their purported devotion to the Biblical precept of the brotherhood of Man on Sunday.”

“The forebears of the Punjas, Motibhais, Vinod Patels and other large businesses took several generations to reach their present elevated state and a great deal of self-denial and self-exploitation was involved along the way. There is no short cut to success_ -for Fijians and others alike.”

“A soufflé doesn’t rise twice; neither will the National Bank.”

“Why are Indo-Fijians supposed to be good at managing businesses but are not to be allowed to manage the biggest business of all; the government of the country? Why? Oh why?”

“Might we not lose more judges who find the CJ's modus operandi unacceptable, as shown up in Judge Anthony Gates's ruling last week in a matter when Sir Timoci tried to have a case in which he is a defendant assigned to a judge of his selection?”

“And lastly, if, after a day of rest, one should feel energised for recreation of an amorous kind, he or she must heed the cautionary chorus: ‘Never on a Sunday’.”

SPEAKING OUT

Sir Vijay R Singh

“I would rather die for speaking out than to live and be silent.”
Fan Zhongyan 988-1052

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

In this anthology of articles that he wrote for various publications during the decade of 1995 – 2005, Sir Vijay R Singh demonstrates a rare ability to say boldly and eloquently what was happening behind the scenes, below the surface, and beyond the obvious.

Born into a poor sugarcane farming family in Ba, he has maintained a life-long empathy for farmers and workers, regardless of the many successes he was to later achieve. That explains his presidency of the Fiji Kisan Sangh for two decades and his appointment as the first Chief Executive of the newly established Sugar Cane Growers Council in 1985.

Sir Vijay read law in London and entered private practice in Fiji in 1954.

He was elected to the Legislative Council in 1959 on personal merits (no party politics then), and, six years later, teamed Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara to form The Alliance – a political party whose fundamental ideology was to bridge the racial divide working together for the common good of all. He was president of the Indian Alliance from its founding in 1969 until he became the Speaker of the House in 1975.

Sir Vijay was one of the brightest stars in Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s Cabinet, and during an illustrious career in public life he chalked up a formidable array of achievements in politics, law and community service.

Parliament lost one of its most effective and eloquent parliamentary performers when, in the mid-1970s, Sir Vijay was elected Speaker, a post that was excellent preparation for the presidency of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in New York, to which he was elected in 1979.

Sir Vijay was knighted in 1976, the first Indo-Fijian so honoured.

In this compendium of critical essays, he focuses on events and issues that have had a momentous impact on life in Fiji over the past two decades. As one who has been at the centre of power, he brings rare insight into the functioning of government apparatus. His style is lucid and elegant, incisive and intellectually stimulating.

Much of what he said years ago is as relevant today as it was then. For everyone interested in Fiji, this is a ‘must read’ book.





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The idea of this book developed as a substitute – at least for the time being - for the memoirs that some friends and well-wishers had urged me to write, particularly Dr Satendra Nandan, Vijendra Kumar, Dr. Brij Lal and my wife.

For the moment, an autobiography seems like too hard an undertaking but I hope that this book will give a glimpse, incomplete and hazy though it might be, of my life and times.

I am grateful to Dionisia Tabureci of Island Business, Suva, for her efforts in retrieving the essays published in that magazine in 1996 from its archives.

I am particularly appreciative of the invaluable assistance of Vijendra Kumar, former editor of the Fiji Times and now resident of Brisbane, Australia, in editing the essays, and his advice and assistance in other ways. I also thank Praveen Chandra of Brisbane for his technical expertise in making the manuscript ready for the printers.

I acknowledge my debt to my parents and to my uncle Hari Shankar who together laid the foundations for the person I became; and to the many political colleagues and personal friends -- many of whom have long since departed – for helping to mould my role and influence in public affairs.

I wish to thank those who responded to my articles at the time of their publication; I have quoted some of them as footnotes to the relevant article.

And lastly, an acknowledgement of another kind. I had long admired the Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaga for his many fine personal qualities and his courageous commitment to principles after the 1987 coups. To write adversely of his conduct after the events of May 19, 2000 was a painful experience, but a task I felt I could not evade.

Vijay R Singh
Brisbane, Australia
E-mail address:sirvijay@bigpond.net.au

THE SKYLARK WILL SING

AS I PONDER every week on what next to write about the condition of Fiji and future prospects of its more vulnerable sections, particularly of the Fiji-Indians, I am driven to the realisation that much that is relevant to my efforts has been said before. In an address to Alliance members and ministers as we approached independence in 1970, I had quoted from Nobel Laureate Rabindra Nath Tagore’s poem Gitanjali to express my vision of the future:

"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high, Where knowledge is free,

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic wall,

Where words come out from the dept of truth,

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection,

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit,

Where the mind is led forward by Thee

Into ever widening thought and action

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake."

And some years later His Holiness Pope John visited us and declared, "Fiji: The Way the World Should Be."

We seemed to be getting there, for sure.

But in 1987, and more grievously in May 2000, the prejudice against Indo-Fijians combined with passion for power on the part of some moved them to commit treason and to hold prisoner not only their Government but their humanity, reason and religion, as well.

On each occasion, most customary and chosen leaders purported to have been unaware of their people's aspirations and disposition until the coup makers told them so; whereupon they readily agreed to the “cause” and gave earnest encouragement to evil deeds.

But in so doing, they ignored the wise counsel of Khalil Gibran:

"Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.

If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift,

Or else be held at standstill in mid seas.

For reason, ruling alone is a force confining.

And passion, unattended, is a flame that burns its own destruction.

Therefore, let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion,

That it may sing:

And let it direct your passion with reason

That your passion may live through its own daily resurrection

And, like the phoenix, rise above its own ashes."

While those who lusted for undeserved power -and their many misguided masters and followers --were embarked upon a malignant enterprise against their homeland and its chosen leaders by holding government parliamentarians hostage, most successors to ancient warrior-chiefs and the ethically naked but finely attired retailers of divine wisdom, sank deeper into the swamp of their own vices.

These men of the cloth sought reflected glory in glorifying the inhumanity of their sinful flock of hostage takers; but in their uncompassionate hearts, could not find the will to spare a moment to cast a comforting glance at the hapless and innocent hostages who languished but a few yards away in the parliamentary complex.

They joined together to desecrate the national motto: Fear God and Honour the Chief; they violated the solemn promise. And their political outriders, far and wide, high and low, military and civilian, hastened to proclaim their support for the newly invented “cause” as defined by army officer Sitiveni Rabuka (1987) and failed businessman George Speight (2000), while occasionally proclaiming not to support the means, but had not the courage to condemn and resist their evil enterprise.

Some enacted the charade of seeking forgiveness of their victims, claiming that this was their custom and tradition, but without showing a semblance of remorse for their wicked ways.

Such pretence of piety will not heal the trauma of the hostages and their loved ones for their 56-day stopover into hell. Or wash away the tears of Filipo Seavula's young wife, suddenly made widow in a violent act of treason, or her young orphaned son, or diminish the daily agony of parents, suddenly made jobless, as they strive to feed their hungry children.

Some of the victims may, in a show of simulated or genuine generosity of spirit, feign forgiveness.

As for me,

"I am no Homer's Hero, you all know,

I profess not Generosity to a Foe.

My Generosity is to my Friends,

That for their Friendship I may make amends.

The Generous to Enemies promotes their ends,

And becomes the Enemy, and Betrayer of his Friends."

Because, as Martin Luther King Jr said:

"I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of goodwill".

Undeserved forgiveness is unforgivable encouragement of evil.

But all who gloat at the triumph of lawlessness and its perceived prizes might do well to heed Bob Dylan's 1963 lyrics in his Song for the Rocks in the Stream:

"The line it is drawn; the curse it is cast

The slow one now will later be fast

As the present now will later be past

The old order is rapidly fading

And the first one now will later be last

For the times, they are a-changing."

The already sidelined and discriminated and soon to be displaced Indo-Fijians now know that their ethnic Fijian friends and neighbours, "they are a-changing, and the line is drawn and the curse is cast."

But however distressed and disillusioned, the Indians will behave as they always have -- with the same patience, fortitude and indomitable spirit that their forefathers showed in the long night of the Girmit' -- "With a mind without fear and head held high."

Dr. Subramaniam rightly said: "You may make us second class citizens but you cannot make us second class people." Or, as Khalil Gibran had said with touching eloquence:

"You can muffle the drum, You can loosen the strings of the lyre,
But who shall command the skylark Not to sing."
And so, I must, like the skylark, continue to sing, and serve by Speaking Out.

THE MICKEY ROONEY SYNDROME

April 1999.

WE LIVE IN extraordinarily interesting times. History and reputations are being made, revised and unmade.

Labour/FA/Panu, after adopting a common manifesto, have fielded seemingly competing candidates. Mahendra Chaudhry, the skilful tactician, hasn't explained whether this signifies disagreement or manipulation of the preferential voting system to keep hoped for victory within the family.

More intriguing is SVT/NFP/GUP coalition. It is firmly united in its determination to win, and little else. A manifesto should have glued them together but they couldn't agree on one. As it is, Rabuka, Reddy and Pickering have separate route maps to the Promised Land. Their kinship, is therefore, based not on common outlook but on common adversaries.

Aided by international experts at thought manipulation, NFP denigrates its former friend turned nemesis Mahendra Chaudhry for giving Labour's spare preferences to VLV, the dreaded Christians. They might ban golf, gardening and much else on Sundays.

NFP politely overlooks that its ally SVT has given its preferences to Butadroka's party, the one that wants Indo-Fijians deported, and, for good measure, to VLV, as well. (Fiji Times 30/4/99 pp 7/13).

Rather than giving security of tenure to NLTB tenants, Rabuka has already moved a Bill in parliament to give to NLTB several hundred thousand acres of publicly owned (Crown) land settled by several thousand tenants, mostly Indo-Fijians. And crown land tenants had thought they had absolute security of tenure.

Also very odd is the fact that, after allocating open seats among themselves, the SVT/NFP/GUP are running separate candidates, just like the Peoples Coalition. But oddities of manipulation have descended to the bizarre. SVT has urged voters to vote below the line and prefer its candidate Sovea Tabua to NFP’s James Raman. SVT's formal preference for Raman is thereby cancelled. (see ad. DP 1/5/99 p11)

Some folks can't leave a good thing alone. Neophyte politician Dr Wadan Narsey dusted up NFPs ancient logic that only an exclusively racial electorate could elect its representative, notwithstanding the conflict between this contrived criterion and its advocacy of common roll.

More extraordinary was Jai Ram Reddy's endorsement of Dr. Narsey and his cruel dismissal of NFP's many former friends as “token” representatives of their communities: Ratu Julian Toganivalu, Apisai Tora, Ratu Mosese Tuisawau, Rev Peter Davis, Joeli Kalou, Ratu S Katonivere, Arthur Jennings, Koresi Matatolu, Ratu Osea Gavidi, Edmund March, Ratu Napolioni Dawai, Dr Timoci Bavadra, Dr Tupeni Baba, Jo Nacola and others.

Reddy says they were all fakes; brass; not the genuine 24-carat gold that Rabuka and Pickering are. In so doing, Reddy validated Rabuka's excuse for the coup on the ground that Bavadra's NFP/Labour coalition government was Indian-dominated. An argument that Reddy had consistently refuted for 10 years by pointing out that Bavadra's cabinet had equal numbers of Indians and Fijians and a general elector, too. Reddy's dismissal of his former leader and colleagues as merely “token” representatives of their people belatedly confirms his new leader's old excuse.

But Rabuka was also was revising history. No sooner had Reddy endorsed his old reason for the coup, Rabuka had come up with a new one -- that he had been “used” and “manipulated” by others to do their bidding, that the old excuse wasn't valid any more.

According to NFP's ancient and recently reconfirmed doctrine that only a communal electorate is capable of selecting its genuine representatives, both Reddy and Rabuka will now be “token” representatives, not the authentic stuff they were, as they are candidates for multiracial, and not communal, constituencies.

While Dr Narsey was needlessly belittling “ghost” and “token” leaders of another era, his present leader had such a “ghost”, “token” and “honoured” leader arrive from Australia (former Indian Alliance MP Kishore Govind OBE) to lend NFP a helping hand in Ba, the “ghost's” former stronghold.

Weird also is the unique spectacle of the certified coup leader urging people to vote freely, while his former victim reminds them of the coup, strife in Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland, thus intending to induce electors against voting freely and fearlessly.

A most disturbing aspect of democracy in practice, all this.

NFP says that its 30-year old policy of confrontational politics was wrong. Wrong too, it says, was its befriending of “token” Fijian and General voter representatives, the likes of those mentioned above.

That it should have been, by its own admission, wrong for so long about so many things and so many people gives the public little comfort that NFP is right this time in its judgments about its latest friends, Rabuka and Pickering.

NFP's claim that Rabuka and Pickering lead “mainstream” parties is certainly of uncertain force. Even the dim-eyed can see that battalions of Fijian chiefs and commoners alike are opposed to Rabuka's SVT. Indeed, never in history has a mainstream Fijian party enjoyed such diversely talented and extensively organised opposition.

As for Pickering's United General Party, even the blind can see that it is anything but united. Indeed, the Generals have more dissident groups than they have seats, which is a record of some kind.

Film actor Mickey Rooney -- like the NFP -- had always declared his love of the moment to be the answer for his everlasting bliss. Sadly, his repeated misjudgments led to 11 divorces, handily outstripping the much married and divorced Elizabeth Taylor's record.

Obvious truths and history give rise to a compelling thought -- might not the error-prone NFP be wrong again in its present passion for Rabuka and Pickering and aversion to Mahendra Chaudhry and others?

Might it be that NFP suffers from the Mickey Rooney syndrome?

---------------------------

Dr Wadan Narsey responded to the above article in Fiji Times’ open column.

Benefits of Coalition

[...Your columnist Sir Vijay Singh interprets the words “token Fijian leaders” as an insulting reference to leaders who were Fijians. That was not the intention in my original advertisement, in my use of the word “token”.

I am fully aware and acknowledge the enormous contributions made by indigenous Fijians such as Ratu Julian Toganivalu, Dr Bavadra and many other Fijian leaders, who had the courage to work with the Indian community.

But Sir Vijay knows (even if he ignores) that I was merely pointing out that the indigenous Fijian community did not see them as “Fijian leaders”. They were seen as Fijians who were sympathetic to Indians, and voted in on the basis of Indian votes, but without widespread Fijian support.]

Sir Vijay would seem to argue that just because some Fijians are elected “democratically” they should be treated as “Fijian leaders.” Unfortunately, in the real world, Fijians and their real leaders in 1987 did not think so, whatever may have been the commitment of the Bavadra government to Fijians.

It is puzzling that Sir Vijay still refuses to acknowledge the strengths and benefits of the SVT/NFP co-operation and coalition. Sir Vijay chooses to ignore the historical fact that whatever may have been the faults of the SVT government and their [sic] leader, they have revised the constitution to make it fair and genuinely democratic.

Not only that, but the new constitution also gives guarantees of fair representation of both Indian and Fijian political representatives in cabinet. It is disappointing that Sir Vijay refuses to acknowledge that Mr Jai Ram Reddy and the NFP are in coalition with Mr Rebuke and the SVT because they want to work together with the largest Fijian party and its leader. Does it matter how long it took to realize this lesson?

It is more disappointing given that Sir Vijay himself for more than 30 years , chose to work closely with Ratu Mara \, the Alliance party and the Fijian community, and is surely well aware of he benefits of such co-operation.

My reference to “political ghosts” was not meant to belittle Sir Vijay, but merely to point out a connection the politics of the past era.

Many people are wondering whether his acid attacks on NFP (Reddy) and SVT (Rabuka) are fair and balanced comments. Or is Sir Vijay providing assistance to some current opponents of NFP and SVT who just happen (coincidence?) to be relatives of old Alliance friends of Sir Vijay?

As an economist, who is continuously berated by his colleagues for not being a politician, I take it as a compliment to be called a “neophyte optician” by Sir Vijay Singh

Dr Wadan Narsey.” ...]

I replied as follows:

“I am glad to accept Dr Wadan Narsey’s explanation that he didn’t intend to insult anyone when he referred to “token” leaders not elected exclusively by voters of their own race.

But then how do I interpret Dr Narsey’s innuendo that my observations are not objective but are “assistance to some current opponents of NFP and SVT who just happen (coincidence?) to be relatives of the old Alliance friends of Sir Vijay”?

It just so happens that most of friends of the Alliance days are supporters of the NFP. Mr Y P Reddy, a valued ally of those days, is indeed the chairman of the NFP selection committee. Dijendra Singh of Ba, ally, friend and a relation is campaigning for the NFP, including Mr Reddy in Nadi. Diwan Shankar, my first cousin, is the NFP candidate against Mahendra Chaudhry. Old Alliance friends like Maan Singh and Azam Khalil are also NFP candidates, as is Dhirendra Kumar of Ra whose father was my ardent political supporter.

I respect their right to follow their judgment and have not sought to influence any one of them to change their affiliation.

It is unbecoming of Dr Narsey to suggest that my views are tailored to suit some unknown relatives of some unnamed old friend of whose identity I have not the slightest idea.

His accusation of bias has less substance than soup made out of the shadow of a chicken that died of starvation.

Sir Vijay R. Singh”

A DIMINISHED JUDICIARY

17 October 2000

DESPITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Sir Timoci Tuivaga's explanations, judges, lawyers and lay persons at home and abroad remain profoundly perturbed at his enthusiastic engagement in politically charged extra-judicial business.

Judicial independence is far too important a public interest issue not to be publicly discussed when the occasion demands, lest silence induced by tact or timidity be misconstrued as acceptance of the unacceptable. A judge who strays beyond his judicial functions cannot escape public scrutiny and criticisms of his extra-judicial activities.

In 1987, all superior court judges had courageously demonstrated their commitment to uphold the constitution and the rule of law and endured harassment of all kinds. Judge Kishore Govind was imprisoned at Naboro and Judge Rooney held under house arrest for days. All eventually resigned rather than serve under a military regime. Sir Timoci Tuivaga CJ was one such judge but although he was later recalled to the bench, we lost most of the others for good. They deservedly stood high in universal pubic esteem.

But sadly, the CJ's recent conduct has caused much dismay. Sir Timoci advised the President on the Constitution's provisions that he could invoke to dismiss the Coalition government. The President acted accordingly.

At issue is not the correctness of the advice -- although that, too, is highly questionable -- but the propriety of judges acting at all as the President's legal counsel. The entirety of the legal profession in the public and private sector, and talent abroad, was available to the President.

The severely denounced decision of Australian Chief Justice Garfield Barwick to advise Governor General John Kerr how to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1975 should have been a salutary signal to any judge not to follow a disreputable precedent. But the Chief Justice did just that, and he cannot evade the consequential commotion.

An even graver grievance concerns the CJ's drafting of a decree for the military to promulgate that purported to re-establish the judiciary, and in the process, also to abolish the Supreme Court. This was far from being a benevolent involvement, as Sir Timoci would like us to believe, because implicit in his drafting of the decree were hazardous assumptions of great constitutional and political significance.

Firstly, that the military had at that point in time acquired the authority in law to rule by decree, and secondly and accordingly, the judiciary and the constitution from which it drew its authority, went out the window together when the military claimed to have 'wholly removed' the constitution.

Also, for about a hundred years the Privy Council in London had been our final court of appeal and, after the establishment of the Fiji Court of Appeal, the highest of our three superior courts structure. Until, of course, a lieutenant colonel deposed the Queen in 1987 and thereby severed our access to Her Majesty's Privy Council.

To fill the void, the Supreme Court of Fiji was created but the decree Sir Timoci helpfully draft abolished the that Court. Neither the military nor the CJ has claimed paternity of this eccentricity -- that amputation of the highest of our courts was essential surgery to successfully address our afflictions, the foremost of which then were the safe release of the hostages and the restoration of law and order.

The military, for its part, sought to distance itself from this most peculiar prescription for the treatment of our ills. It published a statement two days after the decree, assuring all that "the judiciary has not been tampered with" (Sunday Times 11 June p.25).

Weighty questions inevitably arise. Did the military make the incorrect statement because it did not know that the CJ drafted decree had in fact abolished the Supreme Court? And that thereupon Lord Cooke, Sir Gerard Brennan, Sir Moti Tikaram, Sir Keith (correction Anthony) Mason and Mr Justice Toohey had been summarily dismissed? Also, that the CJ had installed himself as a judge of the Court of Appeal?

The military's unawareness of these and other aspects of the decree may explain its incorrect statement, but that excuse will inevitably transport the CJ to even a lower and more perilous perch. Was he less than frank with Commodore Frank Bainimarama and kept him in the dark of the decree's important provisions?

Whose agenda required the Supreme Court's abolition -- the military's or Sir Timoci's opposition to the Court, and why? If the military's, why did the CJ not seek the Law Society's support to preserve the long established judicial system, instead of completely ignoring the legal profession while he collaborated with the military?

Did Sir Timoci's adventures cause or contribute to the resignations of Justices Jai Ram Reddy as President of the Court of Appeal and Ratu Jone Madraiwiwi as a High Court judge? And might we not lose more judges who find the CJ's modus operandi unacceptable, as shown up in Judge Anthony Gates's ruling last week in a matter when Sir Timoci tried to have a case in which he is a defendant assigned to a judge of his selection?

And crucially, what, in Sir Timoci's view, is the source of his present claim to be the Chief Justice? Is it the Constitution that he was sworn to uphold, or the military decree that he obligingly drafted to restore his and other judicial offices? The two propositions are mutually exclusive; they cannot reside under the same roof at the same time. Sir Timoci cannot escape these and other disquieting questions -- all products of his questionable conduct in office.

In his typically understated fashion, Peter Knight, then Law Society President, had observed: "The Chief Justice had other options open to him." Expediency, arbitrary decision-making, acting as the executive's legal counsel and the military's legal draftsman were not in Mr Knight's contemplation.

The Judiciary stands much diminished; thanks to the Chief Justice and some of his colleagues.

Emerging Trends of Enlightenment.

International Music Fesivital is one the emerging activities which Fiji needs to take to a new level. Along with the infantile film industry, only pro-active events that promotes local creativity is welcomed by Stuck in Fiji Mud.

However one concern is that simply by establishing organizations does not mean that the craft itself is actively promoted.

Club Em Designs

Regurgitating Muddy Influence in Fiji.

The reports of a influential political figure being linked to the
plot of overthrowing Commander Bainimarama during post-2000 Coup emergency is not surprising.
That mutual ill-feeling has carried over to the present loggerheads with Army commander.

Demands by the Assembly of Christian Churches should first consider the line between church and Politics, which should not be crossed by member churches. That provision includes public statements on political divisive issues, as has been the record of Fiji Methodist Church.

Club Em Designs

Moving Un-obstructed Days.

Stuck in Fiji Mud welcomes Dr Ratuva's honest assesment of Fiji's political situation and would anticipating more.

Fiji's water situation is getting to a point beyond embarassing.

So is the trade imbalance statistics despite the usual lip service of navel gazing.The under currents of resent between Qarase's cabinet and Fiji Army Commander is simmering again.

Officers, gentlemen and coups: Civil-military crisis in Fiji
By Dr Steven Ratuva


Dr Steven Ratuva
The recent “showdown” between the military commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, and former Land Forces Commander, Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka, fundamentally boiled down to an issue which has been the centre of contention in many countries: Where do we draw the line between civil state governance and the professional military?

Fiji is not alone in this. Military forces in almost every post-colonial state in the world have been faced with the dilemma of trying to make this separation clear and operational. Chile struggled for a long time since the military coup in 1972 to professionalise the military and bring it under civilian state governance. Since liberation in 1994 the South African military, which was nurtured under a repressive apartheid system, had to go through fundamental ideological transformation to fit into the new democratic mode.

Countries like Argentina, Ghana, Nigeria, etc. with histories of military coups have attempted, with certain degrees of success, to ensure harmonious institutional relations between the civilian government and the military. On the other extreme, some countries like Myanmar (Burma) and Pakistan, which have been under direct military rule, are still struggling to come to terms with democratic civilian governance.

Why is Fiji still faced with this dilemma? Why is the line between democratic governance and the military institution still contested?

A transforming military

The 2000 coup was a turning point in the evolution of the Fiji military. Since its establishment in the 1800s the military’s role has largely been for the purpose of “internal security”. It was used by the colonial state during the early years of British colonial rule for the purpose of “pacification” to maintain its dominance and by independence “ownership,” so to speak, shifted to the new ruling indigenous Fijian establishment.

The ruling indigenous Fijian elites saw the military as its security apparatus to defend their interests and even within the military there was an embedded assumption that the military was a guardian of Fijian rights. This was expressed in a violent form a month after the April 1987 election when the military, under then Lt-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, intervened on behalf of the indigenous Fijian establishment after the defeat of the Alliance Party, the major indigenous Fijian political party, in power since independence in 1970.

Since the 1987 military coups the military went through phases of transformation, including change in leadership. Brigadier Ratu Epeli Ganilau took over from Major General Sitiveni Rabuka and Commodore Bainimarama took over from Ganilau. Bainimarama’s appointment was seen as an attempt to de-politicise the military.

By allowing the Fiji military to be used to serve ethno-nationalist political interests, Rabuka had transformed it into a “political army.” This was a moral burden which the military had to unpack and exorcise, and it did so with efficiency and professionalism during the 2000 coup. Ethno-nationalist political agitators who hoped to use the military again as a political tool like in 1987 failed and the consequences were disastrous for them.

The military by then had, to some degree, evolved ideologically into a non-partisan, non-ethnic praetorian institution under the leadership of Frank Bainimarama. To many Frank became a hero and saviour, whose courageous and steadfast stance saved the country from sliding down the abyss of chaos.

However, this is where the problem started. The newly-elected government under Prime Minister Qarase, had an ethno-nationalist stance and was perceived by the military to be sympathetic to the coup perpetrators, even to the extent of forming a coalition with their party, the Conservative Alliance Matanitu Vanua (CAMV).

This directly undermined Frank’s desire to cleanse the country of coup makers to ensure that a coup culture does not emerge in the future. This directly led to confrontation, tit for tat verbal exchange over security and governance issues and consequently leading to a “cold war” of sorts between the military and the government.

The government could not keep up with the tempo and resorted to self-inflicting punishment by replacing the CEO and Minister for Home Affairs. This was victory for Frank who may have assumed that since he saved the country from chaos in 2000 and since he gave Qarase the “mandate” to rule Fiji as interim PM, he still had the moral right to share - and if possible impose - his views on leadership with the government.

The tension worsened with the introduction of the Reconciliation and Unity Bill, which the government had hoped would settle the post-coup reconstruction and reconciliation processes once and for all, even if it meant providing amnesty to coup perpetrators like George Speight.

Then came the differences over the court martial in which a number of former soldiers were being tried for their part in the November 2 2000 mutiny, at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva. The delay with which the government dealt with the appointment of the Judge Advocate convinced Frank that a conspiracy to sabotage the trials was in the air.

Coup threat

At this point the built up tension was on the verge of exploding. Frank threatened to “remove” the government - or in other words, stage a coup. This sent shockwaves throughout the country and beyond. Worst still, it would have shocked his own senior officers and rank and file soldiers who have been conditioned to believe that the military was no longer in the business of staging coups.

Coming from someone who had been hailed a “coup breaker” the threat did not seem to make sense to many. Staging a coup to avoid future coups appeared to be an illogical proposition to say the least. A coup, however noble the intentions were, was still a coup and a coup was tantamount to the illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government, no matter how “corrupt”, “racist” or unpopular the government may have been.

Frank versus John

This is the backdrop to the standoff with John Baledrokadroka. John is a young and highly-trained officer with a Master of Arts degree in Strategic Studies from the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies (CDSS) in Canberra, where I met him while I was an invited visiting lecturer on security studies there while working at the Australian National University. Some senior officers went through the comprehensive training regime at CDSS, an internationally-reputable senior officer training institution.

Their training in the art and dynamics of the modern military, state security and civil-military relations and their extensive international operational experience would have shaped their views and dispositions on the role of the military in a modern state.

That in an ideal situation, there should be a respectable line of demarcation between the civilian authority and the professional military. Part of the re-professionalisation process within the military since 2000 was precisely to achieve this, to ensure that the military was not going to be used again for any political purpose as was the case in 1987.

For the new breed of professional officers, the last thing they would want to hear was the word “coup”, especially when it would compromise the political neutrality of the military as well as being outright illegal and treasonous. Given this situation, Frank’s take over threat was the last straw for someone like John. Frank, they would have imagined, had crossed the line and in the process may have compromised the professional status of the military.

Support for Frank during the 2000 coup came from officers like John who led the assault which freed the military camp from the mutineers. John was a very articulate soldier who was not afraid to express his views publicly via the letters to the editor column regarding his analysis of politics in Fiji and disdain of ethno-nationalist ideologies and bad governance.

His attempt to restrain Frank led to a showdown and ultimately his downfall. A coup, no matter what the justification was, would have destroyed the integrity of the military once and for all, tarnished Frank’s good reputation as hero of 2000 and destroyed the country in unimaginable ways.

Moreover, the question is whether Frank’s takeover threat was serious or whether it was simply a psychological coercion strategy to put pressure on the government. As I told foreign journalists who interviewed me, I did not believe that a coup was going to take place because I trusted that Frank and his senior officers were fully aware of the implications. But nevertheless the threat itself was enough to cause mayhem.

If Frank was serious and actually hoped to carry out a coup, would he be able to mobilise the support and loyalty of his officers? Torn between the twin serious crimes of treason and mutiny, what would his senior offices choose? Would we be staring at a situation worse than 2000? Fortunately the situation in the military stabilised quickly and Frank quickly reasserted control.

Another question is whether John was influenced by outside political forces. This is still being investigated. Perhaps he may have been in discussion with various people about politics in Fiji as any other person would do but that does not take away the fact that John had a very deep commitment towards values of good governance, apolitical military and professionalism which I believe would have been the biggest ideological and intellectual force behind his resolve.

Both Frank and John believed deeply in the reprofessionalisation of the military, re-democratisation of the country and rounding up and punishment of the 2000 coup perpetrators but their differences revolved around their different approaches.

Frank advocated a more politically proactive approach involving putting pressure on the government to speed up the prosecution process. John believed in achieving the same end but using strictly apolitical means. This was where the two good friends diverged and, sadly, parted company.

Other senior officers would no doubt support Frank’s commendable effort in bringing the coup perpetrators to justice but some may not fully endorse some of his overtly political approaches in private, but will continue to show loyalty anyway.

Resolving the dispute

The best way to resolve the ongoing dispute is to engage in deep and mutual dialogue not only about issues but also about our institutions of governance, governance processes and the lines of responsibilities, especially between the civil state and the military. One should not assume that the lines are obvious and people know where they are.

Government should develop a more consultative approach to policy formulation and the military should be mindful of the way it engages with the government so that it does not unnecessarily impinge on the process of political governance. Inability to create and maintain this balance can lead to instability.

As part of the broader consultative approach we really need to put in place a broad-based security partnership process consisting of the military, police, ministers, civil servants, civil society organisations, research institutions, community representatives, worker representatives, youth and women representatives and political parties to engage in dialogue about security matters.

At the moment the National Security Council only consists of members of Cabinet. Security is everyone’s business, not just of government ministers and so everyone must be involved in particular ways.

For Frank, it would be of great help to him if he engages his senior officers more through mutual consultations and frank discussions on important issues. This would iron out potential differences with his officers and consolidate solidarity within the army considerably. It must not be seen to be aligning itself with a particular political party.

Political parties should be more sensitive and must stop unscrupulously riding on the back of the crisis for opportunistic political gain, either in support of the military or government because in doing so they simply worsen the crisis. They must instead use their potential to look for solutions.

The dialogue between Frank, Qarase and the Acting President, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi was exemplary of how cool-headedness and reason can overcome emotion, although there is a view that the compromise may have shifted the constitutionally prescribed lines of accountability between the military and the government and in the process strengthened the commander’s position significantly. However, if this leads to stability then this may be appropriate in the short term, but in the long run, we really need to carry out serious re-examination of our governance institutions and processes to ensure that the government can carry on with the business of governing without duress, the military can carry on with the business of maintaining security in a professional way as it has been superbly doing and citizens can carry on with their daily lives in peace.

After all when things go wrong the country as a whole suffers. As the African idiom philosophically pronounces: “When two big elephants fight, the grass suffers.”

Dr Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist at the University of the South Pacific.

Club Em Designs

Resistance to Change, is Futile.

Fiji Landowners have been deliberately left out of negotiations by the Native Lands Trust Board for so long. This has to change immediately.

Stuck in Fiji Mud will champion the rights of landowner's to negotiate on their own merits and will continue to denounce efforts by proxy organizations that have perpetually short-changed landowners.

Club Em Designs

Morbid Un-exposed Doctrine.

Chiefs by name

This is a reply to a letter by Ashwin Lal (F/T 23/1). The letter is cheeky and arrogant and shows disrespect for the GCC.

He says "perhaps members of the GCC will be better off spending time on figuring out their identities". He should know that chiefs are born with the right to be called chiefs and no one can take that away from them. No one.

They are not just chiefs by name. We Fijians look up to the GCC as an institution that portrays order and goodwill even though sometimes things do not always seem to be in that order.

But we must remember that they are humans and not gods. Ashwin should remember that it was the chiefs who ceded Fiji to Great Britain which in turn allowed the indentured laborers from India to come and work in Fiji.

For Fijians, there are two things we value most the vanua and the church. For the vanua, the cornerstones which bind us together are our chiefs.

For the church, Jesus is the central figure.

Apisalome Baleinatauba
Suva

Messr Apisalome Balenatauba is the iconic example of Fijian individuals who are entrenched within the traditional chiefly hierachy, which he tauts without considering the sad truth.
He defends the obsolete institution without ascertaining their worth in this new global village.

G.C.C may be chiefs by name; certainely not Chiefs by nature.

Due to the facts that, the members of Great Council of Chiefs; are unelected, hardly pay taxes because most of them are unemployed and have no intentions of bettering the lives of their people.

Not all Fijians value the Great Council of Chiefs because they have become unapproachable and out-of-touch with reality. The G.C.C lacks a cohesive plan for all Fiji citizens and could not mend the loggerheads between the Fiji Government and Fiji Army Commander. Messr Balenatuba then brings in the concept of church; which technically doesn't recognizes traditional titles.

Mis-information peddled by vitrolic individuals who are grasping at straws by defending the ancient feudal system in Fiji; that has chained people of Fiji to social obscurity. That is the M.U.D which Fiji is stuck in.

Stuck in Fiji Mud will bring checks and balances into Fiji's cultural framework; despite resistance from archaic minds.

Here's another provocative letter to Fiji Times Letter to the Editor.

Right of the child

I would like to thank Mr Tominiko for his comments (FT 22/1) but I get the impression that he thinks I am both an expatriate and a representative of the European Union.

I am neither.

As a concerned Fijian citizen, it grieves me that many parents are finding it difficult to send their children to school.

I agree with him. Fiji is a developing country. The education system is certainly struggling to meet the challenges of the present socio-economic situation. Having taught both in Australia and Fiji for over 20 years, I would disagree, however, that Fiji's education system is unique.

The main concern I raise is that it is farcical that Fiji has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child when, in fact, there is such little regard for it.

It can be said 'paper will always take ink'; a convention demands conviction.

Possibly, education is just as restrictive today as it was in its colonial past. The difference being, however, is the signing of the Convention.

Children are still being turned away from school because their parents cannot meet the ever increasing cost of education.

According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, education should be accessible and free to all primary aged children.

There are many children whose rights are being violated but no one seems to be doing a thing about it.

Julie Sutherland
Lami

Club Em Designs