Stuck in Fiji M.U.D

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Age of Reason.

Image above: Map depicting the 1492 view of the world.

Here is a link to Monday Nov. 20th 2006 podcast from Radio NZ interview that comprehensively covers the Tonga riots and the debate on democracy in an objective way.

Tonga's business community's angry reaction to the spate of violence is covered by this interview. The interview covers the cost of damages, as well as raising the idea of charging the people advocating democracy in Tonga.
Tonga P.M, Dr Sevele has already contemplated rebuilding and also refused to resign in the wake of the carnage, in addition the Tongan P.M vows to bring the rioters to justice.

The subject of idealogy and philosophy using democratic principles has forced itself into the Pacific arena of discussion.

Fiji Post article in their Monday issue reveals the disconnect between the floating series of judgements from Colonial era Fiji that do not meet the standards of modern governance. The riots and savage violence under the name of democracy in Tonga have jolted pangs into the native institutions in Fiji.

The excerpt of the article is as follows:

“RESPECT GCC”
20-Nov-2006

UK expert urges army commander to respect Fijian values

THE military Commander Commodore Frank Bainimarama is a Fijian who should respect the Fijian people and indigenous issues and give a chance for democracy to survive, says Chairperson of the Justice, Peace and Harmony of the United Kingdom Doctor Imam Adbuljalil Sajid.

And he added that the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) decision to resolve the impasse between the military and Government should be given adequate respect.

“We in the European Union (EU) are talking to all sections of the community to get views in resolving of any particular conflict,” said Dr Sajid. He added that true inclusion of the society means that all sections of the community’s decision should be respected and GCC’s word of wisdom should be listened to at all costs. “GCC is the major body to make decisions on the resolution of the current impasse between the military and Government.”

Dr Sajid added that Government at its own level has to talk to their own members and the military should bear in mind that they cannot work alone without seeking advice and support from Government.

“We need to learn to co-operate so that we can bring at least some happiness to our own citizens and the neighbouring countries.”

He said the fear of the military-Government standoff which exists among people will only go away when people will learn the give and take policy.

He added that the people of Fiji are hard working and they are entitled for littlie empowerment but not dictation nor control from any party. “Government and military should have a dialogue, however, sometimes in Governmental level it is difficult to talk openly because there are certain things that should be kept confidential.”

He said the military is not the permanent solution to any problem and the Commonwealth government always takes seriously that military powers are not accepted and the rules are there to be followed.

He added that the British government will not tolerate the military to take over Government because it is elected democratically by the people’s choice.

By NAVIN KUMAR

One prudent way to views these intellectual subjects, is to superimpose the fundamentals of justice and reconcile that with the datum of truth, in order to validate the claims of the learned scholar.

One such datum which predates the scholars's idea of democracy, is the journal titled "The Leviathan" pennned by English writer Thomas Hobbes in 1660.

This is an excerpt from the ageless reservoir of knowledge.

CHAPTER XIX:
OF THE SEVERAL KINDS OF COMMONWEALTH BY INSTITUTION, AND OF SUCCESSION TO THE SOVEREIGN POWER

There be other names of government in the histories and books of policy; as tyranny and oligarchy; but they are not the names of other forms of government, but of the same forms misliked.

For they that are discontented under monarchy call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy call it anarchy, which signifies want of government; and yet I think no man believes that want of government is any new kind of government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe that the government is of one kind when they like it, and another when they mislike it or are oppressed by the governors.

Citizens Constitutional Forum Chairperson also ponders the same debate in an article published by Fiji Times in their Thursday Nov. 16th issue. This is an excerpt:

@: Front page » Opinion

Email to a friend
Print this story

Chiefs must stand against political manipulation

Aquila Yabaki
Thursday, November 16, 2006

+ Enlarge this image

GCC members at the GCC meeting in Lami

The Great Council of Chiefs has been back in the media spotlight after its emergency meeting last week.

Its core function, says the Fijian Affairs Act, is to advise the President on questions relating to the good government and well-being of the Fijian people.
Other important functions of the GCC are set out in the Constitution.
They include appointing the President and Vice President of Fiji, and appointing 14 members of the 32-member Senate.
The Reeves Commission in 1996 made recommendations for sweeping reform of the GCC, most of which were ultimately not adopted by Parliament.
Among these was a proposal to expand the core function of the GCC to include consideration not only of the well-being of the Fijian people, but matters affecting the nation.
Another proposal was that the GCC should no longer nominate senators, but should itself be responsible for approving any alteration of native land laws or the Fijian Affairs Act.
The Reeves Commission reasoned that taking laws dealing with native land, and so on, out of the hands of Parliament could help to remove these laws from the political process and allay fears that a multi-ethnic government might put indigenous group rights at risk.
Had these proposals been adopted, they would have substantially increased the powers of the GCC.
Recognising that greater power implies greater responsibility, the Reeves Commission recommended that the GCC should be autonomous from the Ministry of Fijians Affairs and the Fijian Affairs Board in matters relating to its secretariat and funding, and that a provision be included in the Constitution to ensure the GCC acted independently of the Government and any political party.
Perhaps most significantly of all, the Reeves Commission recommended reform in the GCC's membership.
It proposed that the President, the Fijian Affairs Minister and the heads of the three confederacies should remain ex-officio members, 20 members should be selected jointly by the heads of the confederacies, five should be nominated by the chairperson of the GCC, 14 should be elected by the provincial councils and one should be elected by the Council of Rotuma.
A representative of the Rabi Island Council was to be invited when matters relating to the Banaban community were under discussion.
Clearly, this would have produced a quite different GCC to the one that exists today.
Most notably, the Prime Minister would not be a member and there would be no appointments on the nomination of the Fijian Affairs Minister (where there are currently six).
It seems likely that the Reeves Commission's proposal would have produced a GCC that was less political in its membership and more independent of the Government.
In 2004, a review of the Fijian Administration commissioned by the Fijian Affairs Ministry and conducted by a team of local experts (including the current Vice President) recommended reform of the GCC, and paid particular attention to its membership.
The review team was more cautious than the Reeves Commission in recommending an expansion of the GCC's functions.
However, it too proposed that the GCC should be able to advise the President on national matters, and not just those affecting indigenous people.
On the GCC's membership, the 2004 review team commented:
"There is concern that the election of delegates to contribute to the (GCC) is not always based on merit and often influenced by chiefs in the provinces or others with their personal agenda to ensure that their views prevail."
To address this concern, the team emphasised the need for the GCC to act, and be seen to act, independently of the Government.
They recommended that the overall size of the GCC be reduced to 35, with 30 of its members selected by Bose Vanua ni Yasana (new bodies comprising the heads of the vanua in each province) and the Council of Rotuma; the Fijian Affairs Minister as the only ex-officio member; the heads of the three confederacies; and, if the GCC wishes, Sitiveni Rabuka.
Like the Reeves Commission, the review team proposed a reduction in government representation on the GCC and the abolition of ministerial nominations to it.
However, like the Reeves Commission, the recommendations of the 2004 review team for reform of the GCC have not been adopted.
This may reflect relative satisfaction on the part of successive governments with the functioning of the GCC as it is.
For example, only last week the Prime Minister described the GCC as "a repository of chiefly wisdom and authority" and complimented its role in dealing with the coups in 1987 and 2000 in the following terms:
"In 1987 and 2000 (the GCC) demonstrated its ability to deal with the fundamental issues of peace and stability."
It must be said that this statement is frankly offensive to those of us who stood up for democracy and the rule of law in 1987 and 2000.
The fact of the matter is that on both occasions, when the country was in crisis, the GCC found itself unable to clearly condemn the violent and illegal overthrow of democratically-elected governments.
For the Prime Minister to suggest that, by condoning the coups, the GCC helped to promote peace and stability in Fiji, is patent nonsense.
A coup is the exact opposite of peace and stability.
It does not matter who leads the elected government whether it is Timoci Bavadra, Mahendra Chaudhry, or Laisenia Qarase himself.
Under no circumstances can a coup promote peace and stability.
So what happened to the GCC in 1987 and 2000?
The emphasis placed by the Reeves Commission and the 2004 review team on the need for the GCC to be independent of government suggests they were both concerned that the GCC, in its existing form, is vulnerable to political manipulation.
The Citizens' Constitutional Forum shares this concern.
We are not anti-GCC.
However, when the high chiefs of Fiji allow themselves to become the mouthpieces of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, ethno-nationalist thugs, or any other political party or interest group, they bring discredit on the GCC and the chiefly system.
To take a recent example, consider the fate of the immediate past-chairperson of the GCC, Ratu Epeli Ganilau.
Ratu Epeli served on the GCC from 1999, when he was appointed on the nomination of the then Fijian Affairs Minister.
In 2001, he was elected chairperson.
In that role, Ratu Epeli was outspoken in promoting multi-racialism, and calling for the perpetrators of the 2000 coup to be brought to justice.
In 2004, the Government, allegedly through the manipulation of Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale and the CEO in the Prime Minister's Office, Jioji Kotobalavu, unceremoniously dumped Ratu Epeli by declining to renew his GCC membership.
No reason was given, but comments made by Cabinet ministers at the time made it clear they did not welcome Ratu Epeli's assertive brand of leadership of the GCC.
While the Government may have been within its rights not to renew Ratu Epeli's membership in 2004, the decision demonstrated that politics and (in the case of ministers then facing coup-related charges) self-interest were uppermost in the minds of Mr Qarase and his Cabinet members in selecting their GCC nominees.
In 2005, political manipulation of the chiefly system was again in evidence in the debate on the Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill.
Amid widespread public opposition, government representatives toured the provincial councils to secure their support for the Bill.
Non-government representatives were excluded from these meetings, and it later emerged that many members of provincial councils did not attend either.
Many of those who did attend had no opportunity to read the Bill for themselves.
Unsurprisingly, with one or two reservations here and there, the 14 councils obediently declared their support.
When it came time for the GCC to consider the Bill, however, the high chiefs of Fiji gave a hint of their true potential.
Instead of simply falling in line behind the provincial councils and the Government, they invited the Bill's opponents to make presentations, including representatives of the Fiji Labour Party, the military and civil society.
This was of course essential if the GCC was to gain a meaningful understanding of the debate.
In its resolution on the Bill, the GCC did not oppose the Government, but nonetheless called for the concerns of the Bill's opponents to be addressed.
In other words, in accordance with Pacific tradition, the chiefs called for more dialogue.
Last week, when the GCC met to consider the stand-off between the Government and the military, the RFMF commander declined to attend. He clearly felt the GCC was acting as a tool of the SDL, and that it would not give him a fair hearing.
That perception is very damaging for the GCC.
It cannot help to resolve disputes if it is not seen by both sides as an independent arbiter.
The CCF believes the GCC's functions should be formally expanded to include advising the President on matters affecting the nation.
This would will legal support to the current practice, and be consistent with intentions expressed publicly by the President.
However, the CCF believes that the problem of political manipulation of the GCC needs to be urgently addressed.
The Reeves Commission recognised the problem.
So did the Fijian Affairs Ministry's 2004 review team.
The Government should be represented on the GCC by one ex-officio member the Fijian Affairs Minister and it should not nominate any other member of the GCC. Options could be explored for shielding the position of chairperson from outside pressure. Another useful exercise would be to reassess relationships between the provincial councils and their GCC representatives.
If provincial councils are to continue electing GCC delegates, should the membership of the provincial councils be reviewed?
The 2004 review team certainly thought so.
Finally, the GCC must have an autonomous secretariat and its own team of expert advisors.
Does anyone really think it is okay, for example, that the GCC's chief legal advisor over the past several years, Qoriniasi Bale, happens to be the Attorney-General?
The potential for conflicts of interest in this arrangement was amply demonstrated in the scandal over Ratu Jope Seniloli's early release from prison in 2004 and simultaneous retirement as Vice President.
In the modern age, any credible leadership body must have its own, independent advisors.
The GCC will shortly be housed in a $20-million waterfront property, and yet it continues to share a lawyer with the Government.
It must have its own lawyer, independent of the Government or anyone else along with an accountant, a political analyst and other relevant experts as well.
The CCF believes the GCC is a vital institution in Fiji's national development. It represents the link between tradition and modernity a meeting place for our indigenous heritage and multi-cultural aspirations.
The GCC can and should be a place where traditional leaders come together to protect and develop the best traditions of their people, while being mindful of the needs of all communities.
Given Fiji's racialised politics, however, there is an ever-present danger that the GCC will be drawn into election campaigning or political debate in support of the dominant indigenous party of the day.
We must guard against this danger, or else the GCC will be weakened and discredited, and become increasingly irrelevant.
Reverend Akuila Yabaki is executive director of the Constitutional Citizens Forum.

Back to Top

Front Page

Download as a PDF file.

Use the free Acrobat Reader to view.

Kaila! Front Page & Jingle

See the cover of our new newspaper for Fiji's young people.

Download as a PDF file.

Download the Kaila! jingle (MP3)

Your Say

Mahendra Chaudhry says he will sack the Labour Party Cabinet members who vote for the Budget. Prime Minister Qarase will sack those who do not. Does the multi-party cabinet really have a future given these attitudes?

Give us your view

Photo Galleries

Picture of the Day Relaxed and ready for the fun in the annual FMF Games at the Post Fiji Stadium

Visit our galleries for the best of the week's news and sport pictures.

Club Em Designs

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Pacific Beat MP3 pod-cast Update on Tonga and Pacific news.

Radio Australia's audio magazine has updated commentary on the Tonga situation.

read more | digg story

State of the Union-Fiji.

Above image: Artist view of the 19th century British House of Commons of West Minister traditions which Fiji Parliament is modelled on. Albeit selectively.

The issue of who should vote for the 2007 budget has been a niggling question for both the public as well as political pundits. Fiji Labour Party has taken immenient action and issued caveats to Politicians in the multiparty framework, who carried their flag and ideals during the 2006 elections.

Click to read Canadian resources on Parliamentary democracy. University of California-Irvine 's Center for Democracy has extensive reading material on the subject of democracy.

Above image: Fiji Labour Party leader and former Fiji P.M, Mahendra Chaudary(L) Felix Anthony(centre) Dan Urai (R) at their party conference at the Mocambo Hotel, Nadi.

Undeniably the chasm which faced the party post-elections has closed and differences placed aside to confront a common foe- the 2007 proposed budget.

Fiji Prime Minister advice for the Leadership forum is adequately case-in-point example, on its applications to the context in Fiji. Using the same rationale, the present financial quagmire which the nation feters in, is undoubtedly derived from bad leadership. An extension of this bad behavior is the mud slinging by State Minister of Provincial Development. A sad testimony that the character of both State Ministers, are cut from the same cloth of inferior quality.

Letters to Fiji Times Editor reflect the bad policies and bad judgement in the current S.D.L Government.

PM's house
I APPRECIATE the response by Mr M. Coalala to my letter on the PM's House.
For your information I am not a supporter of Mahendra Chaudhry or the Fiji Labour Party.
What Mr Chaudhry did by renovating his own house during his term as Prime Minister was wrong according to Auditor-General.
It is the duty of the police to deal with such cases. A few leakages in the PM's House has provoked him to demand a million dollar house while so many families in Fiji don't have a roof over their heads.
Surendra Kumar
Nadi
Cost of residence
IF our people live in shacks and try to survive with as little as $2 a day, I do not see why our Prime Minister cannot manage with a home costing $0.5million.
We know our previous Prime Ministers managed well without living in an official residence that cost $1m.
The other half a million can be better used to build 20 homes for the poor, the needy and squatters at $25,000 each.
Of course our PM does understand that these people and their children deserve better housing.
I am informed that a beautiful house could be built with $0.5m.
I request the authorities to reconsider the cost of building the PM's home taking into consideration the above, the present economic situation and the plight of the poor and the needy.
Suresh Chand
Nadi

Club Em Designs

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Fiji Nostalgia.

Fiji's Attorney General also attempts to deflect the sinister motives of the Police investigation into Fiji Army Commander's case.

Fiji Army's request for the resignation of the Police Commissioner Hughes has ruffled some feathers in both sides of the Tasman. Radio N.Z online magazine interviews a Professor of Governance from the University of the South Pacific. Vakaivosavosa blog post echoes the sentiments of the Academic in her posting.

Ironically the learned professor theoratical concerns for governance must now be applied to the Kingdom of Tonga.

The news of Tonga capital burning amid riots has also sent shock waves around the Pacific.
The riots have been reported as actions by pro-democracy supporters, it also is a reminder that the same kind of violence can be mirrored in Fiji; albeit on a larger scale.

Radio NZ podcast outlines the reverberations in their news segment. The commentary accurately describes the tensions as well as covering politics in Fiji and elsewhere.

Fiji Times Online posed readers with an intelligent question on the orgins of the calamity faced by the nation and the source of the altercation between the Fiji Government and the Army.

Club Em Designs

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Smoky Backroom Deals.

Above image: Fiji P.M and convicted perptraitor in the 2000 coup and current Minister of Fijian Affairs, Niqama Lalabalavu at the recent GCC meeting.

Fiji Times article reports that, the Army will not accept the Biketawa Declaration application to Fiji. Clearly the Army believes that the obscure declaration designed by the Australian Government, infringes on Fiji's sovereignity and also has the ability to supercede the legal foundations of natural justice.

Much have been said on the Army Commander refusing to adhere to maligned wishes of the tainted Great Council of Chiefs(GCC). The cancer of truth impairedness has been counter-pointed by Commander Frank's new remarks, covered by Fiji Times article.
Commander Frank B unravels the absence of fresh perspectives seen in the speech of Fiji P.M to GCC (posted at the end).

The debate on the 2007 national budget in Fiji Parliament, also reveals an interesting angle in the content of these speeches by Ministers of the Cabinet, who have chosen to ignore the negative aspects of the proposal.

Below are links to 2007 Budget Address for the following Ministries:

1.) Hon. Kepa, Minister for Youth and Sport

2.) Hon. Qoro, Minister for Commerce & Industry

3.) Hon. Lalabalavu, Minister for Fijian Affairs Board and Provincial Development.

4.) Hon. Dutt, Minister of Labour and Industrial Relations.

Certainely Maverick individuals who actively fight for the silent majority are few and far between in Fiji. Among them are the Fiji Army Commander, another from that same mould is the Minister for Energy, Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi(FLP-Sigatoka Indian Rural)who revealed his moral courage and voted against the 2007 Budget; as well as rejecting any pressure to resign his post by the Prime Minister as described by this Fiji Times article.

The Ministerial 2007 Budget addresses posted, have been included on the Fiji Government website.

It is rather disappointing to learn that, the same 2007 Budget speeches have not yet been published on the Fiji Parliament website even though the speeches were part of the Parliamentary debates. This only further confirms suspicions that the digital divide in Fiji, is a really a function of ill-funding and misplaced priorities. Another question worth asking the Parliamentary Secretariat, if democracy is truly transparent in Fiji?

Although, the British Government was kind enough and responsible enough to provide funding for the project to create the website for Fiji Parliament; not enough allocation was assigned to the regular tasks of updating and maintaining the website. Is this merely a clerical oversight or indeed a part of a larger picture of
perceived and hollow good-governance, by design?

Inextricably, the democratic ideal of 'equal carriage' has not been given much credence by the past and present Fiji Governments. The Fiji Times Editorial comments on the rhetoric of Fiji P.M.

Yet these Fiji politicians and Government officials are quick to cloak themselves under the skirts of democracy; when the circumstances suit them. Equal carriage means equal treatment of individuals and equal allocation of resources. An E.U website provides some resources on the subject of discrimination.

Important questions must be thrashed out, on the ability of the Fiji Parliament to keep up with the recent Budget debates, as well as updating their website content of Hansard. The index of the Handsard page shows the new Parlaiment session of November 8th, 2006; However, the contents of the page are from the past August session.

Fiji P.M's speech to the Great Council of Chiefs has been published by Fiji Government website reveals the extent of how the mis-information and mis-representation has been layered thickly among the uneducated and out-of-touch layer of Aristcrats.

Hon. Qarase - Remarks at the Great Council of Chiefs meeting
Nov 9, 2006, 14:20

Hon. Laisenia Qarase
Prime Minister and Minister for Sugar and Investment

Tradewinds Convention Centre
Thursday, November 9th, 2006
LAMI 10.00 a.m
(English Translation of Fijian-language text)
Chairman and Members of the Great Council of Chiefs

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to the Chiefs and representatives of the Fijian and Rotuman people (na i Taukei kei Viti kei Rotuma) at this Great Council.
It is one of our most revered institutions of State, with important constitutional responsibilities. Throughout its history, the Council has had a pivotal part in helping government authorities to maintain peace and order and to safeguard the well being of all the citizens of Fiji.

Its primary responsibility is, of course, to the Fijian and Rotuman people in all matters directly affecting their welfare.

We meet when our country is facing a major crisis with a direct bearing on long term peace, the rule of law and good governance. The immediate challenge is to bring an end to the fear and uncertainty that hangs over our country. The solution is clear. We need to put right the relationship between the Government elected by the people, and the State institution of the Army, charged with responsibility for national security.

I come before you to ask for your support and understanding on the approach I am taking to seek a resolution to this.

RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

My first duty is to extend sincere gratitude and thanks to their Excellencies the President and the Vice President for their efforts to heal the Government-Army relationship.
I thought it would be helpful and relevant for me at this point to briefly outline the constitutional position relating to the office of the President.

It is specified in the Constitution that the President is Head of State; the executive authority of the State is vested in the President.

The Prime Minister is constitutionally required to keep the President generally informed about issues relating to the governance of Fiji. In fact, I regularly brief the President and the Vice President about decisions of Cabinet and other businesses of Government. I regard this as a vital part of my duties.

There are specific circumstances in which the President may act on his or her own judgement, as in the appointment of a Prime Minister. But, generally, the President acts only on the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister, or of some other body or authority prescribed in the Constitution.

These, then, are the constitutional measures that apply.
But, as a Fijian, I see them not just in terms of what the Constitution says and requires. There is a cultural context here as well.

The holders of these high offices carry with them the mana of high chiefs. That chiefly mana, from their respective Vanua, extends, through their appointments, to the whole of Fiji.

Let me reaffirm, therefore, that although I am the elected leader of the political Government, I have the greatest respect for the President and the Vice President and the roles they play.

As eminent traditional leaders, their Excellencies bring to their duties the Fijian way of dealing with issues. This draws on the inclusive approach of dialogue and discussion, where all views are heard and consensus is reached. At all times, there is an atmosphere of restraint and respect. The objective is to reach agreement through mutual accommodation.

Both the President and the Vice President have done their best to use this approach in dealing with our current problems. They have employed the traditional way while being guided, at the same time, by the provisions of the relevant law.

COMMITMENT TO DIALOGUE

I particularly appreciated the willingness of the Vice President, when he was acting as President, to use his influence and good offices to convene a meeting of the Army Commander and me. This was on 16th January this year.
The purpose was to establish procedures for direct dialogue between us, and for the issuing of public statements.

Chiefs of Fiji, allow me to say that if, in your view, I have fallen short in my efforts to improve the relationship between the Government and the Commander and the Military, then I offer my apologies and ask for your understanding.

In my broadcast to the nation last Wednesday (Nov 1st), I publicly renewed my pledge to engage positively with the Commander on issues that concern the Military. I can report that yesterday I received from the Army, a document setting out the matters they wish to discuss. I have sent an immediate reply, with an assurance that the Government is ready to meet with the Commander and his senior officers for consultations.

I will contribute to that dialogue with a view to finding answers that serve the best interests of Fiji.

I believe the basic difference between the Government and the Army involves the legal scope of the Army’s role in the nation.

INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION

According to the Commander and his advisors, the Military has a wide mandate to ensure the wellbeing of Fiji and its people, as well as national security. They believe that this mandate, given to them in the 1990 Constitution, has been transferred to, and continued under, our present 1997 Constitution.

The Government’s position is that the current Constitution is limited to legitimising the continued existence of the RFMF as an institution of the State. It does not, in our view, give the RFMF the broader responsibilities included in the 1990 Constitution. This view is shared by many legal experts.

Clearly, the way to get a final answer on the question, is to ask the Supreme Court to give its opinion. We are doing this, in accordance with constitutional procedures. The Supreme Court will deliberate on the issues and give its opinion. This will help us to move forward as a nation.

I give an assurance that this is not about scoring points. It is about seeking the legal truth, to enlighten us all on the constitutional and statutory role of the RFMF.

This function of the Courts in resolving constitutional issues was demonstrated in our first term of office after the General Election in September 2001.
I had questions and misgivings about the setting up of a Multi Party Cabinet as stipulated in the Constitution. However, the subsequent ruling by the Court of Appeal provided the clarity that was sought. It paved the way for me to establish a Multi Party Cabinet after the May (2006) Elections.

This new approach in the Government of Fiji has received wide support locally and overseas. It has taken us into a new age of inter-ethnic co-operation in Government. What we are doing is regarded as a model for other multi-ethnic societies.

The Military have expressed concern about several items of legislation we have introduced. These are the Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill, the Qoliqoli Bill, and the Indigenous Claims Tribunal.

PROCEDURES FOR ENACTMENT OF LAWS

Permit me to explain at this point the political and democratic procedure that brings legislation into effect. This is extremely relevant in light of some of the statements being expressed by the Army.

When a political party contests a general election it offers to the electorate a manifesto of policies it will enact if elected. If that Party wins office, it then has the authority to enact the legislation and policies it promised to the people. That is how democracy works.

Under Fiji’s Constitution, it is our Parliament which enacts laws. In proposing legislation in Parliament, Government has to follow certain procedures.
The first is that the Cabinet gives instructions to the Attorney-General and his Chambers to draft a particular law, or Bill. This drafting is not done in isolation.
The State Law Office, with the support of the Ministry responsible, consults the stakeholders who are directly concerned.

Once a draft is ready, it goes to a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Legislation. This sub-committee scrutinises the draft in terms of policy aspects, the resources needed for implementation, and to ensure its compatibility with other laws.

The Minister responsible for the legislation tables the Bill in Cabinet. This is then considered, taking into account the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-committee.
When the draft is approved by Cabinet, it is ready for presentation to Parliament.

With the Multi-Party Cabinet in place, proposed legislation has the blessings, not only of the Prime Minister’s party, but also the endorsement of the entitled party. In the context of the present SDL-Fiji Labour Party Cabinet, a Bill tabled in Parliament has broad political support.

In the House of Representatives, a Bill has to go through three stages.

It is given a first reading and a second reading, when full debate takes place; it is then dealt with in a Committee of the Whole to allow for a clause-by-clause examination. When this is finished, a Bill is given a third reading. When it is approved, it is referred to the Senate.

CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE

A new feature, introduced in the 1997 Constitution, is a system of Sector Committee deliberation that provides yet another stage of democratic consultation within Parliament, and in the community at large.
The Sector Committees cover broad areas of policy, including Justice, Law and Order, Foreign Relations, Economic and Social Services, and Natural Resources.
Ministers do not take part in the work of the Sector Committees. Membership of these comprises Government backbenchers, and the Parliamentary Opposition.
The Committees travel the country to give as many citizens as possible the chance to have their say on proposed legislation.

This is about government by the people, for the people.
Once this democratic process is complete, Committees prepare reports on their findings, summarising the views of the public, and making appropriate recommendations for the House of Representatives as a whole and especially for Government, to consider.
These reports help to determine the final form of the legislation, which maybe somewhat different to the original.

A prime example was the report of the Sector Committee that carried out very wide consultations last year on the Reconciliation and Unity Bill. This was, perhaps, the largest exercise in democratic dialogue that Fiji has ever had.

The Military was part of this. It had the opportunity to make its views known to its own Ministry, as well as to the Sector Committee.
The Committee delivered a very thorough and well- considered report that has been carefully studied and widely welcomed. It illustrates perfectly why it is important to subject proposed legislation to extensive community consultation.

The purpose of legislation is to serve the people and the country. Citizens will readily identify with the law if they feel they have had a voice in its formation.

RECONCILIATION AND UNITY BILL

Let me comment now on where we stand with the Reconciliation and Unity Bill. Government is using the report of the Sector Committee as the foundation for a comprehensive review of the original draft. This review continues. A redrafted Bill has not yet been referred back to Cabinet.

However, I can confirm that the Government has listened carefully to the many concerns expressed on the amnesty issue. Due consideration has been given to the views of the Military and important agencies such as the Fiji Human Rights Commission, and community groups like the Fiji Law Society.

The amnesty clauses have now been dropped. Factors we took into account included the constitutionality of the initial proposals and the comment by the Commissioner of Police that investigations into those implicated in the upheaval of 2000 are nearly complete. Most of those involved have been charged.

In the light of this, the legislation will now provide for a Reconciliation Commission with a limited and specific role. Its main purpose will be to bring together in reconciliation, victims of what happened in 2000 and those who acted against them.
These perpetrators would be people who were involved but could not be charged because of insufficient evidence.

The Commission will encourage the victims and the offenders to come together. Offenders will have an opportunity to confess and ask for forgiveness. Victims will have an opportunity to extend forgiveness and seek some form of reparation.

This reconciliation procedure will be particularly helpful to victims who might find the Court process too costly and complicated. They have a basic right to have their grievances considered and to be assisted.

People who have already been charged and sentenced can only seek relief by direct application to the Prerogative of Mercy Commission. They are also free to seek the assistance of the Reconciliation Commission. The Commission can then examine individual cases, on application, and submit a report to the Prerogative of Mercy Commission.

I emphasise, however, that any recommendation for mercy to His Excellency the President, can only come from the Prerogative of Mercy Commission.

The Reconciliation Commission will not have amnesty power as envisaged in the original Reconciliation and Unity Bill.

This means that the process will remain within the existing machinery of the law.

The rest of the Bill will focus on the establishment of a statutory body to be responsible for promoting national unity.
At present this is undertaken by a National Reconciliation and Unity council appointed by the Government.
Transferring this role to a statutory authority will create an independent entity with its own mandate and representing all the communities of Fiji.

I stress again that the revised Bill will in no way interfere with the independent authority of the Courts, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police.

QOLIQOLI AND INDIGENOUS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

The Qoliqoli Bill and the Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill are going through the same consultative processes as the Reconciliation and Unity Bill. We must allow this parliamentary and democratic procedure to be completed. The Government awaits the reports of the two sector committees concerned. The reports will provide the basis for complete reviews of the two original Bills.

I stress that these proposed laws are important to the Fijian people. They are an integral part of the Government’s Blueprint for Fijian and Rotuman development, which was endorsed by the Army and this Council.

I ask the GCC to look back to its meeting of July 13, 2000, when I was Prime Minister in the Interim Administration, with Commodore Bainimarama as Head of State. I had been appointed Prime Minister by the Commodore on July 8th. On July 11th, the Cabinet considered and approved the Blueprint and I informed the Commander on the same day.

The Blueprint contained measures I felt were crucially important for lifting the economic and social status of the Fijians and Rotumans. Included was the transfer of the administration of Crown schedule A and B lands from the Government to the Native Land Trust Board.

We have done this.

There was a proposal to set up a Fijian Trust Fund which would give the Great Council of Chiefs an independent source of income.

We have implemented this.

BRITISH PROMISE ON QOLIQOLI

The Qoliqoli Bill and Indigenous Claims Tribunal were part of the Blueprint’s legislative component.

The Qoliqoli law proposes to confer on Fijians the full proprietary rights for the ownership of their customary fishing areas. The Land Claims Tribunal will provide Fijians with a forum to present long-standing grievances about the alienation of some of their ancestral land.

The Qoliqoli Bill will finally bring to reality an undertaking given to the Council of Chiefs by Governor Sir William Des Voeux in Ba in 1881.

At a meeting in Bau in 1982, the GCC asked the Government to honour that undertaking.

This issue has been raised regularly ever since.

CONCERN OVER ANCESTRAL LAND

The Native Lands Commission and the Native Land Trust Board have in their records more than 500 petitions from landowning units detailing their grievances over loss of ancestral land. Many felt this had happened unjustly.

Right from the start of my service as Prime Minister, I have felt strongly that it is wrong to ignore the pleas and the oft-expressed wishes of the Fijians over these historical grievances.

So long as the undercurrents of unhappiness and discontent associated with them continue, we can never be assured about long term stability in Fiji.

When I first came into office in 2000, our Administration established a Commission, led by Professor Asesela Ravuvu, to review the Constitution and canvass the views of citizens throughout the country.

There were two significant features in its findings. One was that Fijians turned out in greater numbers to make representations to it than they did in response to the Reeves Commission whose work led to the 1997 Constitution.

PROTECTION OF FIJIAN INTERESTS

The second point was the widespread concern among the Fijians relating to the role of Government in the protection of their interests. The British colonial administration had accepted a specific responsibility for the wellbeing of the Fijians, as well as for Fiji as a whole. This created the belief among Fijians that Government has a duty to govern them righteously and in accordance with native usages and customs.

Following Independence in 1970 Fijians expected a continuation of this role by Government. However, the Election results in 1987 and 1999 were a harsh reminder that Fijian leadership in, and control of, Government could no longer be guaranteed in a democracy. Fijians now felt they could no longer look to the Government of the day for that protective role the British had established. This concern was exacerbated by what they perceived to be the anti-Fijian policies of the Peoples Coalition Government.
Their recommendations to the Ravuvu Commission proposed that the best way for the Fijians to safeguard their interests was through their own institutions.

The 1997 Constitution is the supreme law of Fiji. Among the principles of good governance it enshrines are equality under the law for all citizens and communities, and the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnicity.

We have all accepted this.

I have to say, however, that many Fijians are concerned that some constitutional principles are being used to challenge the constitutional validity of the various affirmative action programmes introduced by the Government. These are a sincere attempt to narrow the opportunity gap between Fijians and other communities and bring Fijians into the mainstream of the economy.

So, while Fijians have accepted democracy as integral to good governance, many also feel the safeguards they previously enjoyed are no longer there.

This is why there is such widespread support among the Fijians for the Qoliqoli legislation and the Indigenous Claims Tribunal. Through these pieces of legislation they will safeguard their interests through their own institutions of Fijian administration.
There is authority for this in Section 186 of the Constitution, dealing with customary laws and rights.

These two legislative initiatives formed part of the election platform of the SDL Party in the last elections (May 2006). Our Party received the overwhelming backing of the indigenous population.

Given the significance of these draft proposals and the endorsement they have received from the Fijians, they will not be withdrawn.

BILLS TO BE REVIEWED

But I give an undertaking that when the Sector Committee reports are tabled and studied, there will be extensive reviews of both Bills. These reviews will not only concentrate on the interests of the Fijians. They will also take into account the interests of the entire population.

IMPORTANCE OF GCC

Questions have been asked about why I decided to consult the GCC in all these matters. I say, with respect, that those asking these questions do not have a full appreciation of the legal and political significance of this Council in our affairs.
There is, of course, a specific requirement in the Fijian Affairs Act for legislation directly affecting the Fijians to be referred to the GCC.
But as all communities have acknowledged, the GCC has assumed a position of higher national importance. It is recognised as a fount of chiefly wisdom and authority.
Both the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Jai Ram Reddy, and Mr Chaudhry, as Prime Minister, have appeared before you. They accepted, on behalf of their communities, the Council’s importance in building long-term peace, security and prosperity.

I come to you in accordance with the law and out of respect for your chiefly authority. I do not wish to pass to you a problem the Government must solve.

I do feel duty-bound, however, to share my thinking with you. At one level, the current crisis is between a Government and an institution of the State. But when we look deeply into it, we see that this concerns the relationship between a Fijian-led Government and a Fijian-led Army.

It is about us, koi keda saka na i Taukei kei Viti kei Rotuma. The GCC is the paramount council of the Fijian and Rotuman communities. I request you to give your blessings, to the Commander and to me, as we find our way to the path of peace and reconciliation for all.

May God bless this Council and may God Bless Fiji.

-End-

Club Em Designs

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Cry Havoc

The news of corruption only reveals that the statistic has propogated to astronomical proportions and this has become the norm in Fiji, sadly but surely at the demise of the quality of life.

Sitiveni Rabuka trial has started off with a controversial note. Without a doubt the issue of tampering, influence of the judiciary system raises its ugly head.

Further to the subject of interference, Fiji Police continues to fast track the Sedition case on Commander Frank B whilst placing stumbling blocks before the treasonal case of the 2000 coup which is still pending.

Fiji P.M trying to force the Cabinet members into his line of voting is detrimental to transparency, democracy and makes a mockery of independent thinking and voting.

Above: Sitiveni Rabuka at his present trial.

Fiji Times reports that, the matter of Australia micro managing Fiji's domestic affairs and not withstanding their recent stunt of importing arms and men via Nadi International Airport, has been viewed by the Fiji Army as a clear and present danger.

This obscure Biketatwa declaration ratified by this Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) organization.

Undeniably the first congratulatory reports on the success of applying Biketawa declaration originates from an Australian Foreign Affairs official with a job title called Special Coordinator for the RAMSI mission.

Fiji Sun article on the financial discipline demonstrated from the P.M's office proves the point that on a national level those misappropriations are magnified ten fold.

Qarase’s staff have access to advances

By SAMANTHA RINA

Staff of the Prime Minister’s Office were allowed to take advances although their previous advances were not accounted for. The Auditor-General report revealed the staff failed to follow procedure where their advances have to be cleared within sevens days and if not the interest should be charged on all outstanding accountable advances.
The report showed that staff took advances ranging from $67.50 to $20,000 mainly when on overseas assignment with the Prime Minister.
“Although these advances have remained outstanding over a considerable length of time, no evidence was sighted of recovery actions,” it stated.
The A-G stated that towards the end of last year the outstanding advances to be recovered stood at $33,267. The PM's Office said that officers had been verbally advised by the accounts section to clear the outstanding advances, but clearances are only made on piece meal basis regardless of repeated reminders.
"We will have to seek the approval of the CEO to advise the Minister of Finance to activate deductions from salary to recover outstanding advances."

Letters to the Editor inFiji Sun online issue of Tuesday November 14th underscores the frustration of the Fiji public.

An interesting one echos the sentiments of S.i.F.M.

Tell the truth, Mr Hughes.

Well, well, well, the cat is finally out of the bag and Commissioner Hughes will have to answer a lot of questions basing on what is unfolding before our eyes.
He has to try and shake off the lingering suspicion in the minds of the people of this country that his actions in the last week were totally independent and free from any political influence by government on the part he played in complementing the strategy to sack Commodore Bainimarama in absentia. He has gone public accusing Captain Teleni and the Army of taking by force something that rightfully belongs to them and was legitimately brought into the country for normal military use. And mind you they have had that container of ammunition at QEB for over a week now and still there’s no coup!!

May I ask Commissioner Hughes as to who came up with this funny idea about the coup in the first place? It was due to that funny assessment according to Hughes that he suddenly wielded his absolute licensing power for the whole world to know and went ahead to try and stop the ammunition consignment which was then still in high seas from reaching QEB. It is now obvious that the real reason lay elsewhere!!

It is now questionable whether his powers under the constitution are still being exercised with absolute independence and untainted by politics. I think not. Lately, there is a lot of suspicion that he was influenced politically to do what he did and was actually advised not to consult the army but to blow up the ammunition issue publicly when the time is right using the element of surprise.

I say that because it is really hard not to believe that a part of the strategy was for him to kick-start the whole move the day before the actual sacking of Commander Bainimarama was to take place. But as fate would dictate, the strategy failed when the new appointee informed the President that he did not have the support of the soldiers.

Any sensible strategist would have stopped everything there and then and find a middle ground for the sake of national security, but it was not to be the case and it escalated to a different level a day later and when finding out he was isolated, he began issuing nasty press statements against the Army and even vilified Captain Teleni in the process.

He should now know that quite contrary to his own interpretation, Teleni was the Commander at the time and not subordinate to him in any way. In that sense he also holds constitutional powers equivalent to his as the Commissioner of Police.
And what in heaven’s name would you describe the man, when after doing all he did to offend the Military institution still comes back smiling and says he is the Commander’s friend and has a very good relationship with him!! Come on people, would anyone believe that?

It is common knowledge that prior to the Pacific Forum Meeting in October, Commissioner Hughes and the Prime Minister both went to Canberra for some meeting. Hughes came back for the official opening and returned to Aussie for some other reason. This was while one of the most important meetings of the region was taking place in his own constituency.

He arrived back in the country only a few days before creating a stand-off with the Army, a day before the actual sacking of the Commander was to take place. And too soon after that Australia and NZ started telling the world they were sending their warships to Fiji for the flimsiest reason of conducting evacuation of their embassies staff by reason of the imminent coup with the suspected mercenaries following soon after by plane.
Hughes again denied knowing of their arrival until Minister Downer told us the truth.

So perhaps Mr. Hughes and the Prime Minister could tell the nation more about the whole saga and the involvement of Australia and NZ in messing around with Fiji’s sovereignty. To Hughes, I say - you have failed your part of the plot and you are now clearly seen by the people as the instigator in creating a crisis within the security forces and provoking the Army to do what it did at the wharf.

You should now step aside! Relinquish your constitutional powers to someone else and allow a fair and impartial investigation to take its course. You were party to the whole episode and you ought to know this is the first time ever in the history of this country where the Commissioner of Police is giving his statement both as a witness and as an “agent provocateur” to his own complaint.
It is also the first time ever that a Commissioner has used his powers to stop any military consignment from reaching QEB.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beddoes and the Minister of Home Affairs are both missing the point here. They should not be seen to blindly take the Commissioner’s side because this involves a whole lot of legal issues including the conduct of a fair and impartial investigation as required under our legal system. And there is no such laws here in Fiji to stop anyone calling for the resignation of anyone in government if the person has fallen below the standard of service so required of him.
Lastly, the tension created so far has put Commissioner Hughes’ position in a very awkward situation and his relationship with the military may never return to normality, as was the case in the last three years.

The extension of his contract should therefore be carefully assessed along this line and past Australian degrading treatment of other island nations in the region should not be blatantly disregarded. The PNG and Solomon Island sovereignty issues are still fresh in mind. So, Mr Hughes should go back home in the national interest because his position as Commissioner of Police is no longer tenable in the prevailing situation.

Filimoni Qio
Nasinu

Club Em Designs

Monday, November 13, 2006

The Dullest Tool in the Shed.

Above image: Fiji P.M under stress.

The steadfastness of the Fiji Army commander on the ideals of truth, law and order has forced other institutions including some of the media (both domestic and international)into differing camps.

Despite the recent the online Fiji Times poll stating the true sentiments of the people of Fiji, the past track record of these native institutions have yet to been analysed throughly by any stretch of the imagination. The title of BBC article "Indigenous Heads Helps Fiji Crisis" could not be any further from the truth.

S.i.F.M has be pointed out in earlier posts, on the awkardness of involving the Great Council of Chiefs as a mediator to the current conflict in Fiji politics.

Fiji Daily Post Editorial advocating the sphere of Institutional Soverignity should be applied to the test of Customs enforcement to validate it's validity.

To consider the Fiji Daily Post's editorial stance (posted below)as logically sound; Fiji Daily Post's rational must also apply to the case of, Fiji Police and Australian SAS soldiers colluding to circumnavigate Fiji's immigration and custom control at Nadi International Airport.

Respecting institutional sphere sovereignty
Fiji Daily Post 14-Nov-2006

Governments will come and go, but the state, in a manner of speaking, goes on forever. Military leaders may come and go, but the military goes on forever. Even chiefs come and go, but the chiefly system may go on forever. No one is indispensable or permanent where power is concerned; only our institutions of power rightly outlast us.

It is folly to imagine that each or anyone of us has a monopoly of significance. It is egoism to suppose that without any of us holding down our place in the world, the world would be unable to function properly. Governments will fall over simply if their budget appropriation bills are not passed in the house. Military leaders may fall on their swords (as it were) if they fail to win the battle of legitimacy and moral authority. And chiefs have been clubbed for less than failing to support the will and livelihood of their people.

Our point is that society – every society – is a balance of powers and institutions that are purposed to work for the good of all in an integrated and harmonious fashion. No single leadership group or institution should imagine it is superior to others because the obverse principle is also true: all social institutions are necessary and without each of them operating properly in their sphere of sovereignty, a society would collapse under the weight of lopsidedness. Thus when one cog in the institutional balance claims for itself more power than is functionally useful, it throws the entire system out of alignment.

Or, as the apostle Paul put it, the entire body politic suffers if, the eye disdains the function of the hand, or the head discredits the need for feet. Or if, as in our present case, military leaders usurp the institutional role of the parliamentary majority. This may seem like a little thing, but, as we have seen, it throws the institutional balance of forces into a spiralling orbit and everyone is affected. Restoring the balance can never therefore be a privately settled matter without the entire nation looking on in earnest.

Fiji is out of balance because the principle of ‘sphere sovereignty’ has been abused. What are required are calm institutional heads and a renewed commitment to sphere sovereignty: letting governments be governments; letting military leaders be; and letting chiefs do their chiefly duties.

This is an excerpt from outstanding writer on Viti affairs in a Fiji Times opinion article.

The Fijian dilemma

FRANCIS WAQA SOKONIBOGI
Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The qoliqoli is one of three issues the Government needs to solve with the military+ Enlarge this image

The qoliqoli is one of three issues the Government needs to solve with the military

From the outset, it must be impressed that the Fijian problem is Fiji's dilemma. Unless we identify the conditions that led to past coups we cannot be too hopeful for a rosy future.

Fijian grassroots landowners are again being exploited in the impasse.

In whichever way and manner the stand-off is reconciled, Fijian land and qoliqoli owners will be reduced to a state of non-people.

On one hand, should the Government achieve its objective of enacting the Qoliqoli Bill, the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) masquerading as for the Fijians' will virtually become owner of the qoliqoli as it did of all native Schedules A & B Crown lands.

On the other hand, should Commander Voreqe Bainimarama have his way, the Fijian loses the last evidence to its claim as collective owners of these islands.

And ownership is not the last bastion of indigenous hopes. The sacrosanct umbilical chord and link to between the Fijian and his/her vanua as i taukei is under threat of being severed forever.

The Fijian has already lost his land to the NLTB and now he is at the point of losing his qoliqoli (traditional fishing ground) to either the State (should the army get its way) or again to the NLTB (if the three controversial bills are enacted).

Whatever the result the Fijian landowner is at a point of no return and trapped in a catch-22 situation by the very people and institutions they have entrusted to redeem their heritage.

Thus, effectively Fiji is converted into a terra nullius' by the Fijian people themselves and no one else.

Fijian leaders are voluntarily alienating their heritage through the Torrens system.

All over the world, colonising powers have fiercely pursued the commercialisation of native lands and this was ideologically supported by the terra nullius or vacant land doctrine.

When applied, this doctrine deprived indigenous peoples of their birthright as suffered by the Aborigines of Australia.

It would be informative for the purpose of this argument to be reminded that the system of registering real property in fee simple adopted by the colonial Fiji Government and continued in the post-colonial period was sourced by the Torrens system.

The system was named after Sir Robert Torrens who was from South Australia where the doctrine of terra nullius was applied by the colonisers. According to the terra nullius doctrine the aborigine had no title to his land. In that regard, the system is purchaser or settler-friendly. The relevant part reads:

"When a man holding property under deed wishes to have it placed under the Act (Torrens system, our emphasis), he takes his deeds, which are his title to the property, to the office. The deeds are carefully examined by the solicitors to the Lands Titles Commissioners; and if there is no difficulty, and after all due publicity is given and precautions taken to prevent fraud or mistake, a certificate is issued, and the old deeds are cancelled. From the moment the land is brought under the Act and a certificate becomes indefeasible, unless it has been fraudulently obtained; and he can hold the property against the world."(South Australia its History, Resources and Production, Harcus William JP (ed), 1876: 77-79)

This shows that the title may be indefeasible except if fraud is proved.

Because the Aborigines were considered non-humans and are not the owners of the land, fraudulent land dealings were impossible to be claimed by the natives of Australia.

During the Torrens system's establishment aboriginal status written in the terra nullius language was as follows:

"The natives have no settled place of abode, but each family wanders over a space of several miles, an aggression upon which by another family is invariably punished. And they have no fixed habitation; when the family, either from the vicinity to the grubs, or other strong inducements to settle for a time upon a particular spot, they pulled down some branches of trees, and construct a few huts about four feet high and in the form of a bee-hive cut in half; they are thus quite open on one side and at night they keep up a large fire. The instruction to the resident commissioner contains the following special directions on this subject.

"The Government having appointed an officer whose especial duty it will be to protect the interests of the Aborigines, the Commissioners consider it necessary to do more than give you a few general instructions as to the manner in which they are desirous that your own proceedings with regard to the native inhabitants should be regulated. You will see that no lands which the native may possess in occupation or enjoyment, be offered for sale, until ceded by the natives to your self"(Caper's SOUTH AUSTRALIA by Henry Capper pp 60-62).

Fijian land ownership

The Fijian situation on the Western real property interpretation is diametrically opposite to that of Australian Aborigines at approximately the same time of the enactment of the Torres system in the South Australian Parliament.

In Fiji, Commodore Good enough and Consul Layard were the last land enquiry commissioners before the 1874 Cession.

Their report became the guidelines for all British adopted laws of land tenure in Fiji.

Any deviation from the intention spelt out by their report is, to our contention, is therefore, contradictory.

We quote here the relevant paragraph on this subject in the report dated 13th April, 1874, and reads as follows:

39 We have made the native tenure and ownership of land in Fiji the subject of sensitive study; and have obtained from J.B. Thurston, and from Mr. C.R. For wood and other gentlemen, explanations and papers on this subject worthy of consideration purchases have been made from natives to a large extent, as will be seen by an accompanying, but there remain seen tracts of unoccupied tracts of lands, though, as is said with perfect accuracy by Mr Pritchard, formerly Her Majesty's Consul in Fiji Every inch of land in Fiji has an owner. Every parcel or tract of land has a name, and the boundaries are defined and well known the proprietorship rests in families, the heads of families being representatives of the title. Every member of a family can use the land attaching to the family.

40. In order to make a purchase secure and beyond the possibility of dispute, present customs would require the assembly of the following persons, viz: the great chief or his representative, the lesser chiefs and the principle men of the adjacent town. These should walk over the land, define it, and conclude the sale on the spot. The natives should then build a house or plant yams for the purchaser, in recognition of his lordship over the soil as things now stand, if the purchaser were to deal with the great chief alone, he would only buy his rights as lord of the manor, or whatever they might be, and would not acquire exclusive possession of the soil.

Every inch of land in Fiji has an owner whereas in Australia where Fiji's real property laws were borrowed, the natives were declared nomads of no consequence. That was why we commented from the very beginning of this paper that whichever way the current dilemma is reconciled the Fijian land and Qoliqoli owners will be reduced to a state of non-people.

The Fijian and his land are one. The land in the western concept is dry land. In Fijian, the land means the vanua. Last but not least the vanua includes in its composition the chiefs and the people who install their chiefs.

The vanua is a holistic entity that envelopes the land, the sea and the air and all its biodiversity.

It encompasses culture, ideology and belief systems which are inextricably linked to these natural environs. Every Fijian knows, or should know, his link to all the components of his earth because they are part of a holistic whole.

Take one component of this holistic vanua equation out and the Fijian man is similarly reduced in stature and dignity.

This applies to any indigenous or autochthonous peoples of the world. Thus the recognition in the international human rights system, which has led to the evolution of indigenous conventions and declarations on the indigenous and tribal peoples' rights. These rights were evolved to give some semblance of balance and to justify the indivisible concept of universal human rights. The indigenous rights are subservient to the right to the State and their protective articles only apply to independent countries where the indigenous peoples are a minority.

This puts Fiji out of the picture as the State is dominated by Fijians. Therefore, any claim by government, which, by the way, functions through revenue afforded by all the people of Fiji and the international monetary network, that a certain Bill is for the Fijian people is nothing less than a political ploy and at best, a constructive fraud.

Who are the indigenous peoples who qualify for protection under international conventions, particularly in Fiji? They, among others, include:

Landless Fijians as a result of original land sales; Fijian landowners who do not approve of their lands to be controlled by the native Lands Trust Board;

so-called extinct (kawa boko) but still existing Fijians; those Fijians who are not given accounts of where and how their land income are distributed by relevant perpetrated Fijian institutions; anyone with Fijian blood or ancestry; displaced Fijians when their old tikina (district) boundaries were tampered with to facilitate changes in the colonial administration; displaced chiefs or tribal leaders.

Therefore, the Government, being the legal inheritor of the colonial government and its legacies, cannot justifiably or effectively claim it is for the Fijian people, because by right democratic governments are for all the people, with no exclusivity. Thus, the imposed indivisibility of human rights.

Now our dilemma is being taken up to the Great Council of Chiefs to solve.

The very council that over-rode the wishes of the Fijian majority in the adoption of the 1997 Constitution and the very institution that rewarded Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka, who beheaded the Fijian people in 1987.

The Queen was the Fijian head and now the Fijian collective organism, with the GCC being a national entity and indebted to the national government for its existence, is like a chicken with its head chopped off.

The GCC rewarded the executioner of the Fijian people with a life membership of their council. Some of its members were heavily involved in backing George Speight's farce of 2000.

It is time to look at the Fijian picture minus its chiefly cosmetics and let us analyse the PM's denial and the Army Commander's stance, not in anger and judgement but, in essence and in fact.

As we have always claimed, our destiny lies in the correct option our leaders opt for and in doing so Fiji may well avoid the coup syndrome. It has now become, not only the PM's and commander's personal political agenda, it has become a question affecting both the responsible leaders and the innocent bystanders and what Mahatma Gandhi calls the national karma' (cause and effect).

It is time not for pointing fingers but taking advantage of what our problem is trying to tell us.

Our problem is trying to tell us that the solution to the problem is within the problem. The first step in conflict resolution is conflict prevention. And to achieve that is to first identify the problem. We hope we have done that through this contribution.

Francis Waqa Sokonibogi is with the Fiji Ownership Rights Association.

E-mail: francis_sokonibogi@yahoo.com

Club Em Designs

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Fiji English & Country Grammar.

Australian Radio conglomerate-ABC's audio magazine "In the Loop" has produced a segment (Podcast) on the the recent publishing of Fiji English dictionary.

Club Em Designs

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Ad Nauseum - Fiji's Aristocractic Tyranny

News of CEO for Ministry of Home Affairs being suspended from duties, only adds to the track record of interference by the SDL Government. The debate for the 2007 Budget has yet to be seen and indications from the FLP on their opposition to the budget marks further problems for SDL. The budget vote is usually a prime test of loyalties of all parties in Government. Fiji Chamber of Commerce head reveals that SDL Government is not genuinely listening to critics of their fiscal policies.

Fiji Daily Post's Editorial of November 10th resumes the tact of mis-information often applied liberally recently by Australian and New Zealand media outlets.
This is the excerpt:

Time for the Qarase Doctrine
10-Nov-2006

By now everyone will be wondering whether Frank Bainimarama is fully aware of the likely consequences of his action. By snubbing the request by the Great Council of Chiefs to attend yesterday’s meeting so they can find and progress some solutions to his complaint against government, the military commander is wearing thin the goodwill of those he needs to win over to his point of view – not just the chiefs and the multiparty government, but the people of Fiji and the international community looking on in disbelief.

The more the military leadership insists on driving its own agenda into the path of the Qarase government the more it ‘doth protest too much’. It implies too much of its own desperation – desperation which suggests it has something to hide. The latest demand that the rule of law be suspended in regard to its own activities in dealing with the CRW uprising in 2001 contradicts its own demands that the Qarase government deal justly with the perpetrators of 2000. On one hand the military is insisting that justice be applied to the coup culprits it says are still free, yet on the other the military is avoiding facing justice in relation to its own dealings.

The law of the land cannot be tailor-made to suit one institution and not the other. All must fall under the same code of conduct and application of justice to violations. A true democracy cannot have one set of moral imperatives for its military and another set for everyone else. Moreover, to hold the government to ransom until it conforms to the military view of justice is simply wrong and an audacious bluff by our military commander. There is no warrant for any democratically elected government that derives its legitimacy from the will of the people to submit or surrender to the will of an unelected military leadership.

Frank Bainimarama is out of control and must be called to account for it. He and his military are potentially, collectively guilty of treason (against the state) and mutiny (against their commander-in-chief). And now, they have sullied the respect due to their traditional chiefs - implying by this action that there is no moral authority in Fiji to which they owe allegiance other than themselves and their own misguided commander and his colonels.

Standing on edge of the nuclear era, American president, Harry Truman, in 1947 proclaimed what has become known as the ‘Truman Doctrine’. He said, ‘it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures’. The time has come to declare unequivocally a Qarase Doctrine similar to that of Truman’s: ‘it must be the policy of Fiji’s government and chiefs to support the freedom of their people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures’.

Unlike the Truman doctrine which had an external force, a foreign policy application, the Qarase Doctrine would apply firstly and primarily to our own citizens. Frank Bainimarama has handed the Qarase government, our chiefs, and presidents, a rationale par excellence for demilitarisation. This will be the first and necessary, though not sufficient, step under the Qarase Doctrine for ridding this great region, once and forever, of the endemic ‘coup-culture’ that breeds like dengue in the infested minds of ambitious and renegade military leaders and which threatens the welfare of the nation.

The tendency for the S.D.L Government to frequently consult the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC), a non-elected body of Nobles exceedingly reveals the conundrum faced by Fiji's Government and Aristocracy, in the age of Constitutional Rights.

This same Supreme Court has been consulted by the Fiji P.M in determining the limits of Army Commander. Perhaps the honored judiciary should also factor into account the limits of the Great Council of Chiefs as well.

The Government derives their mandate from the people from all backgrounds, using the General Elections as the king maker. On other hand, the GCC is a patriachical and cultural based entity, with blood lines being the only criterium.

The issue now becomes, who is the final datum of authority in Government? The quasi-feudal marriage of cultural lexicons with democratical institutions in Fiji is analogous to having a 'state within a state'.

The use of the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC) meetings, often raises to the surface the prudent question, of whether the elected in Government are legally able to form an interest sepearate from the electors?

Or should the elected be able to consult an entity alien to the electors and the entire process of elections?
Although, the Great Council of Chiefs supporters are fond of marketing the hype that, the institution of GCC is the highest pinnacle of Fiji leadership. Unfortunately the GCC has neither the mandate nor the authority to supercede unalienable rights outlined in the 1997 Fiji constitution.

This is the height of the legal absurdity of the composition and roles of this organization using the flawed nexus of Vanua.
A Vanua that does not pay taxes, should be subservient to the central Government of Fiji and the principles of democracy.

A Vanua that does not follow democracy, has not and will not have the ability to empower or serve the welfare of its own populace and should not be exalted, elevated or respected for that simple reason.

The Vanua and GCC have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that their very premise and existence continues to erode the foundations of democracy: fair play, law and order and honor and integrity.

Great Council of Chiefs really does make a mockery of the tools of democracy in Fiji. It also confirms a logical fallacy that, an institution which excludes the common person from their membership, are often dependant on the common person for guidance, know how and their wealth of experience in Governmental matters in Fiji.

The same members of this GCC are unable to manfacture their own homes, cars and clothes. Yet the GCC members have this ingrained attitude that, they are absolute and above the supreme law of Fiji. GCC often lacks the modesty to acknowledge their limited abilities. This lack of honesty is reflected in the GCC inability to permit knowledgeable citizens of Fiji to lead, irrespective of color, creed and caste.

What is so inherently flawed about these layers of institutions in Fiji that exalt, elevate and worship a group of people who have flowing within their veins; blood and DNA of self-centered superiority ?

Does this DNA give superhman powers, the ability to stop poverty, stop wars and other mindless acts of destruction occuring on this planet?
This archaic process of honoring such a minority group over others in Fiji cannot be jusified with the Holy Book either. The words of "Render unto Caesar, the things which is Caesar's" is the acknowledgement.

Club Em Designs

Blue Crush-Democrats claim Senate.

The overwhelming reversal of political fortunes for the Republican party has left many clinging to the straws of yesterday. The last fumes of political capital given to George W Bush's and often touted by the Republicans evaporated in the past 48 hours. The control of Senate was confirmed after the Republican nominee for Virginia, George Allen lost

read more | digg story