Natadola Project -Grapes of Wrath Or Sour Grapes

The 'landowner' factor has catapulted the Natadola Resort project well under the official spot light for several major inconsistencies, both in Engineering and Financial accountability.

The Natadola Resort project is still simmering in the headlines, by way of a Fiji Times report, which described threats of repossession, made by the landowners of the Natadola real estate. It appears that the landowners were advised by Osea Gavidi, of Viti Levu Resource Owners Association.

This is a micro excerpt of Fiji Times article:

FNPF wrong, say tribes

Fiji Times Wednesday, March 21, 2007

A GROUP of landowners has hit out at the Fiji National Provident Fund for discrediting the work done by Asia Pacific Resort International Ltd developers of the $180million resort at Natadola.

The landowners are from seven yavusa, 12 mataqali and 18 tokatoka of the vanua o Nasoqo in Nadroga who own the land on which the resort is being constructed. Their chief is the Tui Nasoqo Ratu Timoci Kolikata.

Speaking on behalf of the landowners, advisor Ratu Osea Gavidi said a delegation yesterday discussed the matter with interim Fijian Affairs minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau.

He said they had asked the interim minister to intervene and stop the FNPF making unilateral decisions on APRIL and director Gerard Saliot without consulting the landowners.

He said the delegation was shocked at the way in which FNPF was handling the matter because the people held the project dear to their hearts since all the land at Natadola was committed to the project.

"He (Ratu Epeli) has pledged to approach FNPF over the matter as the project spans 1145 acres of Native land. The vanua wants equity in the project," Ratu Osea said.

Ratu Epeli could not be reached for a comment.

The landowners last night met with Mr Saliot and APRIL officials. Ratu Osea said the matter would be further discussed with the Native Lands Trust Board today. NLTB spokesman Semi Tabakanalagi confirmed the land in question belonged to the seven yavusa.

Ironically, it is the same Gavidi, who seemed to be the mouth piece to a fraudulent scheme with the fictional bank O.I.T.C last year, claiming that a certain foreign investor was willing to donate US$6 Billion to establish a indigenous operated banking enterprise in Fiji, which was reported by a Fiji Village article.

This is the excerpt of the FV article:

Media chased from MOU signing
By fijivillage
Mar 3, 2006, 17:57


Members of the media were chased out after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of the International Treasury Control and the Viti Land and Resource Owners today.

The press conference with foreign national Dr. keith Scott who claims to be the Head of Cabinet of OITC was abruptly terminated after specific questions regarding the validity of the 6 billion dollars being offered by the company to set up a commercial bank was brought up.

Questions on when and how the initial 3.8 billion would come through were left half answered by Dr. Scott after front man for the resource owners Masi Kaumaitotoya called for security to escort the media out.

Doctor Scott also revealed at the Bose Ni Turaga earlier this week that he would transfer the first payment of $3.8 billion by yesterday afternoon. However nothing has eventuated since the announcement.

When questioned earlier today on why the transfer was not done, Resource Owners Association President, Ratu Osea Gavidi said there is no bank account in Fiji that can hold $3.8 billion.

In the MOU, 50% is to be funded by the OITC and the other 50% is to be provided by the landowners who are expected to use their land and resources as monetary value.

This afternoon, members of the media who were at the press conference were handed a copy of the MOU which contains a signature under the name Dr. Ray. C. Dam. The document under the OITC header also shows its offices based in Malaysia, Netherlands, USA, Australia and Ecuador, however no information on the company or Dr. Dam is available at this stage.

The MOU states that OITC will provide total 2.805 billion dollars for an acquisition of trucks and timber milling plant and equipment for landowners, development of a Community Aged Center, development of community owned tourist and resort centre construction of modern prisons for Fiji and reforestation programme through Triunion investment Holding company and the resource owners association.

Meanwhile, Fiji Police are now seeking the assistance of their overseas counterparts to try and establish the authenticity of the claims being made by foreign national Dr. Keith Scott and the background of his company called OITC.

Director CID Joe Rasiga has confirmed with Legend FM news that a weeks search for information on Dr. Scott and OITC has been fruitless and now Interpol has been called in.

The issue of landowners choosing which company as their preferred project managers, for a construction site on their land is nothing more than obstructive hair splitting.

Although, the land rightfully belongs to Natadola; the concerns of the project financiers (FNPF) supersedes those petty issues of land ownership. Once the approval was given by the Natadola landowners for this particular project, it is counter-productive for the landowners to choose which building contractor or project manager is more favorable. To micro-manage which crane operator or which Electrician should take their job because another does not meet their liking is a complete mockery of indigenous affairs. Those decisions are well out of their jurisdiction of landowners; once their approval for the project is given.

FNPF's subsequent decision would be crucial, because it does not want the construction quality to be compromised, furthermore it wants a fair return for their investment, by ensuring those engineering standards remain as, a degree of excellence.

Gavidi, appears to be riding on the band wagon of cultural insensitivity; that inextricably could frustrate the project's major financier. Gavidi's ignorance of the fundamentals of Engineering standards and the contractual aspects from FNPF's standpoint could accelerate that level of frustration.

FNPF could respond by withdrawing financial backing and terminating the project altogether, if the threats by landowners are taken seriously. Without capital drawn from Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF), Natadola would only be a well-frequented beach. Money changes those perceptions, as rapidly as a blink of an eye.

APRIL claims rival company raided office

Fiji Live-Monday March 19, 2007
Sacked project managers of the multi million-dollar Natadola Project, Asia Pacific Resort International Limited (APRIL) are claiming their replacements tried to forcibly remove documents from the company's offices.

APRIL's project director Keni Dakuidreketi alleges that representatives from local engineering consultants HLK Jacob "tried to remove files" on the Natadola Project but were told leave by APRIL staff.

However, HLK Jacob director Brian Jacob has categorically denied any involvement by his staff saying it was not his company's responsibility to remove documents from APRIL. He said it was not his staff but members of the Natadola Bay Resort Ltd (NBRL) that tried to enter APRIL's offices.

Jacob said the Natadola Project is currently under investigations and the only people that can have access to the documents are the fraud investigators and his company was in no way involved.

Dakuidreketi said no one would be allowed to enter APRIL premises without a court order. He also said APRIL was concerned about the alleged "close relationship" between HLK Jacob and Northern Projects Fiji, which is the building contractor for the first phase of the Natadola Project.

Northern Projects Fiji representatives referred all questions to the NBRL that last week fired APRIL and Natadola's construction managers COTEBA citing non-performance.
NBRL chairman Felix Anthony said last week that while $60 million of the projected $140 million has been spent on Natadola to date, only 10 per cent of work has been completed with the project late by 24 weeks.

He said that since they were hired in mid-2004, NBRL has paid APRIL $8 million in management frees to oversee the project, but have been unsatisfied with the results.
Fijilive

One niggling matter to comprehend is that, how was APRIL Development awarded the role as construction project manager in the first place, especially when the main representative of APRIL-Messr Keni Dakuidreketi is not qualified as a Civil Engineer nor does he or APRIL have any experience whatsover in structural design or in major building construction.

By virtue of these facts, it is mind boggling how APRIL could have the knowledge or experience as a construction project manager (a specialized field in Civil Engineering) to justify the exorbitant management fees it charged.

This is Dakuidreketi's CV posted on the website for Yaqara Group Ltd .

Director
Keni Dakuidreketi
Fijian
B App Sc (Prop Mgmt) Aust.

As Managing Director and founder of Rolle Hillier Parker - Fiji since 1990 (world wide associated with Hillier Parker & ONCOR Group of Companies), Keni has had extensive property experience with coordination and financing large scale property developments in Fiji. From 1984 - 1987 he was the Estate Officer with the Fiji Native Land Trust Board and worked as Director of Valuation for Harrison Grierson Consultants for 3 years.

He is Chairman of Fiji Rugby Union, Chairman of the Lands Transport Authority, a Board Member of the Housing Trust Authority, the Native Lands Trust Board and Natadola Marine Resort Ltd and sits on a number of other high profile community boards and organisations. Keni was a member of the Interim Civilian Administration and was appointed Minister of Youth, Sports and Employment Opportunities. Keni is a principal and runs a successful business in real estate management and consultancy as well as a management consultancy company.

Consulting Engineers appointed by FNPF have accused the former Natadola Resort project manager of substandard work and that the existing building designs within Natadola project; do to meet the New Zealand building code, which Fiji had adopted.

Threat to stop FNPF project-
Firm defends contract amid landowner demands

By CHEERIEANN WILSON
Fiji Sun.

Natadola landowners yesterday warned the Fiji National Provident Fund that they would terminate leases in the multi-million-dollar hotel project if it fails to reinstate sacked project manager, Asia Pacific Resorts International. Viti Landowners and Resource Owners Association interim president Ratu Osea Gavidi said 18 landowning clans of Natadola met last night to discuss the removal of APRIL, which had breached an earlier agreement with the initial developers. He said members of the tokatoka would not allow any company appointed to replace APRIL into Natadola.

FNPF board member Daniel Urai said APRIL was removed by legislation. “The issue of APRIL's termination is not determined by the FNPF. FTIB (Fiji Trades and Investment Board) cancelled APRIL's licence because it failed to declare previous bankruptcy and fraudulent convictions. APRIL was removed through legislation,” he said last night.

APRIL's replacement, HLK Jacob Limited, yesterday revealed that APRIL had approved its appointment by former construction manager COTEBA last August for supervisory structural services for the project. “We were appointed to this with APRIL’s approval from a shortlist of four local engineers on the basis of our track record in major projects. Obviously, APRIL had no objection at that stage, including independence issues, otherwise we would not have been appointed,” it said in a statement.

HLK Jacob stated that it uncovered a lot of discrepancies in the structural design in regards to the compliance with Fiji and New Zealand building codes.
“COTEBA and APRIL were notified of this issue in October last year – we have records of all these correspondences. We were strongly of the opinion that the structures were not designed to the NZ code as required under the Fiji Building Code,” it added.

HLK Jacob stated that no action was taken until January this year when engineer, Holmes Group, was appointed on behalf of the project structural engineer to review the design. Holmes Group agreed the design was not in full compliance with the NZ Earthquake Code and recommended a number of remedial works.

Holmes Group also recommended that any major deviations from earthquake codes could be handled if NBRL accepted an alternative design solution. Holmes Group, however, would not take any responsibility for any of its recommendations. HLK Jacob then resigned on January 23, this year, because it did not believe that the approach taken by APRIL and COTEBA to downplay the matter was in the best interest of FNPF and NBRL. “We were approached three days later by the FNPF board asking reasons for our sudden resignation. And we outlined our reasons to them,” it said.

HLK Jacob, in a letter to COTEBA Limited in January, stated that it was left with no choice but to resign as structural engineer because:

Structural design codes for the project had not been addressed by the structure engineers; and It has been over three months since the issue was raised but work continued without any resolution.

FNPF engaged HLK Jacob to act as its representative and technical adviser. “Our commission was to look in the technical affairs of the project. A series of correspondence were sent to APRIL/ COTEBA/ NPF for their response to the delays, cost variations, lack of progress and other critical issues,” the company said. “We received the responses and this was presented to the FNPF board and management.

Our brief was to put forward all the facts and opinion on cause. We, at no time, recommended their removal. “Our appointment as project/ construction managers is only an interim one at this stage until NBRL resolves how it intends to move forward.”

HLK Jacob director Sanjay Kaba last night denied claims by APRIL project director Keni Dakuidreketi that its representatives tried to enter the offices of APRIL at Natadola.“We understand that they tried to remove files. Our staff said HLK Jacob Ltd had tried to forcibly enter the offices of APRIL at Natadola,” Mr Dakuidreketi said.

Mr Kaba said the matter was between the FNPF and the landowners. Mr Dakuidreketi said in a television interview that FNPF did not consult with APRIL but instead obtained an opinion of the progress of the project from a contractor. He revealed that FNPF met APRIL and had said that it would need to review the MOU that had earlier been agreed to. However, APRIL was caught by surprise hours later when FNPF announced that it had been fired.

Efforts by APRIL Developments to stop the deluge of negative publicity with repeated media appearances was mediocre at best and could not distract the public from serious allegations of malpractice, recently publicized by the new board of Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF)-the project's major financial backer.

Dakuidreketi responded in a Fiji Times article:

Mr Dakuidreketi said the Holmes Consulting Group, a leading New Zealand firm of structural engineers, had conducted a detailed review of the design of the resort's InterContinental hotel. This followed issues raised by COTEBA as the Natadola project construction manager. The issues were not raised by HLK Jacob as claimed, said Mr Dakuidreketi.

The Holmes review confirmed that the InterContinental design complied with the relevant New Zealand codes of practice and by reference, to the National Building Code of Fiji, [Dakuidreketi] said.

"A specific technical approach had been used to minimise earthquake damage as a few minor modifications were suggested by Holmes Consulting to lessen the risk of damage," Mr Dakuidreketi said.

"The cost of these was expected to be small and well worth the investment. These modifications only apply to work that is still to be done. It is not necessary to demolish large parts of work already completed as proposed by HLK Jacob."

Burchill VDM Pty Ltd, the consulting engineer for the hotel, has also endorsed the construction. Mr Dakuidreketi said. Burchill VDM is a leading Australia-based urban development consultancy and has worked on many major tourism projects.

Mr Dakuidreketi said HLK Jacobs favoured a much more expensive and unnecessary option to deal with the minor modifications required. "That, in itself, raises questions about HLK Jacob's approach. It is quite misleading to suggest there were major design flaws. This is not the case," he said.

He said as project managers, APRIL had presented all technical reports to the Boards of Natadola Bay Resort Limited and FNPF Investment Limited (FIL). APRIL's attempts to convene a meeting of all the technical consultants involved in the project have been rejected, he said.

Louis Gerard Saliot quit last week when confronted with details of his previous convictions, said Natadola Bay Resort Limited chairman, Felix Anthony yesterday.

Although, Burchill VDM Pty Ltd is a reputable company in Construction Management; arguably one would point out that, HLK Jacob would be more appraised about New Zealand's building code than Burchill, since it is a New Zealand company and has completed more projects in New Zealand than Burchill.

One wonders how APRIL became the middle-man in this million dollar project at Natadola. APRIL's use of consultancy Engineers, Burchill is equally an issue, since APRIL branded itself as project manager in construction; albeit with no qualified Engineers in their employment, nor experience to justify their excessive management fees.

It seems abundantly clear that, APRIL conveniently sub-contracted out Engineering consultancy to Burchill, but kept the lions share of the fees. This raises more questions like:

1. Why didn't Burchill itself become the principal project manager, rather than APRIL?

2. Did APRIL get the million dollar project, because Dakuidreketi was also a Board member of Native Lands Trust Board?

As the major funder for the project Fiji National Provident Fund(FNPF) was well within their rights to ask for an independent evaluation of the project. It is nothing short of prudent financial reasoning, for FNPF to get 3rd party analysis ensuring that works rendered, were made according to engineering specifications, entailed under New Zealand's building code.

HLK Jacob, a New Zealand company with major projects under its wing, was then acquired by FNPF to review the project and found some major discrepancies within the design and issued a work stoppage order.




Those discrepancies is disputed by APRIL Development's point man:

"Mr Dakuidreketi said HLK Jacobs favoured a much more expensive and unnecessary option to deal with the minor modifications required. "That, in itself, raises questions about HLK Jacob's approach. It is quite misleading to suggest there were major design flaws. This is not the case," [Dakuidreketi] said".

Of course, Dakuidreketi was ill qualified and out of his depth to make that crucial call. HLK Jacob was exceedingly knowledgable about those concerns, since a structural failure would damage the mechanical integrity of the entire project, as well as their own repuatation as Consultant Engineers.

It well appears, as project managers APRIL (via Dakuidreketi's rationale) may have tried to minimize further costs incurring; by avoiding the structural recommendations made by HLK Jacob, without any concern for damages on the building or their reputation, since they are known merely as property managers and not construction experts.

Club Em Designs

Kick-Back Inc.

Blog-Invest in Fiji reviews the general procedures for approving foreign investors; an issue that was brought dramatically to the fore-front, in the wake of discrepancies within Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF). Subsequent accounting trails pointed to the alleged misappropriations in their flagship investment project at Natadola.



APRIL Development Project Manager, Keni Dakuidreketi was interviewed by Fiji TV and defended their involvement with the Natadola project. In the Fiji TV interview, Dakuidreketi was adamant that the FNPF Board of Directors was kept appraised of the construction by mile-stone reports and any delay was due to disruptions made by the construction company.

During the Fiji TV interview, Dakuidreketi assumed that, APRIL devlopment's transactional agreement made with FNPF would remain intact, eventhough a Director on the Board of APRIL Development had not fully disclosed his criminal record in Monaco. Dakuidreketi also attempted to clarify the amount of management fees paid to APRIL Development in a Radio Fiji article.

This is the excerpt of the Radio Fiji article:

Dakuidreketi Denies

Radio Fiji-16 Mar 2007 08:15:43

Project manager for April Keni Dakuidreketi has described the eight million dollars in management fees claimed that FNPF paid to his company for the Natadola Hotel Project is far fetched.

Dakuidreketi says his records show they’ve been paid only 4.3 million dollars. Yesterday Natadola Bay Resort Limited chairman Felix Anthony says the Fiji National Provident Fund has paid 8 million dollars to APRIL as management fees to oversee the Natadola Hotel Project.

Felix said, “The board is also been concerned or very concerned at the cost of which April was first hired to oversee the management of the project. Ever since the project has started in 2005, FNPF to date has paid them $8m just in management fees alone which we believe and the new board believe is far excessive of what really should be paid and our intention as the new board is to ensure that we minimize any wastage and not only that, but work within the budget to ensure that the project is completed.”

However April Development manager Keni Dakuidreketi said the 8 million dollars mentioned is double the figure shown in their records.

Keni said, “I’d just like to mention here is totally out of whack. My records will show that its 4.3 in total…that’s from 2004 when the project for that particular the issue that relates to that particular part they reported on which is Natadola Bay Resort Ltd, which is what the issue is about…I think the records will show that its about 4.3 million dollars.”

Dakuidreketi adds discussions with FNPF are ongoing.

Fiji Village article reports that APRIL had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with FNPF and that the representatives of APRIL were still in the dark, regarding FNPF's subsequent decision to terminate their relationship with APRIL Development.

Dakuidreketi was unrelenting in his interview with Fiji TV and almost forgot about the issue of conflict of interest on that particular project, which had prompted the native owners of the land to raise red flags. These concerns was also featured in a posting by S.i.F.M, regarding Dakuidreketi's membership on the Board of Directors for Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB), as well as being a representative of APRIL developments.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Landowners query board loyalty
Fiji Times Monday, July 24, 2006

THE Native Lands Trust Board was last week required to provide landowners of one of the country's largest tourism developments the reassurance that they are committed to protecting landowners' interests.

NLTB's Deputy General Manager Operations, Semi Tabakanalagi was swamped with concerns regarding the loyalty of the board during a meeting with landowners from Sanasana Village in Sigatoka.

Seven landowning units from the village own the land on which the Natadola Marine Resort project is currently being developed. A delegation led by Mr Tabakanalagi traveled to the village on Thursday to address grievances raised by landowners.

However, during the meeting Mr Tabakanalagi and his team were bombarded with claims that the board was working more with the project developers and either ignoring or sacrificing landowners' interests.

Landowners' spokesman, former cabinet minister and senator, Apisai Tora said the four units he was representing were concerned about their rights and interests being sacrificed to ensure the project continued. Mr Tora said a major concern of landowners was Keni Dakuidreketi's position with NLTB while being the main developer for the project.

"This is a clear case of conflict of interest and this has raised a lot of eyebrows within the landowning units of Sanasana. Since Mr Dakuidreketi is the main developer, we are concerned that all decisions made by the board would be made to see that the project went ahead regardless of whether our rights were sacrificed," [Tora] said.

"Even though NLTB is our trustee, it seems that it is pushing the company's interests," said Mr Tora.

"We have some grievances with several works that the developers are carrying out so how do you expect us to trust that the board will address our concerns when the developer is sitting on the board," Mr Tora asked.

Attempts to contact Mr Dakuidreketi yesterday were unsuccessful.

But Mr Tabakanalagi said there was nothing to worry about because the board always fought for the rights and interests of landowners. He promised that no decision would be made in favor of the developers because Mr Dakuidreketi was a member of the board.

"You do not have to worry about Mr Dakuidreketi because that is our job to see that he carries out his duties properly. NLTB is always for the landowners and your rights and interests are always our priority," Mr Tabakanalagi said.

Although, in an interview by Fiji TV, former Public Service Commission C.E.O, Anare Jale had staked his reputation on the Natadola project and volunteered to take full responsibility for any criminal activity found within it; his interview raised more questions than answers. These revelations on APRIL Development and Natadola project, points out the magnitude of kick-backs from these dubious deals and the murky relationships between several statuary agencies within Fiji.

Club Em Designs

The Coalition of Client States.

Given that the subject of Fiji's democracy has been deliberated by the Pacific Forum recently, the final abattoir of that transition lies with the Interim Government.

Despite the veiled threats reported by Newstalk article, made by NZ Foreign Minister while pushing Fiji to comply with the Pacific Forum's communique; the question of the road map and its accelerated time-tables (proposed by Fiji's neighbors) was also addressed and dismissed by an opinion article written by the Archbishop of Fiji, Petero Mataca.

This is the excerpt:

Now is the time for charting a gracious new Fiji

PETERO MATACA
Saturday, March 17, 2007


There is a story that I would like to begin this reflection with. A minister of the United Church of Canada, who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in downtown Toronto, Canada, had planned to raise enough money to keep the centre running.

His dilemma was how could he raise the money he needed to do that? He later shared his problem, not intentionally though, with one of the regulars to the drop-in centre.

As the minister recalled, to his amazement and humility, the homeless man emptied his pockets of all sorts of rubbish until he found and gave his only dollar coin to start off the fundraising.

I am sure we could recall many such instances in our own experiences.

In the story about the widow's offering (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), Jesus made the observation that the woman, with the little she had, gave everything while those who have and could have given more, only gave from the surplus of their riches.

By Jewish law, each person is required to give and in that respect, by law, the wealthy people did their religious duty.

But the main point of the story is not about the rich and the poor, although it is a theme. Rather, it is about recognising that giving and sharing what one has is a necessary part of our human dignity.

The giving of the rich people in the story is nothing more than a legal requirement and means little to their dignity, whereas, the widow's giving means much more to her dignity as a human being. There is a detail in the Jewish law that specifies that even a person dependent on charity must give charity.

On the face of it, the rule is absurd. Why give enough money to one poor person so that he or she can give to another poor person?

It would be much more logical and efficient if the money is given directly to the second poor person.

But, the Jewish Rabbis, by making this law, understood correctly, in my view, that giving is an essential part of our human dignity.

The insistence that we provide the poor and the needy with enough money so that they themselves can give is a profound insight into the human condition we are not only capable of being greedy and selfish, which we must always guard against, but equally capable of giving, sharing and caring for one another.

In this Lenten season, I invite all Catholic priests, religious, lay people and women and men of good will to reflect upon this theme. Whatever one wishes to sacrifice or wishes to do better during this season of Lent, these resolutions must and need to be done with a spirit of giving and sharing.

When we give up or share what is most precious to us, our experiences become meaningful and beneficial to ourselves and to those we live with and to our respective communities.

When we wish to do better in some things that we had neglected in the past, and which requires the sacrifice of our time and energy to other non-essential things, our experience will mean something to us and those whom we love and care about.

Giving and sharing is an essential part of our dignity as human beings.

To give and to share is to go beyond the care of the self-centred self. This is the message that I wish to share with all Catholic priests, religious and lay people and women and men of good will in this Lenten season.

Furthermore, in the spirit of sharing and giving, I wish to offer the following reflections on some of our important national issues.

The poor must be looked after. As the above stories show, the poor and the needy among us are the ones who can teach us about giving and sharing.

In my New Year message, I designated, after consultation, that this year is a "year of solidarity with the disadvantaged, the poor and the stranger" for the Archdiocese.

We repeatedly read and heard from our local leaders that the poor are the most affected by the coup's impact on the economy.

Unfortunately, as in such cases, it is true, and in this regard, we must stand in solidarity with them.

But we must stand in solidarity with them as they are the key to our moving forward. How is this possible?

This is because knowing what they know about living in poverty, their demand on the rest of us to move forward and find ways to cushion the impacts has a far greater moral claim on our resources.

I challenge us all civil society, business organisations, religious and cultural institutions to find ways of highlighting the demand of the poor for the nation to move forward and find creative ways of helping each other.

Not to be in solidarity with the call of the poor to move forward creatively would be to invite consequences that our fragile social fabric may not be able to hold.

Resolution of legal issues

There is a need to seek clarity and closure on some of our significant outstanding constitutional and legal issues. Some of these concern the suspension of the Chief Justice and the subsequent appointment of an Acting Chief Justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the ousting of the Qarase-led Government.

The resolution of these constitutional and legal matters is crucial to rebuilding our sense of respect for and confidence in the rule of law and public order, and in the Constitution and its central place in our public life. The church, therefore, calls on the Interim Government to ensure that these legal concerns are independently and transparently acted upon.

Respect for human life

Respect for human life is a deeply rooted value in all our religious and cultural traditions. Two lives were lost, allegedly, as a result of military beatings during their time in detention. Again, I wish to reiterate the absoluteness of this principle. If we allow the two to become three and more, we will be in danger of reducing the value of human life from being absolute to relative and when that happens, everything of real value and essential to our living together, such as tolerance and respect, are in danger of being lost as well. In this regard, the church wishes to again remind the military and those in leadership positions to do everything possible to prevent a third loss of life during their tenure in power.

Heed the need for justice

Following from the above, I urge those who are responsible for the administration of justice to deal with the allegations surrounding the deaths of the two men while in custody or as a result of the alleged beatings while in detention. This is to be done truthfully and credibly. Forgiveness will not be possible until the truth is told about these events. The families and relatives of these men will not be fully free to move forward with their lives without having a sense that justice has been done to absolve them of their anger and hatred.

Therefore, the church urges the Interim Government to properly investigate the allegations made and bring to trial those who perpetrated these crimes.

Foreign interventions

At least, in Fiji, most of us know that the coup was illegal and that the Interim Government didn't have our consent to rule.

At least by now, all of us in Fiji know that there is a "road map" to general elections, and, while we may differ on the timeframe, at least, we know that until then, we will do whatever we can to hold the Interim Regime accountable to the fundamental principles of human decency.

The incessant and condescending calls for Fiji to hold general elections within a year or two from the governments of New Zealand, Australia and, lately, the US, from the point of view of convention, is understandable but shallow and lacking proper contextual assessment.

I say this for two good reasons. Firstly, as Andrew Murray (2007:3), a political scientist at the Catholic Institute in Sydney recently observed, "In a country, where local communities are run by chiefs, a less democratic form of government is not as troubling as it would be elsewhere" at least while we rectify and strengthen our democratic institutions and processes.

Secondly, we have had more than 30 years of democratic experience, and imposing overnight democracy in the form of holding general elections within a year after coups is a fundamental lesson that we must not repeat this time.

At least three years is time enough to rectify and put in place meaningful democratic processes.

Perhaps Fiji should begin writing on the sand while the governments of New Zealand, Australia and the US decide among themselves who is to throw the first stone.

I wish to end this reflection by repeating something that I had shared some time ago. To those of us who believe that our situation is essentially tragic simply because some supposedly foreign experts and western governments say so, the Fiji condition will show itself as a series of tragedies.

To those who believe that we can rewrite the script of our democratic history in order to ensure a genuine democratic future, history will reveal itself as a series of slow, faltering but compassionate steps to a more gracious nation. I call upon all people of goodwill to give and share with each other the resources that each one lacks.

I call upon all Catholics to strengthen your networks of helping the poor and the needy in your parishes and communities.

I request that we stand in solidarity with the call of the poor for us to work and move forward together by sharing what we have with each other and highlighting their call in our parishes and communities.

God bless.

Archbishop Petero Mataca is head of the Catholic Church in Fiji

The subject of Fiji's electoral system is in the lime-light, prompting an objective and informative opinion article by a local member of Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF).

This is the excerpt.

Avoiding further disasters with a new electoral system

Father DAVID ARMS
Saturday, March 17, 2007

IN the much talked about need for a "roadmap" back to democracy, the endpoint seems to be the holding of elections under the requirements of the 1997 Constitution (namely the Alternative Vote, a certain ratio of Communal and Open seats, etc).

Elections completed, Fiji is "back to democracy" and all is well again with the outside world.

With the outside world, perhaps. But not within Fiji itself.

It is simplistic to equate democracy with elections. Deep consideration needs to be given to what sort of democracy we want after any elections. For true democracy, elections need to genuinely reflect the people's view. None of the three elections held so far under Fiji's current voting system have done this.

The people's views have been greatly distorted, resulting in insufficiently representative parliaments. The present electoral system is itself the cause of many of Fiji's democratic woes.

Electoral experts agree that the former First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system would not have served Fiji much better than the Alternative Vote (AV). They would also agree, on the whole, that what Fiji needs is a form of Proportional Representation (PR).

I do not intend to present again here the many unjust results brought about by the AV system, nor the various arguments for PR.

What I wish to emphasise is that the time to make the change to PR is now. To plan electoral reform now for application after the next elections is most unsatisfactory. Fiji needs a truly representative parliament if it is to establish a more viable democracy and extricate itself from the coup culture. This in turn requires an immediate change of electoral system to PR.

Only after holding elections under a suitable new system does Fiji reach "democracy".

An immediate objection that will be raised is that AV and certain other requirements are mandated in the 1997 Constitution, so to change the electoral system now means contravening that Constitution. But the question must be asked: do we want genuine democracy, or don't we?

It may well be true that by having a coup, Fiji has simply jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. But it is no solution to suggest that Fiji now jumps out of the fire, back into the frying pan! We need to jump clear of both to employ new, just arrangements. The unfair AV system and the bipolar ethnically-based political scenarios it generated are not something that Fiji wants to relive. The AV system has not just been controversial in the Fiji context; it has been disastrous.

In the 1999 election we had the great unfairness that, although the FLP-led coalition had only one and a third times the first preferences of the SVT-led coalition, the AV system gave them more than five times as many seats. Such a wildly unjust result set the stage for the coup of 2000.

While many court cases have (rightly) been brought against the culprits, not at all enough blame has been attached to the AV system itself, which without any shadow of doubt contributed in a major way to the coup and all that has happened since.

In the 2001 election the AV system, which according to the Reeves Commission was supposed to encourage moderation, managed to reduce the so-called 'moderates' to the barest handful. In fact it can be cogently argued that, as well as wiping out the middle and setting up two major ethnically-based parties at loggerheads, it even managed to hand victory to the wrong party! Certainly by Fiji's former FPP system or by a PR system, the FLP would have been the major party and would probably have been able to form the government. As it was, the manipulation of people's choices provided by the above-the-line voting in AV, worked against the FLP this time (whereas it had worked for them in 1999).

In the 2006 election we again had results that were most undesirable, and a complete contradiction of what the Reeves Commission had wanted the AV system to achieve. Instead of encouraging multi-ethnic parties and inter-ethnic cooperation, the AV system provided us with the situation where all ethnic Fijian Communal seats and all Open seats with a clear ethnic Fijian majority were won by one party (the SDL), all Indo-Fijian Communal seats and all Opens seats with a clear Indo-Fijian majority were won by another party (the FLP), all General seats bar one (that of Robin Irwin) were won by another party (the UPP), and the single Rotuman seat was won by a different party again (an Independent, in fact).

Apart from Robin Irwin's and the Rotuman seat, the only seats where there was any real contest were the few Open seats where the ethnic ratio between ethnic Fijians and Indo-Fijians was quite close. For by far the greater number of seats the outcome was predictable, and the exercise of voting for thousands of voters was a rather meaningless formality. That is hardly the way voting should be.

With this evidence from the three past elections confronting us, is it not madness to suggest we go back and have elections again under the AV system?

The voting system is supposed to provide us with a House of Representatives, yet it is clear that major segments of our society have not had fair representation at all. The most outrageous case is surely that of the NFP, who held almost a third of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, a quarter in 2001, a seventh in 2006, but received no representation in any of the three elections.

Even in 2006 when they did least well, they held over 49,000 first preferences. They nevertheless got no seats even though the UPP party, with well under 7,000 first preferences, picked up two!

Surely in a country that prides itself on its concern for all groups, this sort of nonsense cannot be allowed to continue not even once more.

A further reason for changing the electoral system immediately is that, if such reform were to be implemented only after the next general election held under AV, there would be a huge waste of resources, which Fiji cannot afford. Modifications would have to be made to the AV system, new constituency boundaries drawn up, and comprehensive voter education programs undertaken. Yet all this work would have to be repeated if a new electoral system were to be used later rather than immediately.

Sufficient time, of course, must be given to prepare for a new electoral system. But it should still be possible to have it in place by 2010. It did not take very long to get the AV system into place (proposed by the Reeves Commission in 1996, used in the elections of 1999).

What needs to happen is for the Interim Government to call together the various political groupings for a meeting to change the electoral system.

This time of uncertainty, when the political allegiances of the people are less predictable, is quite a good time to propose a change to PR. PR gives to each party the percentage of seats corresponding to its percentage of voter support.

When parties are unsure of their ground, that is the time when they are most likely to support PR, as they realise it is eminently fair, and will ensure that everybody, including themselves, gets fair representation. They prefer to get less than they might, rather than risk missing out altogether.

It is only when some parties become clearly the major power blocks that they may try to steer away from PR, realising that certain other voting systems (such as AV) will exaggerate their dominance, eviscerating rivals or eliminating them altogether.

If the political groupings can agree on a change to a better voting system, we are in a good position to move forward and adopt it immediately. If they cannot agree, then there would need to be analysis of the areas of disagreement and the reasons for it.

If the matters are minor (for example, the details of the PR system to be used) or if only one party disagrees or seems bent on being a 'spoiler', the Interim Government may nevertheless be able to proceed. If, however, the disagreements are more substantial, it would need to be more circumspect.

But what needs to be done, needs to be done! We are faced by a 'doctrine of necessity' type situation. A change of electoral system is urgently needed. If the constitutional path is followed, the delay in making the change is too long, plus the fact that those with the power to make the change may very well not do so (from self-interest).

One of the big problems in changing the electoral system in any democracy is that the people empowered to change it are the very people who have just been elected by it. They usually have a vested interest in leaving the electoral system much as it is. It is important, therefore, to change the electoral system while Fiji is in the process of re-setting its course.

Undoubtedly, the coup of 2006 and its aftermath are highly controversial. The legalities (and clear illegalities) of a lot of what has taken place will be long discussed, analysed, and litigated.

But life must go on. We must deal with Fiji as it is, not as we might like it to be. If a referendum was held on some matter of national importance, would it be regarded as invalid merely because it took place during the reign of an illegal regime? Surely not. Provided it was conducted fairly, such a referendum would be accepted as a valid expression of the people's will. I am not, however, suggesting a referendum regarding the electoral system. The issues are too detailed and unfamiliar to the public to do that at this stage. If, however, a good cross-section of political interests could agree on changing the electoral system to one clearly more appropriate, why should this be treated much differently to a referendum? Surely in the crisis situation Fiji finds itself in, a certain flexibility is required.

There may not be much opposition to such a change even from outside countries. Foreigners with any understanding of Fiji at all, know that our AV voting system has not been successful. The European Union Electoral Observation Mission forthrightly questioned whether AV was suitable for Fiji. Off the record, a number of them spoke even more strongly, and recommended a PR system. Fiji has been criticised for some time over its high proportion of Communal seats, with recommendations that they be reduced over time to be ultimately done away with.

If, then, there is agreement that PR is fairer and more suitable to Fiji; and if Communal seats are done away with (the interests of ethnic communities being well enough protected by PR itself), opponents will look rather silly if they continue to claim that AV must be used because it is in the Constitution.

The Constitution was made for Fiji, not Fiji for the Constitution.

Although Fiji is still some time away from the elections proposed for 2010, suggestions, discussions and decisions towards adopting a form of PR need to be made, so that the necessary ground work for a change to PR (the particular form of PR, different electoral boundaries, training of electoral officials, voter education, etc.) can be completed by the 2010 deadline. The time to start work on this is now.

Father David Arms is a member of the Citizens Constitutional Forum. The opinions expressed here, however, are his own and not those of the CCF.

Club Em Designs

Comparable Worth

Fiji Daily Post Editorial of March 14th, highlights inaccuracies pointed out by the flash-in-the-pan blog: Intellgentsiya and their reported story, which snowballed into a mountain of half-truths by the conventional media agencies both in Fiji and overseas.

This is the excerpt of the Daily Post Editorial:

New media, freedom of expression and responsibility
14-Mar-2007

IN the past week, the Interim Government has been raising its concerns over the contents of an online journal or blog.

Apparently, some news-hungry journalists spiced up the soup regarding the death of a fourth person allegedly at the hands of the military as reported on the site, intelligentsiya.blogspot.com.

What irked the Interim Government, and certainly would worry a responsible media is the fact that reports on this blog had been irresponsibly regurgitated and sensationalised in conventional media. Some servings of the soup even ending up in the international media, further exacerbating Fiji’s strained relations with its regional big brothers Australia and New Zealand and adding more bullet points to their travel advisories.

While the debate rages on, what is evident is that the spread of the Internet and modern information communications technologies (ICTs) in Fiji is revolutionising the manner in which individuals express their opinions and thoughts on events and issues of national importance.

New media is emerging in Fiji as an alternative to traditional media and is challenging long-held rules of news reporting.

And this is why the Interim Government is so concerned and it is justified in doing so, considering Fiji’s ever growing new generation of young, socially mobile and liberal cyber-democrats.

A text-based online environment that includes blogs, online discussion forums and internet chat rooms is changing not only the way opinions are expressed, these are also challenging long-held notions where the author decides what you read.
People can now easily air their views from the comfort of their personal computer, participate in discussion boards and receive or send emails on topical issues like democracy, human rights and governance.

There are also opportunities to send anonymous opinions to web blogs such as intelligentsiya.blogspot.com. These new media have a new rule “the author is dead, long live the reader”. It’s the nature of the Internet as a kind of virtual ‘black hole’ in which anonymous people and their opinions appear and disappear instantaneously. There are no editors, no style and very little or no rules.

While the Internet provides a forum where individuals and groups can experience a renewed sense of democracy, it necessitates a greater sense of responsibility. Web sites and blogs are not only used for democratic expressions and productive ends. They have also become literary havens and propaganda machineries for terrorist groups, bomb makers, neo-Nazis and dictatorships.

The Internet is also home to pedophiles and others with evil intentions. In short, the Internet harbours both the good and the evil. For Fiji, we are beginning to experience the digital revolution and the impact of new media on our society.

The Internet has opened up opportunities and taken away customary restrictions and is challenging our post-colonial culture of silence.

The power and political clout of the Fiji’s post-colonial institutions that have dominated the social and political scene for so long is being undermined by our new generation of liberalised cyber-democrats.

In political terms, democratic governance, mass participation and mobilisation is being enhanced by the use of the Internet and other modern ICTs.

An this becomes more pronounced in our post-coup situation as people express their opinion against the coup in conventional media have come under the attention of the military regime.

Individuals are being forced to write blogs or report to Internet sites because their rights to express their opinions in conventional media is under constant threat.
While the concerns of the Interim Government does carry weight - after all writing anonymous opinions for public consumption is against the rule - we now live in world dominated by new media technology that occasionally blurs the line between truth and fiction.

Interestingly China has banned the opening of new cybercafés this year citing the rising influence of the Internet on its people.

Sydney Morning Herald's article has updated the story talking points; stating that the source-Intellgentsiya had issued a correction, minus the Mea Culpa disclaimer.

Apparently Intelligensiya's seductive dismemberment of the truth, while creating a lot of attention, has also motivated other bloggers on Fiji. Here are several new blogs:

1. Discombobulated Bubu.
2. Hearts and Minds.
3. Free My Fiji.
4. Loyal Fijian.

While the Daily Post Editorial has rightfully pointed out, the apparent dangers of misreporting the facts by online citizen journalists; it is not a true reflection of all Fiji blogs. To lump all blogs in one basket of incompetence, is an unfair characterization; especially coming from main stream media who believe they have a monopoly on all news and editorials. Blogs provide a much needed fact-checking ability, which the Fiji public needs.

For starters, facts have been mis-represented by the conventional media as well; Daily Post being the leader of such practices, followed closely by the Fiji Sun's Political Editor.

The following is an excerpt of one such article from Fiji Sun's Political Editor:

Let us have an early election

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political Editor

We need to go to the polls quickly so that we can be accepted back into the global family.We cannot wait for 2010 or longer.International pressure is mounting for Fiji to quickly return to democratic rule. The question is: Will the Interim Prime Minister bow to this pressure?

Commonwealth secretary general Don McKinnon last week called on the international community to continue putting pressure on the Interim Government to return Fiji to democratic rule.

The United States of America has urged the Interim Government to take rapid and decisive steps to return Fiji to democratic rule and to adhere to the rule of law.

Fiji will benefit from a quick return to democratic rule. The USA is willing to ease some of its policy restrictions put in place since December 5. Already the USA has contacted its allies from East Asia and Europe in regard to the situation in Fiji and they all support a quick return to democratic rule.

Mr McKinnon says there are no signs Fiji will soon return to parliamentary democracy. In fact, Interim Minister for Justice Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum said there was a possibility the next elections would not take place in 2010. The reason given is that the roadmap gives only six months for the Constitutional Boundaries Commission to draw up the boundaries. But this can only be done after the census is taken and will take longer than six months.The Interim Government has already set a road map for the return to parliamentary democracy. Let us revisit that road map.

The Boundaries Commission will be asked to draw up new open seat constituency boundaries and to ensure that the number of voters is, as far as reasonably practicable, the same. This will entail the holding of a population census in 2007 to ensure that the commission works with the correct figures, in a geographical location, before determining the constituencies and their boundaries.

The Bureau of Statistics will take 12-15 months to complete a census report before the commission can gainfully use it. This process will take place in 2007 and 2008.The Boundaries Commission will need six months to prepare the new constituency boundaries to be used in the next election.

The preparation of the new boundaries is likely to be completed in 2009.The Elections Office will need up to 12 months to prepare for a general election. The preparatory work will be done between 2008 and 2009.

There will also need to be a new system of polling, voting, vote counting and declaration of results, which would take 9-12 months to complete.Under the road map, the return to parliamentary democracy for Fiji may become possible after three years.

Within that time frame, all the required tasks to be performed by the Interim Government would have been successfully completed, as part of the requirements of the Presidential mandate. After three years, the country’s economy and government finance would have recovered fully, to be able to fund and sustain the required cost of a general election in Fiji. The road map will be subject to a mid-term review in late 2009. However, taking into account Mr Khaiyum’s announcement, the election may be later than 2010.

Fiji has already been condemned worldwide because of the illegal removal of a democratically elected government by the military. Surely we will expect more sanctions because of the new the timeframe. Fiji is a small country and we depend mainly on donor agencies and imports. We have not really felt the impact of the coup because there are no trade sanctions. Let us pray that this state of affairs will continue.There can be trade sanctions and other bans put in place against Fiji if the Government does not adhere to international pressure.

Surely the census cannot be an excuse used especially when a general election in a democratic country like Fiji can happen at any time, like a government losing to a vote of no confidence in parliament. We know the Interim Government is working in accordance to a mandate issued by President Ratu Josefa Iloilo. But the Government cannot function well without the support its international allies.

They are willing to help Fiji to return to democratic rule but the Interim Government needs to take the first step. The Interim Government wants the next general election to be free and fair.

The Interim Prime Minister said: “For Fiji’s next general elections to be free and fair there are several important requirements that must be fulfilled, including the holding of a national census, determination of new constituency boundaries, new voter registration system as well as a comprehensive programme of voter awareness and education on the electoral system and voting rights.”

Does this mean the 2006 general election was not free and fair? The international observers invited to observe the 2006 general election agreed that the election was fair and free. The Pacific Forum’s Eminent Persons Group (EPG) in its report wants the country to return to the polls in 18 to 24 months’ time. Fiji is in isolation because of the undemocratic nature of its government.It had been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth.

We all want Fiji to be back in the Commonwealth and the global fold generally but I must admit this is very unlikely in the near future.We should be glad that the Commonwealth wants to help Fiji to quickly return to democratic rule.

However, here in Fiji the Interim Government is taking its own time. Interim Prime Minister Commodore Bainimarama said the global family must understand the situation in Fiji.

We are glad of the assurance from the Interim Prime Minister of the country returning to democratic rule. However, it is the timing that needs to be looked at.

If the 2000 Interim Administration can return the country to democratic rule in less than one year, why can’t this Interim Government?

No one can rule forever and in a democratic country, the people decide on the leadership. It is a fact that they had no say in the recent change of leadership.It is a fact that we are slowly walking the road to democracy.

It is slow because we are following the Interim Government’s pace. With the Interim Government’s strong stance, there is no short cut to our return to democratic rule. In the final analysis, we have to bear with them even if we move forward at a snail’s pace.

Accordingly, S.i.F.M affords readers with a counter-point to the Fiji Sun article.

The article by Fiji Sun Political Editor, Maika Bolatiki which called for early elections, only invites a stern and factual correct rebuttal.

Bolatiki opens the article with such absurd uses of the word “we”. Categorically, it infers that the Political Editor speaks for all voters in Fiji, while demanding an earlier transition to democracy.

Bolatiki's insinuations further escalate, by equating the international community's objectives of returning Fiji to democracy, with the aspect of timing.

Although, the United States State Department had remarked that Fiji should return to democracy and Fiji could accelerate the process of electoral reform; what the State Department did not address, given Fiji's perilous financial position is that; the velocity which Fiji should undertake this process, is directly proportional to the resources available to the island nation.

What the official from U.S State Department could not do, is put money where their proverbial mouth is. By not offering any under employed American experts in electoral reform, the call by the US for a speedy return to democratic rule remains embarrassingly hollow.

Bolatiki points out that, Fiji will benefit with the quick return to democratic rule. Nobody disputes that. It appears that 'benefit' is the Political Editor's only motivation for returning the nation to democracy. One major point that needs to be established beforehand is that, democratically rule may require some analysis of the definition.

If US State Department, Commonwealth Group, the E.U, Australia or New Zealand demands Fiji to return to a democracy that overwhelmingly uses race based seats, then effectively that type of democracy they want in Fiji is intellectually flawed.

If that democracy, which Bolatiki strives for involves turning a blind eye towards the ingrained culture of corruption in Fiji, then that model of democracy is not for Fiji. For democracy demands equal representation, a functioning and vigilant criminal justice system. Democracy does not endorse two tracks of rules. One specifically for people with chiefly status, the other for everyone else.

Bolatiki presented a question, "If the 2000 Interim Administration can return the country to democratic rule in less than one year, why can’t this Interim Government?"
The answer lies simply in Fiji's existing electoral system.

In 2001 Elections, as well as the 2006 one, the ballot system used race defined seats, as well as outdated boundaries. The electoral reform which the Interim Government unveiled, pointed out structural changes that, require labour intensive surveys and logistical projects, which Bolatiki overlooks.

Even if Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretary General had called on the international community to pressure Fiji's interim Government to return to democratic rule, then perhaps it is prudent to re-examine and re-evaluate the Commonwealth's template of democracy for Fiji.

Obviously the definition of democratic rule which the Fiji Sun Political Editor subscribes to, is basically the system of racial based voting. Since Bolatiki is concerned with the hurried return to an electoral system, which race plays an overwhelming part; without examining the deficiencies within it, perhaps Bolatiki himself should deserve neither civil liberties nor voting rights.

“Surely we will expect more sanctions because of the new the time frame. Fiji is a small country and we depend mainly on donor agencies and imports. We have not really felt the impact of the coup because there are no trade sanctions. Let us pray that this state of affairs will continue.There can be trade sanctions and other bans put in place against Fiji if the Government does not adhere to international pressure”.

If timing was such a big issue for the international community, as Bolatiki obliquely portrays, the international communities would understand that such demands must be reinforced with assistance. It is easy for the international community to call for a rapid transition to democracy, without ensuring that the institutions responsible are logistically ready, in terms of staff, facilities and equipment. For it is Fiji, who will be engaged in the exercise of conducting a national census, creating new political boundaries and so forth. Not the international community. As many political pundits understand, all politics is local.

It seems that the Fiji Sun Political Editor had accepted an irresponsible default position, which advocates cutting corners of liberal democracy and presenting an error laden picture of the Interim Government's intentions.

Bolatiki also appears to be the cheering on the international community, to place more sanctions simply because Fiji could not operate within a time frame demanded by foreign nations. Or is it really because, the Interim Government is hell-bent of removing the racial components within Fiji's politics. A component which has served the SDL Government extremely well, including Fiji Sun's Political Editor.

It appears that the quality of Fiji's electoral system had escaped the attention of the international community. While they had called for rapid elections in Fiji, they also neglect that, the existing voting system uses race rolls. It is nothing short of farcical to call for rapid democracy, while ignoring the structural inadequacies within it.

“Does this mean the 2006 general election was not free and fair? The international observers invited to observe the 2006 general election agreed that the election was fair and free.The Pacific Forum’s Eminent Persons Group (EPG) in its report wants the country to return to the polls in 18 to 24 months’ time. Fiji is in isolation because of the undemocratic nature of its government. It had been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth”.

Fiji Sun's Political Editor also prejudges the 2006 elections as free and fair, since it was certified as such by the International Observer Group. However, Bolatiki ignores the fact that, no one had any idea of how many voters there were in 2006; as a percentile of the overall population. In addition, the individual boundaries were decades old and were not updated with migration statistics, both local and international.

By not having an accurate baseine number of voters; undoubtedly opens the election process to more assumptions and thus errors. In other words, the Election office could have the ability to print extra ballot papers; since the number of voters (registered or not) could not have been feasibly determined, without a national census. The security of these extra ballots, was questionable and inlight of numerous complaints, casted looming shadows of doubt over the entire electoral process.

Having a ballot take place without empirical data confirming the nations population number, opens the result to interpretation and this inaccuracy also undermines the entire electoral process.

Bolatiki further adds, “Surely the census cannot be an excuse used especially when a general election in a democratic country like Fiji can happen at any time, like a government losing to a vote of no confidence in parliament”.

If the census are constitutionally required every 10 years, why aren't those basic steps being followed?
Census allows statistician to get an accurate population baseline, the data gained is also used in calculations for infrastructure development in Fiji. It allows statisticians to get a better idea of what the resources the nation has, with respect to the population growth. Those projections allow civil servants to plan for the future and by implementing socially responsible policies, improves the lifestyle of the national populace. Apparently, Bolatiki opposes those fundamentals of democracy.

To glossover the importance of holding a timely national census; is merely a convenient way to obfuscate the greater meaning of democratic institutions and under rate their interface with transparency and good governance. To propose accelerated time-tables of the road map, effectively surrenders to the follies of a fool; after all they do rush into action without forethought.

A hurried approach to the altars of democracy, risks jilting the bride of oversight. A rush, suggests cutting the corners of progressive ideals like multi racialism and equal representation. A rush earns Fiji no medals, but guarantees more errors.


Club Em Designs

Diplomatic Recognition &The Trans- Tasman Fudge Factory.

Fiji Academic, Sitiveni Ratuva has confirmed existence of hypocrisy in an opinion article derived from his observations of diplomatic engagements, made by Australia and New Zealand.

This is the excerpt of the article:

Aussies, Kiwis a part of international hypocrisy over coups

STEVEN RATUVA
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Despite the international community's negative view of coups and attempts to promote democratic means of regime change, coups continue to be a favourite means of usurpation and assumption of political power in many post-colonial States.

Since 2000 there have been 24 "successful" and attempted coups in the world. Apart from the Fiji coups of May 2000 and December 2006, there were coups in Ecuador (January 2000), Solomon Islands (June 2000), Venezuela (April 2002), Central Africa Republic (March 2003), Sao Tome and Principe (July 2003), Guinea-Bissau (September 2003), Haiti (February 2004), Togo (February 2004), Mauritania (August 2005) and Thailand (September 2006). There are a few more I have not listed here because of space limitations.

Some of these coups, especially in small African States like Sao Tome and Principe, Togo and Guinea-Bissau did not attract much world attention compared to the Venezuela and Thailand coups.

The patronising assumption was that these were African "failed States" which did not have much political clout in the region and one would expect them to go through political instability anyway. On the other hand, the coup in Venezuela in 2002 (although it lasted for only two days) was a very high profile one because of the United State's alleged involvement.

The Thai coup was a high profile one because of Thailand's economic significance in the Asian region, as well as internationally.

International reaction to the Fiji coup

The 2006 coup in Fiji attracted considerable attention for a number of reasons. Firstly, for Pacific States, including Australia and New Zealand, Fiji was the political centre and Suva the unofficial "capital" of the South Pacific and any political disruption here would impact on regional stability.

Secondly, the fact that four coups had taken place in Fiji did not look good for the region which has been aspiring to create a harmonious and integrated Pacific Union through the Pacific Plan.

Thirdly, especially for Australia, political instability in the Pacific reflects badly on its regional job as America's "sheriff" whose role was to maintain stability and promote democracy in this part of the world.

On the basis of these, Australia and New Zealand could not afford to see Fiji go through another coup, no matter what the justifications were. To show their disapproval the two countries poured forth their venomous scorns in the form of direct condemnation in addition to "smart" sanctions and lobbying of international agencies like the World Bank to cut links with Fiji.

The justifications for the coup provided by the military regime were ignored as denunciation by the two countries continued. The bilateral scenario became sentimentally driven and to some extent became a personalised tit- for-tat war of words between Fiji and Australia and New Zealand, who found it almost entertaining to verbally whip Fiji like a naughty, truant kid.

Apart from the usual "regional responsibility" argument, Australia was very much embarrassed and possibly hurt by some pre-coup and post-coup developments which may have made it very angry.

The first issue was the incident involving the Australian SAS troopers who were sent to Fiji in November. Despite initial denials, the Australian Government was later forced to reveal their identity after their lives were threatened after the military referred to them as "mercenaries."

Secondly, the warning by the Fiji military for Australia and New Zealand not to carry out any invasion was a big blow to the pride and ego of the two big countries. It was a "you are big and I'm small but I can fight and defeat you" challenge which no militarily and politically powerful country would want to psychologically endure, especially coming from a small nation like Fiji.

Both New Zealand and Australia realised that any possible invasion needed an internationally legitimate justification and if they invaded Fiji it was going to be utterly disastrous. The military stand-off (if one may call it that) became a "Cold War" of sorts which went beyond the serene diplomatic relations the two countries had enjoyed for a long time.

The tension was worsened when the Australian military helicopter crashed into the sea, ironically on the same night Fijian soldiers were having an anti-invasion exercise in Suva Harbour. The Fiji military would have known the location of the Australian Navy ships (South of Viti Levu) and deliberately taunted them with the exercise.

The helicopter crash incident made the Australian military a target of international ridicule and humour and this must have embarrassed Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer. This embarrassment was later transformed into vengeful anger directed at Fiji.

Thirdly, the Fiji coup was a big blow to Australia's intention of expanding and consolidating its anti-terrorism security buffer around the Pacific. Australia has always argued that instability in the Pacific will allow for easy entry of international terrorists into Australia from the Pacific Islands.

However, there is, of course, no evidence of this happening, but there are a lot of evidence that terrorist groups are actually formed, carry out training and aim to blow up targets in Australia.

The Pacific terrorist connection is a myth propagated by Australian government advisors. For security-minded Pacific Islanders, association with Australia is in fact a security threat because Australia is officially on the Al- Qaeda and other terrorist group hit list.

Fourthly, Fiji's Interim Regime stood up to the verbal and economic threats by throwing back its own counter verbal salvos and threats.

Fifthly, New Zealand may have been infuriated by the failure of the Wellington talks between Bainimarama and Qarase.

It is suspected that the Australians were secretly hoping that the talks would collapse to deny their trans-Tasman rival, New Zealand, the sought after glory as Pacific peacemaker. Downer's statement that the talks were not going to work, even before the results of the talks were announced, was self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts.



New Zealand must have been disappointed to lose an opportunity to show the world its peacemaking credentials, as it did with the Bougainville peace agreement. Consequently they would have cursed Bainimarama for denying them that honour.

Sixthly, condemnation of coups is part of the normal international culture of image construction.

To condemn coups, wars or instability in any country is to tell the world that one is a lover of peace, an advocate of human rights, a supporter of democracy and a reliable member of the international community. It is a form of political self-gratification to convince oneself that one is full of politically righteous values that the "baddie" countries must learn from.

Western countries often do this and use such an opportunity to showcase their ethical principles (such as good governance), however hypocritical they may be. These factors in combination have been the driving forces behind the Australian and New Zealand fury on Fiji.

What about the United States? Fiji does not really serve any strategic interest in as far as the US is concerned (because we don't have oil fields) but as the only global superpower with global responsibility for "democracy", the US had to make a stand on Fiji. However, Australia and New Zealand, I suspect, have been vigorously lobbying the US to impose sanctions and use its unrivaled power to squeeze Fiji into submission.

Historically the US has been very choosy about which coup to support and which coup to oppose, depending on its strategic interests and which President was in power. In some cases it would deliberately help to stage coups against regimes with left-wing tendencies and oppose coups that would overthrow right-wing regimes.

Consistency and double standards

While the stand of the three nations on the Fiji coup is understandable, the US and Australian foreign policy (which are usually derived from the same template) are often controversial.

Both are prominent members of the "Coalition of the Willing", now caught up in the Iraqi quagmire. The US, in particular, has supported a number of anti-democratic coups in most parts of the world, the most well known of which was the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973 and the most recent being the temporary overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002 and the removal from power of Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti in 2004.

Moreover, it's interesting to note that although Australia diplomatically denounced the Thailand coup, it did not impose sanctions nor did it send its warships to evacuate its citizens as it did during the Fiji coup.

The question is: Why was Australia bent on punishing Fiji and not Thailand? Was it because Thailand was too big and too significant to Australia? Was it because of the embarrassment Australia went through before and after the Fiji coup?

On the other hand, the US was more consistent in imposing sanctions on both countries by withdrawing military aid from Thailand ($24 million) as well as Fiji. Of the three countries, New Zealand is probably the most consistent in its foreign policy, especially in relation to human rights, nuclear arms and democracy.

New Zealand refused to be part of the Coalition of the Willing and in the 1980s its anti-nuclear stance led to the near collapse of the ANZUS treaty, a security agreement between the US, Australia and New Zealand to keep Soviet influence out of the Pacific during the Cold War from the 1940s to the early 1990s.

Double standard in policy articulation is, of course, common in international relations. For powerful countries, often strategic and economic considerations override human principles. The call for restoration of democracy and observance of human rights can be used as cover for strategic considerations.

This is the reason why small countries are increasingly cynical about big powers telling them what to do and not to do.

Saving the situation

The current sanctions and freeze in bilateral and multi-lateral relations will no doubt impact on Fiji's ability to recover. The analogy of a drowning person in a pool being pulled down by his "friends" every time the person comes up for air is relevant here.

The aim is to deprive the drowning person of air and eventually let the poor bugger die. The analogy may be too extreme but the moral of the story is quite clear.

Is this really what Australia and New Zealand want Fiji to go through?

Do they really want to punish Fiji rather than help the country recover?

Is political pride more important than people's welfare and lives?

This analogy has deep humanitarian as well as human rights implications.

Now that the sanctions have had their desired symbolic and practical impacts, it is perhaps timely to review them in the light of the current circumstances before they cause irreparable damage.

Continued sanctions will hurt the nation and even the region and this will make recovery and re-democratisation even more difficult. This is why cool-headedness must prevail and our neighbours must deflate their vengeful ego and take their cue from the European Union which has opened up doors for talks with Fiji to deal with some issues at stake.

Really, views for or against the coup do not matter anymore because for the sake of our collective future it is now time to initiate dialogue, repair the diplomatic and bilateral damage since December 5, 2006, and move on.

New Zealand and Australia should start engaging Fiji and vice versa on the basis of goodwill for the long-term stability of the region.

For its part, Fiji's Interim Government must draw up a more specific timeline with specific dates for the return to democracy and commit itself to its fulfillment. With these we will no doubt begin to see the thawing of tension and a calmer path towards normality.

Dr Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist at the University of the South Pacific. These views are his own and do not reflect those of the institution.

Club Em Designs

Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.

The subject of treason charges levelled at the deposed Fiji Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, was addressed by New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. In summation, Madam Prime Minister described the whole affair as "bizarre" in an article by crime.co.nz.

It also appears that, Helen Clark has come under her own shadow of corruption, as a Youtube video (below)has pointed out and judging from experience gained, Clark's advice on how to get out of a political pickle would be invaluable to Qarase.


If anything, the tag of Bizarre only reminds readers of the N.Z group, OMC and their hit single "How Bizarre"- music video.



Club Em Designs

A Note of Progress or

Is It A Penny Wise and a Pound Foolish?

Fiji blog: Invest in Fiji comments on the unfolding scandal in Fiji National Provident Fund, the nation's only retirement fund broker.

Invest in Fiji blog also raises important questions on oversight and the absence of timely action by Reserve Bank Of Fiji, whose Governor was more proactive in launching a new $100 Bill, than placing oversight of financial institutions on the front burner.



(Above image: Fiji President [L] and RBF Governor [R] at the launch ceremony for Fiji's new monetary note).


Fijilive article quotes FNPF board member who points out huge discrepancies in loan arrangements and investment, as well as shortfalls in resort project financing after an extraordinary audit was ordered after the suspension of FNPF C.E.O and Deputy General Manager.

It appears that Fiji Labour Party had raised the issue of FNPF investments in a 2005 article. Transparency International also raises the point in a Fiji Times article that, Auditor-Generals annual reports have been ignored, creating a culture of corruption within Government and Private sectors.