The Moral Imperative (Update)

The Fiji Times (FT)Editorial of Thursday May 10th is a shining example of a conviction, clouded by a certain mania of sorts; the type one usually associates with an acute refraction of the facts, a by-product of truth suppression.

This is an excerpt of the FT Editorial:

Valid figures, not hot air, please

Thursday, May 10, 2007

INTERIM Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has done his best to shock the nation with claims of massive electoral fraud and mismanagement.

There were, he said, more than 650,000 unused ballot papers missing after the May 2006 general election, which meant there had been a direct attempt to "interfere with and manipulate the results ...".

That a large number of ballot papers were printed and never used proves absolutely nothing, and is in no way relevant to the outcome of the election. At worst it may show up some wastage of money and a lack of some proper procedures within the Electoral Office.

It is totally irrelevant how many ballot papers were printed and how many were unused or even if they were destroyed or not. Once the election was over they were nothing more than waste paper.

What is important is how many votes were cast in each seat compared to the number of people on the electoral roll and those essential facts seem to be missing from this so-called'audit'.

An election is nothing more than simple mathematics. There are a certain number of people entitled to vote in each seat. Over the course of polling a number of them will vote and a number of them will not, for various reasons. At the end of polling the votes are counted and obviously the number of votes cast should never exceed the number of people enrolled.

The number of votes cast should also match the number of names crossed off the electoral rolls by the polling booth staff.

In every election far more ballot papers are printed than there are registered voters for the simple reason that, as people are allowed to vote at any of a number of polling stations, each has to have sufficient papers to cater for however many people may turn up.

For instance, how many Rotumans could be expected to vote in Suva and at which polling booths? It is almost impossible to know.

Complicating this even further is the lack of a recent census. Using the Rotuman example again, how could the Elections Office possibly know how many Rotumans lived in Suva and at which polling stations they would vote? Because those facts were not, and could never be fully known beforehand, the Elections Office had to ensure there were enough ballot papers available at every polling station on a "be prepared" basis.

It is difficult to believe a seasoned politician such as Mr Chaudhry does not know all this. Let us also not forget that the election was overseen by a number of independent teams, including the European Union, the Commonwealth, the US and even a local contingent from the University of the South Pacific.

They all gave the thumbs up, acknowledging that while the election was not perfect, the mistakes had no bearing on the outcome. Were these teams incompetent or corrupt? It is difficult impossible, in fact to believe so.

Mr Chaudhry now needs to provide proof that his audit team knew what they were doing. He needs to provide the real figures that are needed the number of electors registered in each seat, compared to the number of votes cast.

If they show significant differences, he may then have some hope of convincing the public the election was rigged. Until then, it is all just more political hot air.

(Above: Video on the conversations by Navitalai Naisoro, a former civil servant and SDL confident, alleging the act of ballot rigging during the 2006 elections)

These allegations pointing to the unforgivable offence of vote rigging, was derived from the Auditor General's report, which some circles have obviously denied outright. Was it not the same AG report who revealed the layer of corruption within Fiji Sports Council or the abuse of the Affirmative action programs?
The cruel realities on hand, may have prompted a furious defense by entrenched SDL apologists, who attempted to fight off these inexcusable actions by the Election Office Supervisor, Semesa Karavaki; who just months before the 2006 elections was on study leave in Australia.

FT Editor said

"That a large number of ballot papers were printed and never used proves absolutely nothing, and is in no way relevant to the outcome of the election. At worst it may show up some wastage of money and a lack of some proper procedures within the Electoral Office".

It is quite regrettable for the Fiji Times Editor to downplay such serious and willful breeches of authority that, raise serious clouds of suspicions over the electoral process, giving probable cause to further investigations and convictions by the new Anti-Corruption Commission.

Although, the Editor raised an important detail, albeit portrayed through rose colored glasses:

"It is totally irrelevant how many ballot papers were printed and how many were unused or even if they were destroyed or not. Once the election was over they were nothing more than waste paper".

To print out an excessive amount of ballot papers and then later incinerate them without use; defeats the purpose of having an accurate count of voters in the first place.

It is unfortunate for the FT Editor to categorize the unused, untracked and unaccounted ballot papers as mere 'waste paper' destined for the incinerator; before ascertaining their worth. It is also blatantly reprehensible of the Editorial to trivialize these departures in electoral procedures and other irregularities, by questionably classifying these abuses, as a simple case of public resource wastage.

Fiji Times editorial unapologetically uses slanted language, underscoring the lack of proportionality used by the editor; akin to labeling genocide, as nothing more than serial murders.

The Editor further over simplifies the enormity of these questions that point to the unprecedented malfeasance. One must be appraised of the Latin term: 'Modus vivendi'-Or the acceptance of a continuing and fundamental disagreement, held in abeyance; in order to successfully filter through these iconic misrepresentations.

The FT Editor may have forgotten the existing Public Service Commission regulations forbidding the destruction of official documents. Undoubtedly, voting ballots is an official government document as it gets and their hurried incineration, fitted the uncanny label of hiding evidence. Without verifiable documents underlining the approval of Electoral Commission in this act of capital destruction, perhaps done under the cover of the night, raises further alarming and embarrassing questions on the lack of oversight.

Paper trails serve an important function in national elections and this issue has created some controversy in the last U.S elections, regarding electronic voting machines; which was also susceptible to hacking. These machines were manufactured by Diebold Inc, a loyal contributor to Republican Party and the end result forced several American states to abandon those machines; favoring paper trails used by conventional ballot cards.

All paper ballots themselves are not without scrutiny, as the Fiji allegations of vote rigging prove.

The equivocation (WAX) of the British High Commissioner was quoted in Fiji Village article, along with other stove-piping pundits who pointed out that, the E.U observation teams did sign off declaring the 2006 Fiji elections as free and fair.

Regrettably, this echo chamber defense was raised also by the Fiji Times Editor and seemed to have a bizarre similarity to talking points press releases, made by the SDL party members:

"Let us also not forget that the election was overseen by a number of independent teams, including the European Union, the Commonwealth, the US and even a local contingent from the University of the South Pacific. They all gave the thumbs up, acknowledging that while the election was not perfect, the mistakes had no bearing on the outcome. Were these teams incompetent or corrupt? It is difficult impossible, in fact to believe so". (sic)

Of course, those with difficulty in comprehending the possibility of vote rigging; may be divided into to two groups. The first group being highly deficient in thinking 'out of the box' and the second group possessing a superior political bias.

The 2006 election reports, did acknowledge some irregularities in the election process and recommended the remapping of electoral boundaries in Fiji. It might be accurate to factor in, the undeniable reasons of contamination regarding the locations of observer teams.

One should understand that, there are only a finite number of observers and none of them could ever defy the laws of physics, even if they tried their hardest to be omnipresent during the 2006 elections. This astounding fact does have a direct bearing on the election outcome, despite the appeals to ignorance floated by the FT Editor.

The transport of ballot boxes from the voting booths to the counting centers were not observed 100%. Therefore, it is plausible to deduce that, the observers may have scrutinized the voting booths, but the deduction also begs the questions: Did any of the observers physically escort 100% of election boxes in transition?

There were several articles(none published by Fiji Times) pointing to complaints raised by several political parties after the closure of voting centers, pointing to the detour of vehicles(transporting the ballot boxes) to strategic locations, then reappearing at the counting centers without anyone really questioning or scrutinizing this lapse of time or route deviation?

Equally disturbing was the media reported incidents highlighting, last minute changes to the locations of voting centers by the Election Office officials; who took the time to inform the SDL party but not other participants. Other discrepancies regarding the integrity of the Elections Office is seen in this 2001 Fiji Sun webpage.

This is the excerpt of IFES Election Guide on Fiji's 2006 elections:

Police investigating opposition claims against election administration

Posted: 05/11/2006
On Wednesday the Prime Minster downplayed the police investigation of opposition parties' claims against the ongoing parliamentary elections. The opposition alleges, among other things, that around 13,000 some of its supporters were not included on the roll. Historically there have been many tensions between ethnic Indians and indigenous Fijians, who are currently in power. Elections to the country's 71-seat parliament started on Monday, May 8, and will continue through Saturday, May 12. The vote count will begin on May 14 and results are due to be announced four days later.

Source: ElectionGuide

Confident Fiji PM brushes off election complaints

Posted: 05/10/2006
SUVA, Fiji (Reuters) - Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase brushed aside on Wednesday complaints about Fiji's chaotic election, which police are investigating, and said he was confident of returning to office.

Source: Reuters: International

Wansolwara online corroborates the 2001 election rigging complaints.

The ugly fact reported in the Auditor General's report stated that, voting center officials did not have any idea of the number of actual ballot papers, simply because there were no accounting checks and balances nor documents quantifying or accurately tracking the ballot papers. This reflects gross ineptitude by the Supervisor of Elections, who repeatedly showed contempt for the public interest and transparent accountability, demonstrated in a Fiji Times article defending his incompetence. If anyone owes anyone an apology for this debacle, it is the Supervisor of Elections.

Irrefutably, there is an ubiquitous and offensive odor of spoiled meat, now emanating from the bowels of the Election Office with regards to the 2006 elections. The same execrable stench which some personalities have feebly attempted to neutralize. The aftermath of the Kunatuba case and the Agricultural Scam case proves the existence of a multi-agency vote buying scheme which arrogantly abused affirmative action programs. Ostensibly the abuse directed any culpability and public opinion to the SDL Government.

It is not counter intuitive for the public to closely re-examine those realities, without being confused with other Red Herrings and cloudy judgments raised by individuals holding a political bias.

It has been proven by independent media analysts that, the Fiji Times led a repulsive defamation campaign against the 1999 Prime Minister and now Interim Finance Minister; this campaign eventually paved the way for the 2000 putsch. Other observations include some Fiji Time Correspondents, who blurred the line between journalism and subject, by closely associating themselves with the perpetrators of the 2000 coup and maligning their very independence as well as staining their integrity.

A similar type of bias is reflected in the tone of FT Editor who chooses a cynical view :

"There are a certain number of people entitled to vote in each seat. Over the course of polling a number of them will vote and a number of them will not, for various reasons".

and simultaneously the FT editorial diminishes the importance of a non-partisan electoral system, without even raising the issue of unaccountability, let alone mention deterrents to voter fraud.

Whilst, the editor hastily points out a juvenile correlation between voting and mathematics:

"An election is nothing more than simple mathematics"

A fact ignored by the FT editorial is that, numbers require an accurate and verifiable source before one gives credence to its value. A hasty conclusion of the editorial:

[...]At the end of polling the votes are counted and obviously the number of votes cast should never exceed the number of people enrolled[...]

What is quite concerning regarding the question of numbers, is that the amount of printed ballot papers should never exceed the number of registered voters by such great percentage, as seen in the 2006 elections.

This argument by Fiji Times Editor holds true only if, the number of registered voters is derived from an accurate population count known commonly as the national census. It was this census that was avoided like the plague by the SDL Government, blaming an acute shortage of State funds in not exercising this basic role of good governance.

Fiji's national population is certainly not an arbitrary number which the Election Supervisor or the FT Editor can pluck out of thin air. In addition to this myopia, the electoral boundaries were exceedingly antiquated and should have been remapped subsequently to the scheduled census. In fact, Fiji has hardly remapped the current boundaries since its independence.

Arguably, the 2006 elections were far less free and fair, if these basic fundamentals of governance were conveniently sidelined by the SDL Government; which the Fiji Times Editor and International Observer teams unreasonably swept under the rug.


The reactions to the allegations of vote rigging are coming in fast and furious, as seen in Fiji Times website.

Ousted PM

IT is surprising that the ousted PM uses the term "democratically-elected government" in almost all his comments.

May I ask the ousted PM why, if he wants the people to support a democratically-elected government, did he accept the post of interim PM when the Labour government was toppled in 2000?

Ronald Jeet
Ba

Ballot papers

YOUR editorial (FT 10/5) on the missing unused ballot papers shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of issues involved, particularly the enormity of the fact that more than 600,000 unused ballot papers cannot be accounted for.

Equally surprising is the fact that an issue which your paper thought was important enough to hit the front page (FT 9/5) should hours later become merely "hot air".

It says a lot about the credibility of your editorial team, than that of the Finance Ministry's audit team.

The issue at stake here is not just one of about 600,000 unused ballot papers, although that is worrying enough. The main concern is 665,256 missing unused ballot papers.

The Electoral Act makes absolutely stringent provisions for the accountability of every printed ballot paper, issued or otherwise.

And rightly so, because the integrity of any general election hinges on such accountability.

Sections 85, 86 and 87 lay down very specific instructions for the handling of and responsibility for all ballot papers used, unused or spoilt.

The ultimate responsibility for the safety and accountability of ballot papers lie with the Supervisor of Elections. He stands accountable under the law.

He must tell the nation what happened to the 600,000-plus ballot papers.

That they were used to stuff ballot boxes cannot be easily discounted.

This is why the matter is with the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption for further investigation.

The Finance audit team found discrepancies which must be thoroughly investigated.

The fact that the Supervisor of Elections failed in his duty to keep a master record, failed in his duty to ensure every Returning Officer filed returns as required under the law, made it impossible for the audit team to probe further. FICAC will now look into these and other issues that have come to light. Let the Supervisor of Elections and others of his ilk answer to the investigating team.

There are a number of other highly disturbing features of the 2006 and 2001 general elections that need to be fully investigated.

Indeed, there is enough compelling evidence to warrant the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry into the conduct of the 2006 election.

In the past, such complaints were brushed under the carpet. Complaints regarding irregularities and electoral malpractices were lodged after the 2001 election but no action was taken by those in authority people who were part of Laisenia Qarase's gravy train.

When police started their investigations under Commissioner Andrew Hughes, it was found that relevant records could not be found. We must prevent records being destroyed this time.

The accountability and integrity of the electoral system is a must, otherwise the exercise becomes a mockery and a farce.

Needless to say, an alert, impartial and informed media, in its capacity as the public watchdog, has an important role to play in this respect.

Mahendra Chaudhry
Interim Minister for Finance
National Planning
Sugar

Sour grapes

MAHENDRA Chaudhry is again trying to discredit the result of the 2006 election by instigating an audit by his boys to raise queries on its credibility.

Instead of trying to move the country forward and using government resources to get the country back on the road to democracy, he has chosen to create doubts on the result of the election when his party lost.

He must note that no matter what his audit team comes up with, the military coup has happened and nothing that he says or does will reverse the election result. It is a mere waste of time and money. He maintains that surplus ballot papers were printed which were not accounted for. This does not prove anything. It proves nothing.

If there were discrepancies in the number of voters crossed-off in the rolls at polling stations, when reconciled against the ballot papers that were used for voting, there should be ground for further investigation.

It appears to me as a case of sour grapes. He should rise above petty issues and take positive steps to move Fiji forward.

James Bolavucu
Wales

Club Em Designs

Probable Cause.

Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudary in an interview (WAX) with Fiji Village, has castigated the former Fiji Election Supervisor for his alleged role in rigging the 2006 Elections, after the probe into the Election office was released.
Chaudary in the same interview (WAX) questioned the need by Fiji Elections office to print 125% extra ballot papers, for the 2006 elections, some of which were later incinerated.


(Left: Former Elections Supervisor, Semesa Karavaki)The former Supervisor of Elections, Semesa Karavaki in an interview(WAX) defended his role and couunter accused Chaudary of making threats and further questioned the integrity of the Anti-Corruption Commission which has now taken charge of the investigations.
Karavaki's explanations(WAX) for the incineration of ballot papers, raised more questions than answers.


Fiji Live article corroborates the release of the Audit report on Fiji Elections Office.
This is an excerpt:

Probe reveals errors by Elections Office
Tuesday May 08, 2007

An investigation of the Elections Office has revealed that an excessive number of ballot papers were printed for the 2006 general elections.

The audit, which was carried out last year by the Office of the Auditor General, also revealed that postal ballot papers had to be reprinted due to errors made by the Office.

The audit found that a total of 2 million 82 thousand 280 ballot papers were printed for the general election compared to 959 thousand 405 registered voters on the provisional rolls. An extra 1 million 122 thousand 875 ballots printed.

The audit revealed that an extra 285 thousand 591 were printed for the Fijian Communal seats and an extra 48 thousand 11 were printed for the General Communal.

For the Indian Communal, 245 thousand 738 extra ballot papers were printed while for the Rotuman Communal, 64 thousand 847 extra ballot papers were printed. For the Open Constituencies, 478 thousand 688 extra ballot papers were printed.

The audit found that 52 thousand 600 postal ballot papers were printed due to errors made by the officer preparing the template of the ballots.

13 thousand 450 ballots was reprinted for the Fijian Communal, 2 thousand 300 for the General Communal, 25 thousand 100 for the Indian Communal and 11 thousand 750 for the Open Constituencies. The audit noted the explanation of the Government Printer who said he wasn't responsible for the reprints and shifted the blame to the Elections Office.

Fijilive

Club Em Designs

Washington Calling.

The Washington Summit for Pacific Leaders have penciled themselves in for meeting with Condaleeza Rice, according to the schedule tabled by the State Department. Radio NZ article claims that the issue of Fiji's democracy is on the agenda, despite a contradiction in opinions (WAX) from a Fiji Village article which quoted Fiji's point man, Parmesh Chand, who is also invited to the same meeting along with Interim Minister, Poseci Bune.

Although, Interim Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama was not invited by the US State Department; the US reaction was labelled in a Fiji Village article as "Double Standards" by American Samoan Congressman, Faleomaveaga Eni Hunkin.

The upcoming meeting of Pacific Leaders brokered by the State Department in Washington, has received skeptical reaction from some quarters, as described by an article from Pacific Island Business.

This is an excerpt of the article:

Letter from Suva: GETTING ISLANDS NEEDS ON THE USA AGENDA NOT EASY

Laisa Taga

As Pacific leaders prepare to jet out to Washington for their high powered pow-wow with top American officials, Pacific ambassadors were still battling it out with the US State Department officials. This was over what should be included on the agenda of the May 7-9 meeting.

LETTER FROM SUVA has been told that despite a meeting on April 24 in New York with officials Steve McGann, Dr Gerald Finn and Jason Cutie, Pacific ambassadors were still not satisfied.

One Pacific ambassador who spoke to LETTER FROM SUVA said despite suggestions by Pacific Islands ambassadors to include some development issues like migration, HIV/AIDS, trade, etc, to the draft agenda, the Americans were reluctant.

“Their agenda is more focused on security and other matters of interest only to them,” this Pacific Islands ambassador told LETTER FROM SUVA.

“The ambassadors have been working extremely hard trying to ensure the agenda allows for a meaningful discussion with our leaders and the US and result in some tangible results that can be taken forward".

"We believe that a successful meeting can only be attained by having a good constructive agenda, which covers both the US and Pacific islands countries’ interests.”

Another key issue of concern to Pacific ambassadors is the availability of President George Bush to meet with the islands leaders. This again appeared to be a difficulty for the Americans “despite giving a full audience to New Zealand’s Prime Minister Helen Clark during her recent visit to the US.

“At this point in time (April 28), it is not confirmed,” the Pacific ambassador told LETTER FROM SUVA.

However, a summary of the April 24 meeting, a copy of which was obtained by LETTER FROM SUVA, said the state department was still actively pursuing the appointment with Bush.

However, President Bush’s participation was contingent on the number of Heads of State and Heads of Government attending the meeting. According to the ambassador, at least three Heads of State have confirmed their participation.

A state visit by Britain’s Queen Elizabeth to the United States will also be falling at the same time, which could make it more difficult for Pacific leaders to meet with President Bush.

US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, however, has been scheduled to welcome the Pacific leaders. 2007 has been declared by the Americans as the Year of the Pacific and as part of this they have promised to increase engagement with the Pacific.

As Glyn T. Davies, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told LETTER FROM SUVA: “We have revitalised our relationship with the Pacific and we’ve decided to come up with a slogan but behind it is a plan to speed up the pace of contact with Pacific leaders.

“We would like to raise the profile of the Pacific in Washington by bringing Pacific Leaders to Washington and exposing them to American leaders and American leaders to them, and getting them we hope to learn a little bit more about how our system works. But importantly American policy makers can get to know them and about the issues of the Pacific.

“What we’re trying to do is to have more dialogue by creating opportunities to listen and to talk—what some people accuse us of not doing—to try and understand better what is going on.

“What is lacking we think is a sort of high level dialogue. Let’s talk as equals about strategic situations, let’s talk about your global concerns. It is an opportunity to talk about the Pacific’s aspirations for the future and for the US, what is it we hope for in the Pacific,” Davies said.

But some regional observers are skeptical about the United States’ increased engagement.

The Americans literally abandoned the Pacific Islands after the end of the Cold War. In some islands places, offices like USAID and The Asia Foundation were shut down what seemed close to overnight. With the Cold War over, the Americans moved on to other areas they considered more important than small islands nations dotted across a large ocean.

One regional observer said: “Yes, the US has announced 2007 as being Year of the Pacific and whilst we want to believe that this is a serious indication of their intention to return in a big way to the Pacific, nothing substantive seems to be visible nor any new initiatives proposed to be put on the table for our Pacific islands’ taking.

“We are hoping that this is not just a public relations exercise or political maneuvering/posturing to counter China and others’ increasing interest and presence in the Pacific islands countries. “So far, it’s just a ‘bang’ and with just six or so months left, we hope that something will emerge to prove us wrong.”

A key indicator will be how President Bush treats the visit of the island leaders, and whether issues of importance to the islands are treated seriously in Washington.

Club Em Designs

The Fallacy of Ethnic Provincialism.

The latest moves by two members to seek legal redress, regarding their dismissal from the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC) has invariably opened up another chapter of political loggerheads.
On one hand, the affidavit filed by the two members sought to ascertain the authority of the Interim Fijian Affairs Minister, particularly in regards to the Minister's role in suspending the GCC members.



The other questionable premise of their affidavit as seen in the Fiji TV news segment, warned of friction between old and new members which could, according to their rationale, result in altercations between the new and old GCC members. This fictionalized antagonism, as so their reasoning goes could propel their people into violent confrontations with the Fiji military.

It appears that the very legal documents filed by the GCC duo, have suggested to a certain degree, an incitement of insurrection, between the Chieftains and the Military. To warn of impedding violence by proxy, is another perilous application of ethnonationalistic fear mongering.




The exceptional opinion article of an local academic published by the Fiji Times, provides volumes of plausible reasons in determining the calibre of democracy that should be applied to Fiji.

Perpetual "kerekere" will only entrench dependency on aid

Dr SURESH PRASAD
Saturday, May 05, 2007

Democracy: Which Model?

There seems to be a rather mystifying euphoria amongst the select few vocal pro-democracy individuals within the NGO circles in Fiji in direct proportion to the very blatant international 'arm twisting' and economic aid 'blackmailing' being applied to the Fiji's Interim Government to hold national elections sooner than later as a recognisable step towards return to democracy.

This is as if the next election would be a panacea and a hasty return of the much touted democracy, a remedy to widespread and entrenched corruption and ineffective racist governance.

These individuals, who incidentally were conspicuously silent during the turmoil caused by the 1987 Rabuka coup and the siege and hostage taking of the entire Chaudhry government in 2000 by Speight, have yet to clearly articulate what brand of democracy is being flaunted this time around.

Are we talking about a full and fair parliamentary democracy of ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE or restoration of the biased and divisive model of democracy that has sprouted corruption and racism to the benefit of a handful of individuals with their own disguised, but quite apparent to a multitude of observers, personal egotistical agenda behind the faade of 'Fijian interest'.

Perhaps those individuals and 'friendly' nations that are shouting the loudest for quick pathway to democracy need to pause and examine what is their understanding of democracy in Fiji given that Qarase and others had labelled it a 'foreign bird' quite some time ago.

Is it the same model that has entrenched racial divides and now is being brought back to further c perpetuate politics of race or perhaps this time around we will have a brand of democracy in which the 'big brother' nations have themselves progressed and thrived over the years.

It is ironical that the very vociferous pro- democracy advocates in Fiji, including the 'purists' within the legal fraternity and those shouting over the fence from our neighbouring nations, have yet not spouted their views on which model of democracy are they contemplating imposing on Fiji.

It is equally ironical, that the same self-styled bastions of democracy, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, while on one hand want quick restoration to this rather 'illusive' democracy but on the other hand have adopted an obstructionist positions, under the guise of 'smart sanctions', to block off the very public service and statutory appointments that will propel Fiji towards 'true' democracy in fullness of time.

What ought to be paramount for Fiji to survive and become self-reliant is to guarantee good governance based on fundamental rule of law and popular sovereignty. Any impetuous and ill-considered return to parliamentary democracy will continue to entrench Fiji as a subservient nation despite our gaining independence almost now four decades ago.

We haven't it seems, learnt from other hasty returns to democracy after the previous coups. The apologists of the 'friendly' nations within the NGOs in Fiji are gearing up once again to appease the 'big brother' nations under the guise of getting aid tap on; not realising that this perpetual 'kere-kere' will forever entrench Fiji into the vicious cycle of foreign aid dependency and thus prevent them from becoming a truly self -sufficient sovereign nation.

An effective democracy sits on the platform of grass-root consultations, if need be through the tried and tested process of national referendum. Should this not be the process that we should subscribe to in order to bring back a meaningful model of democracy in Fiji? The gullible 'foreign' media it seems has fallen into the trap of hypocritical cry for freedom from a handful of NGO employees living the high life on the funds of equally gullible overseas donor governments.

Shouldn't there be a referendum to seek the view of the 'silent majority' who are after all going to be ones who once again will be inflicted with the pains of this rather jaundiced democracy that is being shoved down Fiji's rather sore throat as if this so called to 'return to democracy' will resolve and 'clean' all that Bainimarama and his team have set out to do.

Or is there yet another agenda being played out by our 'big brother nations' with the support of their well-paid 'stooges' within the well-endowed NGO ranks of keeping Fiji racially polarised by bringing back the Qarase brand of democracy.

Is there a hidden agenda to perpetually keep this fledgling nation in a kind of economic subservience to be exploited at whim by our rather 'suddenly' concerned neighbours?

Does this agenda include 'creative' and systematic destabilisation of Fiji to warrant foreign military intervention, perhaps by RAMSI, to bring back semblance of hypocritical civil order and to restore the much 'democracy'the Qarase brand!

A good example of this impetuous return to democracy is the hastily drafted and adopted constitution which elevated the Chiefs from their traditional advisory roles to matters pertaining to native welfare. Instead the Reeves Constitution burdened them with an ill-conceived responsibility of a constitutional role within the modern parliamentary apparatus. With all due respect to the traditional collective wisdom the chiefs might have, it was quite an inappropriate constitutional step to have dragged them in a national legislative role.

Was the constitutional agenda then surreptitiously hijacked by a select few racists with corrupt parallel agendas of their own personal wealth 'creation' or was it done to appease the chiefs and further entrench the politics of race, once again, again suit their own egotistical racist- personal agendas?

There seems to be a symbiotic link between individual wealth creations in Fiji albeit by corrupt means, and politics of race.

We can now only speculate and contemplate on the reasoning's behind the hastiness with Fiji is being forced to embrace the previous model of divisive democracy at the insistence of other nations.

The elevation of unrepresentative and unelected group of chiefs to this national constitutional role is quite unique to Fiji, given that this elitist organisation, the Council of Chiefs, do not represent the other half of Fiji's population comprising significantly of Indo-Fijians and other minority races.

It is debatable whether individually or collectively the chiefs, unrepresentative and unelected as they are, have the capacity to even represent effectively the native interests in the context of internationally accepted democratic practices and protocols.

The chiefs have repeatedly found themselves lacking in an array of modern competencies and capacities to grapple with complex issues emanating out of democratic model of governance that was so hastily thrust upon us.

It is farcical to even consider the notion by the architects of this constitution that a 'wide-ranging, full and fair' consultation took place before its adoption by the parliament. It is quite evident that the unscrupulous and corrupt Qarase government effectively utilised the lack of capacities within the chiefly rank to push its own agenda under the guise of traditional consultative protocols.

This dichotomy between the traditional chiefly role, responsibilities and popular political sovereignty needs to be resolved; possibly through a review of the constitution. I am not suggesting an abrogation of the constitution in its entirety but a meaningful and constructive review. Any constitutional document needs to be regularly reviewed, hence in modern democracies the appointment of various parliamentary review committees as a fairly standard process of updating and making it appropriately relevant to the ever changing needs of an evolving society. The constitutional weaknesses and oversights cannot be allowed to be exploited by charlatans to the detriment of the nation.

The so-called road map to democracy, in its final form must delineate not only existing political constraints to good governance but also provide appropriate remedies for their resolution.

Post-1987 coups have corrupted the rule of law in Fiji and previous ill-considered returns to the same divisive brand of democracy haven't assisted Fiji in moving forward.

Fiji's vulnerability and exposure in this context is akin to a wrecked ship that needs to be refitted for it to sail once again the 'treacherous' sea of democracy; particularly treacherous, if we allow our 'big brother nations' to have an unbridled control of the tiller!

That's the good Commander's dilemma. He's to prove his government's collective mettle in the full glare of rather unhelpful 'big brother' scrutiny and amidst equally unhelpful court challenges seeking an examination of the legality or otherwise of his December 5 takeover and subsequent actions by his government.

I am sure the learned judges adjudicating on these matters will be familiar with this Latin saying by Publilius Syrus: "Honesta turpitude est pro causa bona" meaning for a 'good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous'. It also goes without saying that in attempting to tread a path of justice and fairness one must be able to distinguish between the venial and the venal - between 'ordinary' wrong and 'outsized wrongdoings' And here I am contending that laws have very little, if anything, to do with justice.

Bainimarama has an amply qualified, experienced and committed team of eminent persons in his government. This group has decades of experience in effective political governance. Invariably, with such an august team to assist and support him, the Commander, we hope, will exercise sound, objective and mature judgement in all matters pertaining to restoration of democracy in Fiji.

Dr Suresh Prasad is a career academic, a versatile journalist, a talented broadcaster, an Accredited Mediator, Family Therapist, Trauma Counsellor and a keen Community Worker. He is currently engaged in 'community capacity building and regeneration' projects both in Australia and overseas.

Club Em Designs

Ways & Means.

Fiji Sun's Wednesday May 2nd issue published details into the alleged misappropriations conducted by the former CEO of Fiji Sports Council.

Sports council funds abused- Audit report reveals shocking practices
By CHEERIEANN WILSON

Abuse of funds, properties and employees were the highlights of the Special Investigation report conducted on the Fiji Sports Council.
The 68-page report obtained by the Fiji Sun yesterday called on former FSC chief executive officer Alice Tabete to explain, produce receipts and evidence of financial discrepancies during her term as CEO. Failure to do that, the investigation team from the Ministry of Finance has strongly recommended that the matter be reported to police.

The report revealed that;

• Mrs Tabete blatantly disregarded Instruction 20.34 of the FSC finance manual, that a credit card reconciliation from sales dockets and receipts shall be submitted with the monthly bank statements to the manager accounts by the credit card holder for verification and expensing to the appropriate account.
  
  She was using the official ANZ Visa card account number 4999-6400-0006-5316 for purchase of goods and services. It could not be established as to what sort of procurements she made. From January 14, 1999 to February 14, 2005 she failed to produce receipts for the amount of $24,798.21 paid on her behalf.
  
  
• It was noted that the insurance of Mrs Tabete”s two private vehicles; Toyota Camry registration DV732 and DI747 were paid from the Council funds while she received insurance allowance of $1500per annum.
  
  
• While she was paid the car allowance of $8000 a year from February 26, 2002 to August 26, 2005, Mrs Tabete continued to use Council vehicle for her private use.
  
  
• The Council workers confirmed in writing that some used and unused items were taken by them to Bau Island for use at the Chief Executive Officer”s parents house during repair and maintenance work just before the Methodist Church annual conference, last year.
  
  Details of items taken to Bau Island on August 6, 2006; used roofing iron, five toilet cisterns, urinal tank, August 9, 2006; new roofing irons and August 17, 2006; Clothing and posts for decoration.
  
  Vehicle registration EV870 was used in the delivery. A 10,000 litre water tank and a flat pump from FSC were taken and installed at the CEO’s house in Delainavesi. Other work such as plumbing, painting and electrical work were carried out by FSC employees.
  
  In 2006, the employees were used to construct a wooden master bedroom in the garage to accommodate Mrs Tabete’s sick husband. Also, repairing of roof, flooring's, painting, plumbing and electrical works was done at Savai Place. A double gate from FSC was repaired and fitted at Savai Place with a 10,000 litre water tank valued at $2200.
  
  
• Payment of wages for Fiji Sports Council workers who were working at the Mrs Tabete’s private residence. The inspection of records showed that nine employees were engaged by Mrs Tabete at her private residence at Bau Island, Savai Place and Delainavesi on a number of days and their wages were met from the Council’s account. A total payment of $1563.88 was made to the workers.
  
  
• Irregularities were noted on the salaries paid to Mrs Tabete. In the year 2006 about 16.6per cent of the chief executive officer’s salary or $9147.10 were being paid as non taxable allowance in an effort to evade tax on personnel emoluments.
  
  Salary- $55,093.00per annum.
  Fortnightly payable- $2118;
  Fortnightly paid- $1767.15 x 2= $45,945.90pa;
  $55,093- $45,945.90 = $9147.10.
  Audit noted that $9147.10 that should be paid as salary and subject to PAYE tax was instead paid separately as allowance to evade tax.
  
  The breakdown of $9147.10 paid, as allowance are as follows:
  
  monthly allowance payable $1291.67 less monthly allowance paid inclusive of part of the salary of $1652.07= $360.40 multiply by 12 months = $4,324.80 salary component paid as allowance.
  
  January payment of allowance, i.e $6474.32= monthly allowance $1652.07 + $4822.25.
  
  Actual salary component paid as allowance in 2006- $4324.80 + $4822.25= $9147.05.

An [unnamed] woman that answered the phone from Mrs Tabete’s home last night wanted to know the reason for our call. When told that we wanted to get her response on the Council findings, she indicated that first she needed to know whether Mrs Tabete was at home. After several calls were made, we were told that Mrs Tabete was in church. Earlier last month, the Fiji Sun team was turned away from her Delainavesi residence several times, as we tried to get her comments on the issue.

Interim Minister for Youth and Sports Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi said the FSC report is now with the Anti- Corruption Unit. “They will expedite the necessary action to take following the result of the report,” [Vayeshnoi] said.

Head of the Anti- Corruption Unit, Nasir Ali said he was [personally] on leave and could not comment on the matter. Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, Captain Esala Teleni was not available for comment.

It is interesting to point out that, Fiji Live reports a similar call for accountability, this was referring to questions tabled during the November 30th, 2006 sitting of Fiji Parliament. Also the Auditor Generals 2003 report(PDF), does provide other background information on discrepancies in Government accounts.

This is a micro-excerpt of the OAG report:

Capital Grants
The Ministry signed an agreement with the Fiji Sports Council on 22/10/1998 outlining the conditions for the utilisation of Capital grants for the infrastructures and facilities for the South
Pacific Games 2003.
Provision 4.1 of the agreement7 provides that the State through the Ministry pays an annual grant of an amount not exceeding $2 million per annum over a five (5) year period with effect from 1/1/1998 to 31/12/2003, hence totalling $10 million.
A Cabinet Decision [CP (98) 348] approved a further allocation of $1.75 million in 1998 over and above the $10 million.
Reasons for the increase in grant were as follows:

• There were indications of lobbying during the SPG Facilities Development Committees
  meetings;
  
• The project was running behind schedule in 2000;
  
• Market prices of materials and contractors changed, prompting a review of the annual grant budget for the five years to $16.8 million.
  

Total Grant given by the Ministry since 1998 was as follows:

Year	Grant($M)
1998	2.0
1999	-
2000	4.0
2001	3.5
2002	5.2
2003	2.2
Total	16.6

Capital grant of $5,114,500 was given to the Fiji Sports Council in May 2002. The breakdown of the grant was as follows:

Laucala Bay Services	$1,135,879.33
Bidesi Park	10,000.00
Multi Purpose Sports Facilities- Construction Contract Supervisors	330,000.00
Multi Purpose Sports Facilities-Contingency for additional requirements by Fiji Govt)	200,000.00
Multi Purpose Sports Facilities-Costs incurred (Tax Exemption/ Customs Duties)	300,000.00
Covered Training Facility- Indian College	200,000.00
Multi Purpose Courts	1,000,000.00
National Stadium- Portion 2	375,000.00
National Stadium Athletics	150,000.00
Albert Park	50,000.00
Baseball Grounds	400,000.00
National Stadium Car park	666,134.67
Victoria Courts	297,486.00
Total	$5,114,500.00

As at 31/12/02, total Capital grant given by the Ministry for the project amounted to $14.6 million. Total payments made as per acquittals as at 31/12/02 was $12,015,207.46. The percentage of work completed for the project as at 31/12/02 was not sighted during audit. The total cost of the project in 2002 amounted to $6,607,013.79. This constitutes the following:

• Total payments for projects included in the 2002 work programme $1,976,780.44
  
• Total payments for existing and post 2002 work programme $4,630,233.35
  

Failing to amend the relevant provisions, the Ministry has breached the agreement. Accountability and transparency in expending public funds cannot be ruled out since the provision of the annual grants was not amended accordingly.

The Fiji Sports Council has not submitted its accounts to this House. In fact, it has not submitted its accounts to this House since 1992, despite a specific requirement in the Act, requiring the Minister responsible to table the accounts and the Annual Report of Fiji Sports Council[...]

It is no use telling us here that we go to the Police or the agencies, when you are holding all the documents and know what happened to the money. I think it is about time that this matter is honestly dealt with in this House, because a lot of money has gone into the wrong hands and we all know that.

The Daily Hansard of those deliberations is available from the Fiji Parliament website.

The following is an excerpt:

Financial Assistance - 2003 South Pacific Games (Question No. 66/06)


HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY asked the Government, upon notice:


Would the honourable Minister for Finance and National Planning inform the House on the following:-

1. The total amount of financial assistance given by the Government from the consolidated fund for the hosting of the South Pacific Games (SPG) in Suva in July 2003;
   
2. Name the organisations which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them;
   
3. Have the accounts of the SPG been audited and if so, by whom;
   
4. Why have the accounts not been tabled in this House some three years after the Games were held, and who is responsible for this inordinate delay; and
   
5. Will the Government consider instituting independent investigation into the serious allegations of fraud, corruption and misappropriation in the use of SPG funds made by the former Minister of State for Youth and Sports and widely reported in the news media?

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA (Minister for Finance and National Planning).- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to respond to the question as follows:-

1. The total amount of financial assistance given by Government from the consolidated fund for hosting of the South Pacific Games in 2003 was $21,186,998. The breakdown is as follows:-
   
   
   Total infrastructure grant - $17,800,000
   
   SPG Organising Committee - $1,405,000
   
   SPG Security - $475,000
   
   SPG Equipment/Preparation
   
   and participation - $1,130,000
   
   VAT component - $376,33
   
   
   

SPG Organising Committee:

1. Administration - $745,500
   
   
2. Additional provision for games
   
   village capacity building USP - $660,000
   
   Sports Council/Fiji Police Force:
   
   
3. SPG Security - $475,665
   

FASANOC:


1. Equipment/Team Fiji Preparation and Participation - $1,130,000
   
2. The Government grants have been audited through the normal audit by the Auditor-General. The SPG Organising Committee's accounts were audited by KPMG in 2006, while FASANOC was completed in 2004.
   

The accounts have been tabled in this House some three years after the games were held. I wish to mention that the SPG Organising Committee is a limited liability company and there is no requirement for them to table their accounts here, although it was tabled in this House in the last sitting.

The reason for the inordinate delay was mainly because this was a total project, starting from December 2001 to August 2005 and the need to ensure that proper acquittals were done by the committee in relation to grants provided by Government. Also, some of the disposal assets were acquired duty free and they did not wish to have the accounts finalised carrying a huge amount of redundant assets, otherwise there would be continuing accounts to be done and provided by the committee, hence the reason for the delay.

No, but if the honourable Members or others in this august House have any information in relation to these allegations, I would strongly urge that this be directed to the relevant agency.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I take this opportunity to thank all those who were involved in the preparation and organisation of the SPG, who worked tirelessly in ensuring that the games were successful. Some of them are in this august House today.

Sir, the securing of the games to be held in Fiji was done in 1997. It was not until 2001 that serious work was carried out to ensure that the 2003 SPG was going to be successful. A lot of work was done behind the scenes, especially in securing sponsorship funds and others. As I said, there are those within this House this morning who did a lot of work and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for that.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Minister has not answered part (b) of the question, which is very specific; name the organisations, which received the financial assistance and state the amount paid to each of them. The honourable Minister said that $17.8 million was paid out for infrastructure development.

I want to know who did this money go to, $17.8 million is a lot of money and it cannot be passed aside by saying that it was paid for infrastructure development. I believe this money was given to the Fiji Sports Council. The Fiji Sports Council has not submitted its accounts to this House. In fact, it has not submitted its accounts to this House since 1992, despite a specific requirement in the Act, requiring the Minister responsible to table the accounts and the Annual Report of Fiji Sports Council.



HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- You are lying!


HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- You are the liar, you were the Minister. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is specifically provided for in the Fiji Sports Council Act. The nation knows what has happened.

HON. I. LEWENIQILA.- The nation knows about you.


HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- Where has the money gone - the $17.8 million? When a Minister who has been dismissed from his Ministerial portfolio, (simply because he wanted to drag the truth of this issue before the public, got wrapped in the knuckle, while the criminals, the people who had abused this money, had corruptly used it and misappropriated it, are now sitting in this House and talking cheeky.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is time that these people are exposed and brought before justice because it is time this side of the House report the matter to the Police. They are not going to get away with it.


HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, a point of order.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I have said what I wanted to say, they can raise any point of order.

HON. T. YOUNG.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I refer to the question that he is asking. He should be asking a supplementary question and not spilling venom in the morning of your Christmas party.

Secondly, imputing improper motive on the former Minister for Youth and Sports. Sir, I think the honourable Member should retract that statement, accusing the honourable Minister of being a liar. The whole of Fiji and the whole world knows who is a liar in this House.

MR. SPEAKER.- I do understand that the honourable Member for Ba Open (M.P. Chaudhry) was asking about the names of the organisations. I do not know whether the honourable Minister for Finance would like to respond to that or not.

HON. RATU J.Y. KUBUABOLA.- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not have the names of the organisations, but I do have the breakdown of how the $17.8 million was used and I will be glad to provide the honourable Member with that. As I mentioned, if there are allegations of fraud or corruption, please direct them to the relevant agencies.

HON. M.P. CHAUDHRY.- I find this most extraordinary because this House is accountable to the people of this country and for the honourable Minister for Finance to say that he does not have the names of the organisations, when the question was specifically asked, why did he not bring the name of the organisation to this House? What is he trying to hide? Who is he trying to protect?

It is no use telling us here that we go to the Police or the agencies, when you are holding all the documents and know what happened to the money. I think it is about time that this matter is honestly dealt with in this House, because a lot of money has gone into the wrong hands and we all know that.

Sir, I thank you and since the honourable Minister said that he will provide information on part (b) of the question later on, I would be very happy to receive that from him.

Club Em Designs

Bottom of the Barrel.

S.i.F.M follows up on the post reporting the audit of Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB).

Fiji TV has reported that, the KPMG audit on the aspect of Pacific Connex has been completed. The following are images from the Fiji TV news segment that publicized the findings of the KPMG report on NLTB's contract with Pacific Connex. The audit findings were itemised in the same news bulletin by Fiji TV and was corroborated by Radio NZ article, which the labelled the report as "severely critical" of NLTB. Fiji Times website provided a reader's feedback of the story.










Although, in an interview with Fiji TV, Ballu Khan-owner of Pacific Connex, refuted the allegations in the KPMG audit report; despite acknowledging in the same interview that he had not read the report in it's entirety. Khan's objection's to the KPMG audit was corroborated in a Fiji Times article.
Khan, further alluded to the fact that the audit on NLTB's relationship with Pacific Connex was an attempt to discredit him and senior officials, who were suspended from NLTB. Among those mentioned by Khan, was Kalivati Bakani, former General Manager and Keni Dakuidreketi, a former NLTB board member and representative of APRIL.



Club Em Designs

Political Square Dancing in Fiji.

The subject of GCC's recent suspension was revisited in a Fiji TV interview by the former GCC Chairman, Ovini Bokini, who acknowledged the receipt of the suspension notice and appears to be coming to terms with the Interim Government's decision in suspending the GCC and its members.


(Above image: GCC's former Chairman on Fiji TV)

Undoubtedly, the GCC Chairman has sought to re-negotiate his way back onside with the powers that be. A similar such move was exercised by Bokini, subsequent to the events of Decemeber 5th, 2006. Later, Bokini reversed any notion of the GCC's cooperation in being apolitical and belligerently stonewalled the road map outlined by the Interim Government.



In concluding the Fiji TV interview, Bokini remained adamant that the GCC was acting within their brief, to instigate a head on collision with the central arm of Government, using democracy as a convenient battle ram.

Clearly, the trappings of the GCC has gone to the heads of some its members, who now are making numerous appearances to the Fiji media, in a last ditch effort to improve their P.R.

Leading the charge on opinion shaping, was a slanted editorial, by the Fiji Times, in support were two published infomercials on the G.C.C.

Getting bored

Friday, April 27, 2007

ONE of the hallmarks of good governance is to consult the people who are going to be affected by a decision or policy to be made.

Great leaders listen to others' views, including those under their authority. They are also good planners and, equally importantly, recognise and accept their limitations.

At the outset this interim administration had stressed the importance of good governance in the running of the State's affairs. They say the previous administration lacked that vital leadership quality thus the military takeover to clean up and put things right.

While that's arguable and people have their own views on the reasons behind the ousting of a democratically elected government, it needs to be pointed out to those who hold the reins of power today to seriously look back at their four-month-old track record.

They will find out that it is not very encouraging. In fact, they ignore some of the essential and fundamental ingredients of good governance they have been vigorously advocating.

Some of these had been aired by members of the public in the open column of this newspaper, in media reports locally and overseas.

This fact needs to be pointed out now so that members of the interim Cabinet are fully aware that they themselves are not above the very practices they say are tantamount to bad governance.

There is little or no consultation with the people on important decisions which touch their lives, even at grassroots level. One glaring example of recent times is the decision to suspend the Great Council of Chiefs pending the review of its membership structure. One would have thought the interim minister in charge would have mapped out a way to go down to the people, especially the indigenous community, who will be affected by this decision and seek their views.

Another is the decision to cut the pay of civil servants by 5 per cent even before negotiations with the public sector trade unions were completed. They'll do what they want and no questions expected and accepted.

It becomes clearer to the people as days go by that only a handful of so-called leaders, who themselves know they have no mandate from the people to lead them, are making these decisions on important issues. The sad fact is that they have no-one to question them on the decisions they make.

They basically are accountable to no-one except themselves. Yet accountability immediately appears at the top of the list whenever good governance is discussed and put into practice.

This is a sad state of affairs as far as the managing of the national affairs is concerned. The solution lies in the return to democratic rule, to where we were before; to what the majority of the people in this country want. If the interim administration doubts this, the best way to gauge what the people want is to hold a public referendum. Anyone who champions good governance would certainly vote for that.

Right now, many people are getting bored, frustrated and fed up. And that's not a good sign.

One article featuring, Teimumu Kepa, GCC member from the Rewa Province. This is the second of such articles published by the Fiji Times, exclusively featuring the Paramount chief of Rewa.

This is the excerpt of the article:

Chief queries State's agenda

Friday, April 27, 2007

A CHIEF has questioned the decision by the interim administration to suspend the Great Council of Chiefs meeting and review the Fijian Affairs Act.

The paramount chief of Rewa and Burebasaga confederacy Ro Teimumu Kepa asked what the administration was "trying to achieve with what they were doing". She was responding to comments by interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau the GCC would not be meeting "for a long time" because of the review.

Ro Teimumu said issues which affected the Fijian people and their institutions needed wide consultation as had been the practice in the past.

"There is a need for wide consultation on the issue and the review should not be done by only a few people or a committee because the decisions made affect the Fijian people," she said.

"What these people are doing is that they have eroded the Fijian establishment and the Bose Levu Vakaturaga is something that we hold dear."

Ratu Epeli had said all council members had been sent suspension letters. "We have issued the members with their suspension letters and this is something that we have been working on for the time being," he said.

GCC chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini said he received his suspension letter on Wednesday. He said the letter would not change the resolution of the chiefs to uphold the 1997 Constitution.

Ro Teimumu said if the United Nations, European Union and Eminent Persons Group recognised the GCC, then she did not understand why interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and Ratu Epeli were causing such commotion on the issue. She said these foreign institutions held the BLV "very highly and it is a respected body".

"I just want to ask them what they want to achieve out of this and what legacy do they want to leave for their children and grandchildren," she said.

"Especially when they are Fijians and it should be understood that Fijians are people of great patience." Ro Teimumu said the vanua had "eyes and ears and it is a living spirit". Bua chief Ratu Filimone Ralogaivau said he had not received his letter.

"We are appointed by our province to be members of the BLV and if we are to be suspended it has to come from the province," he said.

"I believe the ministry should be looking at the six nominees to the BLV appointed by the Prime Minister because it was the people of our province who appointed us," Ratu Filimone said. He said he had been a member since 1999 and the council had managed to work out a system "to stand alone without any political influence over the years".

Ratu Filimone said in 1999, they elected their own chairman and they were part of the 1997 Constitution. "We are an independent body and we have managed to stand on our own with an investment of $10million in the Fijian Trust that has now amounted to $60million," he said.

He said from the funds in the Fijian Trust, $600,000 was allocated every year to cater for the council meeting so the GCC "really did not need assistance from the Government".

Tailevu chief Ratu Timoci Vesikula said he had not received any letter but had been hearing the news from the media on the issue. "I have not received it but if they do give it I will just accept it because what else can we do about it," he said. Roko Tui Macuata Ratu Jone Matanababa said the three members nominated by the province remained as GCC members.

He said Ratu Peni Sogia, Ratu Wate Saviri and Ratu Apenisa Bogiso were still reps of the Macuata province to the GCC.

Apparently, fair and balanced coverage has never been a strong suite of the Fiji Times. It is only accurate and objective journalism to provide both sides of the story. Sadly, this is the only side of the GCC issue, which these gatekeepers of Fiji media have long peddled.
David Robbie's 2000 podcast seems to have parallels in 2006.

These are excerpts from Pacific Media Watch, quoting Times of India article in 2000.

FIJI TIMES DRAWS FLAK FOR 'BIASED' CAMPAIGN

Times of India, 19 December 2000

SUVA: The Rupert Murdoch-owned Fiji Times newspaper came under fire over the weekend for allegedly waging a "bitter campaign" against ousted prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry and the People's Coalition government after their election last year.

Journalism lecturer David Robie made the attack at a media conference in Mooloolaba, Australia.

Robie, a New Zealander, circulated a paper titled "Coup Coup Land: The Press and the Putsch in Fiji," in which he questioned the professionalism of Fiji journalists and the news organizations the worked for.

He claimed some female journalists practiced skirt journalism to the point of being sexually involved with politicians in order to get information.

The writings and editorial slant were frequently based on the journalist's race and personal political opinions, added Robie, the head of the USP's journalism school.

The Fiji Times, he said, raged a relentless campaign against the Chaudhry government not long after its election in 1999.

"In spite of its claims to the contrary, that it treated all governments of the day similarly, the newspaper was blatantly agonistic," Robie claimed, adding that the "newspaper's reporting was spearheaded by a journalist with close ties with opposition indigenous nationalists."

He also hit out at what he said was an unusually close relationship the media enjoyed with coup leader George Speight and the hostage takers in the early weeks of the May 19 coup, saying it raised serious ethical questions.

There were no immediate comments front he management of the Fiji Times. The 120-year old newspaper is the largest selling daily and most profitable media organization in Fiji. (India Abroad News Service)

Cafe Pacific online article analysing the use of Fiji media before, during and after the 2000 coup.

For sociologist Premila Devi, this was nothing new. In a paper almost a decade earlier, analysing the 1992 general election campaign, she had found that both daily newspapers of the period, The Fiji Times and the Daily Post, had a "bias towards a certain ideology":

It is the same ideology that is shared by the [Great] Council of Chiefs, the military, the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) and large segments of the ethnic Fijian population. That putting this ideology in practice relegates a half of Fiji's population to a third-class citizenry did not matter. (Devi, 1992: 35)

The second article published by Fiji Times was written by a former diplomat, Filimone Ralogaivau.
This is the excerpt of the article:

Looking back at the GCC

Friday, April 27, 2007

The following is a paper prepared by RATU FILIMONE RALOGAIVAU, a member of the Great Council of Chiefs from Bua, on the history and role of the chiefs' council.

THE Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) comprises 56 members.

They are the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, six chiefs, 42 provincial council members, three Rotuma Island Council members and the sole life member Sitiveni Rabuka.

The quorum for a meeting is two-thirds of the council's membership.

As for the Fijian Affairs Board, it was resolved by the BLV in April 2000 that it comprise seven chiefs' council members, five parliamentarians, the Minister for Fijian Affairs and the chairman of the BLV.

Total membership is 14 and the meeting is to be chaired by the Minister for Fijian Affairs.

Background

In 1876, when the Fijian administration was established, two opposing views were seriously considered.

One was the private enterprise point of view according to the capitalistic concept of self-reliance and self seeking with the notion of ultimately developing independent individuals as in democratic societies.

Two, to avoid social disruptions, Fijians must be ruled according to their social/cultural and traditional systems as was promised to them before Cession. This second option was considered best because it augured well with existing customs of the land.

In 1915, the colonial administration was dissatisfied. The natives had lost the respect their forefathers had for the Government of the colony. Fijians must be given the opportunity to adapt before being inducted to changes taking place. Any form of administration under the chiefs was no longer desirable by the colonial administrator.

The Fijian administrator as a separate entity was then abolished. District commissioners and stipendiary magistrates ruled over the people but communalism proved difficult to break.

In 1944, Sir Philp Mitchell, the then Governor, examined the Fijian administration and concluded that those running it had no authority to do so.

Together with Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, they put forward bills with proposals considered beneficial to the Fijian people.

Various regulations put in place during between 1944 and 1967 caused the emergence of a golden era in the annals of the Fijian society. Significant features in the change included:

Law and order prevailed in Fijian villages;

Poverty was non-existence

People live in beautifully thatched traditional houses with secure food supply and unity in socialising with neighbours;

General respect for the institution was realised;

Appointment of district administrators (Buli) provided solid leadership.

In 1965, the Fijian court system and various regulations were abolished. People were free from the yoke of communal work. As a result, sharp increases in lawlessness were realised widely.

In 1975, the central Government was very concerned and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Crime was appointed.

Governor Sir Grant, a former Chief Justice of Fiji, observed that "the abolition of the bulk of the Fijian Affairs regulations led to the lack of control in the villages and an alarming decline in village discipline".

In 1981 the Royal Commission on the Treatment of Offenders was appointed and was very specific on certain parts of the Fijian Court:

Re-introduction of the Fijian Court set-up to be incorporated into the centralised court system;

Desirability of incorporating customary laws;

In 1984, the Cole Review. Re-instituted the tikina and village councils and appointed the turaga ni koro (village headman). This was the beginning of the district and provincial administrative system still in use today.

Roles of the GCC

It is clear from the analysis of the GCC's history that its establishment was associated with the various attempts at the formation of governments in Fiji.

The Cession of the Fiji Islands in 1874 bears testimony to the desire of the chiefs for the creation of a confederacy of native states under Queen Victoria. Fiji was united in peace under British protection and rule.

Past roles of GCC

In 1875, the Colonial Government took steps to build into the political structure of the colony a system of Fijian administration based on existing organisations.

Such a step provided for the improvement of the existing institutions so that natives could manage their own affairs without exciting any suspicion or destroying their self respect.

The apex of the colonial Fijian administration was the Native Council, (the forerunner of the GCC) which saw the linkage between the village authority to the Governor himself. Notwithstanding the council's absence of legislative powers, (as its resolutions are mere recommendations) Governor Gordon saw the Council's influence in the following light:

"But though not possessing no direct legislative authority, it is impossible not to see such a body wield far more influence on the course of legislation than can be enjoyed by a half dozen natives sitting as members of the legislature otherwise composed wholly of white men, as is the case in New Zealand and other states.''

Present role

While the constitutional role of the GCC is to appoint the President, Vice-President and 14 members of the Senate, its primary function as an advisory body, is to submit to the President such recommendations and proposal as it may deem for the benefit of the Fijian people.
It also considers such questions relating to the good governance and well being of the Fijian people as the president or the Board may from time to time submit to the GCC and to take decision or make appropriate recommendations as stipulated under the Fijian Affairs Act.

GCC secretariat

The secretariat of the GCC was established in September 1998, with the view of facilitating the transition of the GCC to a fully independent and autonomous body. The GCC elects its own chairperson and deputy.

The function of the secretariat is to administer council meetings and to provide necessary information on social, economic and cultural issues considered to be for the welfare and good governance of the Fijian people, for the Great Council of Chiefs to deliberate and decide upon.

In this respect the council through its secretariat has shifted from a passive institution to a proactive one, where it initiates researches and subcommittees to conduct investigations and report on issues that are or may be in the interest of the Fijians.

Achievements

The council's resolutions and recommendations since 1876 are beyond the capacity of this paper, suffice for the purpose of the same to highlight a few:

Recommendation on the proprietary unit of native land to be the mataqali (clan/tribe);

Recommendations to establish the Native Land Trust Board;

Role after the two coups of 1987;

Role in severing its ties to one political party so as to embrace all Fijian political parties to foster Fijian political unity and paramountcy.

Constraints

In view of the enormity of the task that the Council and its secretariat had been asked to perform, its efforts has been impeded by the lack of funds and the imposition of certain restrictions preventing it from acting independently especially with regards to staffing and other administrative functions which has to be sanctioned by the Ministry and the Board.

Future role of GCC

It is evident from the 1987 and 2000 political turmoil that the GCC has had to change from an advisory body to an executive one when there is a political vacuum.

The future direction and role of the Great Council of Chiefs can thus best be summed: " the maintenance of the GCC is a necessity, if the system of government through natives is to be kept up. It acts as a safety valve to many grievances that might otherwise rankle and swell to dangerous proposition, as a touchstone of feeling of the utmost value in gauging the tendencies of the natives and as the most powerful auxillary in carrying out the wishes of government.

"With the aid of the Bose Vakaturaga the Governor can without effort do in native matters whatever he pleases.

Without it the management of those affairs would be a matter of extreme difficulty."

It is respectfully submitted that the above quoted observations of former governor Sir Arthur Gordon is, with modifications, a true body as it was in 1875, some 126 years later, and will hold true for a lot of years to come for as long as there exist a bona fide indigenous Fijian race.

(Above image: Official Notice of the GCC's suspension, signed by the Interim Fijian Affairs Minister, Epeli Ganilau)





Club Em Designs

The Buck Stops Where?

(Above image: Fiji TV reporting on the UN delegation in Suva)


(Above image: Fiji TV report on Brij Lal)

Radio Fiji article covers the issue of the U.N fact-finding mission in Fiji, which has been labelled as "duplicitous" by the Australian National University professor, Brij Lal.

Whether or not, it is duplicitous remains to be seen, as invitees to the UN meeting, who were interviewed on Fiji TV, said that they were instructed by the UN team not to give any press statements about the meeting and that a report will be released later after the findings by the UN observer group are completed. That fact was corroborated by an article by ABC.

The method of issuing a single press release by this U.N teams is different from the manner employed by the E.U or Eminent Persons Group. That is, soon after the meetings, each party had their own perspective and interpretations on the deliberations.

This UN mission places an asterisk mark on the question of international authority. Fiji Village article also confirms no press comments and furthermore, the independence of the U.N.


(Above image: UNDP Resident Coordinator, Richard Dictus)

Fiji Village quotes Richard Dictus:

"the mission would make an independent assessment of the situation in Fiji following the December 5th takeover, and would not depend on previous reports".

Would the U.N's team upset the apple cart of the Pacific Island Forum Joint Working Group, whose plans for the Fiji census in 2007 was reported by Radio Fiji article; or should the preceeding observer groups interpolate their view with findings from the UN observer group. Who has the final say?




Club Em Designs

The Heart of Corruption.

It has become somewhat clear that, some personalities within Fiji Law Society(FLS) are succeeding in creating stumbling blocks to progress in Fiji.

Although, a recent challenge mounted by FLS, on the appointment of acting Chief Justice reported by Radio NZ article; the acting incumbent, Anthony Gates declared in a Fiji Times article that, the Judiciary will continue on as normal.

In an overly dramatic interview with Bloomberg's correspondent, the FLS Vice-President, Tupou Draunidalo labelled the new Anti-Corruption Commission's powers as "sinister" and "draconian". Draunidalo's interview did trivialize the importance of such organization; whilst ignoring the devastating nepotism and wide spread corruption, that was allowed to spread in Fiji without any criminal deterrents in place.

One needs to look no further than the annual Auditor General reports to Parliament, to raise serious questions about the existing system of checks and balances.

Although, Draundalo raised a point that, "power given to the panel, appears to break various sections of the constitution and common law"; exactly how and where these alleged departures from Common Law and the Constitution occur, remains the sole decision of Fiji courts to make and certainly not the privy of Fiji Law Society or its members.

The Interim Attorney General was quoted in a Radio NZ article that, the independent commission would hire some foreign citizens to arrest the growing trend of white collar crime in Fiji. Apparently, it would seem any measure to curb corruption in Fiji would be resisted by the same circle of lawyers; who may be linked to the benefactors of corruption.


Club Em Designs