Breach of Trust.

Fiji Village article reports on a presentation by local USP academic, highlighting the increase of Native Lands Trust Board's expenditure rate, as well as identifying some irregularities in accounting standards.

This is an excerpt:

Concerns Raised Over Increasing NLTB Expenditure
By fijivillage
Jul 3, 2007, 15:00

Concerns have been raised on the increasing rate of expenditure by the Native Land Trust Board since 1975.

USP senior lecturer Dr. Mahendra Reddy during his presentation at an Economic Forum at the Marine Lecture Theatre this afternoon highlighted that NLTB's expenditure is increasing by over 32 percent per annum.

Reddy said he has found out that the NLTB is not following proper Accounting Standards. He said the income statement has been misrepresented and the whole accountability of the transactions of the contract with Pacific Connex is not shown.

Reddy said NLTB is also charging rates and not informing its shareholders about dividends. He also said that he doubts that NLTB is registered with registrar of companies.

It seems that more landowners have lost their faith and trust with NLTB, like this group from Vanua Levu who complained about the lack of consent for lease renewals, as reported in a Fiji Times article.
The aspect of NLTB's secret slush fund has been reported in a Fiji Live article, describing NLTB loaning money to the developers of Denarau Resorts in Nadi.

This is the excerpt:

NLTB recovers Denarau debt
Thursday June 26, 2003

The Native Land Trust Board has recovered the outstanding amount from a $2million loan to Denarau Investments Limited.

NLTB general manager Kalivati Bakani said yesterday the $2million loan was made to Denarau Investments Limited from the NLTB's trust funds while under the management of the late Maika Qarikau. The loan was to enable the company to develop the Hilton Hotel on Denarau.

Mr Bakani said the loan was originally scheduled to be repaid by July last year. However, following requests from the company, the board agreed to allow some deferment.

"At the beginning of June we served a demand on the company after which the outstanding amount was repaid in full," Mr Bakani said. The repayment covered interest and other charges.

Mr Bakani said the board was happy with the development because it involved trust funds that belonged to native landowners.

The Daily Post

It seems that NLTB has gone into the money lending business, after skimming funds from transactions from native land owned by poor villagers. It raises some moral questions, of why NLTB could not loan funds to the landowners themselves to assist in developing the land. Sadly, it seems the interests of native landowners has become a tragedy of the commons of sorts.
Serious questions are now being asked of NLTB's financial position, especially after the series of firing from NLTB's executive core, including Kalivati Bakani.

Following up on the post "Fiji Media and Ethical Deviations" Interim Finance Minister responded to the Fiji Times Editorial with a letter.

The following is an excerpt:

Get real

It is interesting that The Fiji Times in its editorial comment titled Get Real Mr Chaudhry (FT 2/7) is doing exactly what it accuses me of doing: shooting the messenger.

Indeed, it has stooped to character assassination rather than responding on issues.

I gave the media a message on Saturday: that continuous distorted and negative reporting by the media was having an adverse effect on investment.

Certain media organisations were not even providing fair and balanced news news doctoring, manipulation, distortion and even prejudice were plainly apparent in the reporting of The Fiji Times and Fiji TV. I did not make wild accusations. I cited a number of examples to back my statement. The Fiji Times should now tell the nation why it chose not to print the examples I gave.

In failing to do so, is it not guilty of selective, doctored news reporting?

Furthermore, I did not take a swipe at the media out of the blue. I spoke in response to a query during the question and answer session on whether negative media reporting was not turning away investors. I spoke in response to this question.

The Fiji Times deliberately chose not to put my statement in its proper context.

In fact, the Fiji Chamber of Commerce also criticised the media but I see no mention of this in The Fiji Times coverage. Again selective reporting?

I reiterate that during the current sensitive phase of our national transition, the media has a responsibility to exercise due caution in its coverage of reports relating to national issues. This is not to say that it must not report news as it happens. All I ask is that the views and explanations of the interim administration, get as fair and balanced coverage as that of the other side.

This does not always happen. It is frustrating when one issues a statement in explanation or responds to an attack, to find that either the statement is ignored, or just one short sentence or a paragraph is used which fails to adequately articulate the view point of the person responding.

I have had several such experiences with The Fiji Times.

This is what is meant by unfair and unbalanced reporting. A case in point: when the PM's office issued a statement in response to certain aspects of Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi's speech in Canberra, The Fiji Times did not bother to run the government reply. On inquiry, a highly abbreviated version appeared some two days later.

It is onerous on the news editor of media organisations to ensure that, on sensitive national issues, at least, both sides get adequate and fair coverage.

In its editorial comment The Fiji Times says: "Any responsible media will not want to mislead or deliberately lie to the people". The operative word here is, of course, responsible. The paper refers to letters in the open column as an indication of public opinion.

We all know a number of these letters are from ghost writers. In any case, we are often told by people that letters they write in support of actions of the interim administration do not get run by The Fiji Times. So much for responsible presentation of viewpoints.

I also refer The Fiji Times to criticisms of bias and unfair reporting leveled against it in 2000 by none other then the former Head of the School of Journalism at USP, David Robie, in an address he gave to a media forum in Brisbane. He held The Fiji Times responsible, in no small measure, for inciting the 2000 crisis.

The Fiji Times should know that I am not in the habit of making wild attacks. If I criticised certain media organisations, it is because I had reason to do so. And I stated my reasons.

Let me make it categorically clear: the media is not entitled to unfettered freedom it is accountable to the people.

Alongside the freedom it enjoys, goes very stringent responsibilities regarding media ethics and national sensibilities.

The Fiji Times takes an unfair advantage by shooting volleys from behind its editorial columns.

I invite it to a public debate on this issue. At least, this will give me the opportunity to present my case fully supported by all the evidence. Let the public then decide on who indeed is shooting the messenger.

Mahendra Chaudhry
Interim Minister for Finance
National Planning and Sugar Industry

Editor's note: Mr Chaudhry feels we have just been reporting negative news. In the main we agree because the news has been negative. That is not our fault and we do not believe we have slanted or doctored it. The Reserve Bank says the economy is in crisis and Mr Chaudhry himself on Saturday said the economy was in a bad shape. We would love to report good news but we need facts and figures, not just words.

(Examples withheld by Fiji Times)

This newspaper has tirelessly campaigned for the good of our nation and will continue to do so that is our job and we take it seriously. We have praised the interim Government on those occasions we have considered it has done something right. We have condemned it when we believed it has been wrong.

We did the same with past governments and we will do the same with future governments. We believe the interim Government needs to get behind tourism. It is the quickest and easiest way to bring in money to this country. Mr Chaudhry's dream of a once again buoyant sugar may happen but not 'overnight' and right now this country needs an 'overnight' solution. Give us the facts and figures to back your good news Mr Chaudhry and we will print it.

Fiji Times website had provided a link to a comments page, discussing the story of Fiji Times unbalanced coverage. This link was then hidden and further comments blocked by the webmaster, to prevent the page from taking on too many comments critical of Fiji Times. An example of double standards of Freedom of Expression, used by the old media.



Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Fiji Media and Ethical Deviations.

In a Fiji TV news segment, the Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudary castigated certain media outlets including Fiji TV and Fiji Times for their gloom and doom perspectives, regarding current events in Fiji.


This criticism prompted an equally scathing response from the Fiji Times editorial, which was reinforced with a parodical stance.










This an excerpt:

Get real Mr Chaudhry

Monday, July 02, 2007

Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry is back to his favourite pastime of blaming the media when things go wrong. He shoots the messenger when he is criticised in public or when his plans start to fall apart.

He dislikes admitting any weaknesses and failures, and points fingers at everyone else in particular the media but never himself for any shortcomings. But now Mr Chaudhry accuses this newspaper and another media organisation of biased and negative reporting, and says we are unhelpful to the economy and discouraging investment.

He alludes to the idea that the media somehow is contributing to the poor state of the economy and making it difficult efforts to turn it around. Its a novel idea, but frankly ridiculous.

The media did not remove the previous Government, the media are not keeping tourists away, the media are not putting various streams of aid funding at risk. Reporting on the state of the economy is reporting on an aspect of Fiji today that touches us all. By not reporting experts who tell us the economy is in trouble, we would not be telling the truth.

If Mr Chaudhry every now and then puts his ear to the ground, he will discover the reality of the situation faced by ordinary citizens, whose plight he frequently advocates he upholds.

It is not in the best interests of the people to try to tell us things are rosy and forward looking when they are not. Any responsible media will not want to mislead or deliberately lie to the people. We at all times try to present the truth. In the course of our duty to discover and disclose frequently, we know it will bring us into conflict with government at all levels because we know political interests are often served by secrecy or at least selective disclosures.

But it does not mean that we are to be blamed whenever things go wrong for the government. Our job is to highlight the shortcomings and failures, as well as the successes, if any.

The governments job is to fix those problems. So Mr Chaudhry should stop wasting his energy in shooting the messenger and try to convince his colleagues in the interim Cabinet to wake up and turn the economy around.

Start with tourism for example. It is perhaps also time Mr Chaudhry abandons the thinking that he is always right and everyone else, including this newspaper, is wrong.

This issue of Fiji Times bias, has been raised before by other independent analysts and other media publications. International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) article, also illuminates the earlier observations of Fiji Times bias, post 1999 elections. Obviously there is no love lost between Fiji Times and Messr Chaudary.

FT Editorial defended Chaudary's recent accusations and stated that:

"Any responsible media will not want to mislead or deliberately lie to the people.
We at all times try to present the truth".

With all due respect to the Fiji Times, the readers will determine who presents the truth, not them. For history shows us that the Fiji Times has not disclosed other complaints on their very impartiality; by others,
apart from Chaudary and it is rather parochial to discount the valid points raised by them.

Micheal Field's article also covers this perceived bias in the Fiji Times.
This is an excerpt:

FURIOUS ROW AS ACADEMIC SUGGESTS FIJI'S MEDIA HELPED CAUSE A COUP

by Michael Field

AUCKLAND, Dec 17 (AFP) - A row has broken out in Fiji over claims the news media may have helped cause the coup which bought down the country's government in May.

As befits a small country, it quickly turned nasty, pitting David Robie, head of the University of the South Pacific's journalism programme, against the lively local media headed by the Rupert Murdoch owned Fiji Times.

On May 19 plotters led by George Speight seized Parliament and held the government hostage for 58 days and only freed them after the government had been deposed by the military.

Unlike the 1987 coups in Fiji, the media this time had no controls imposed on them and even had full access to Speight and Parliament the whole time he held hostages.

Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, Fiji's first ethnic Indian prime minister, had held office for just a year, marked by bad media relations.

It climaxed in October 1999 when Chaudhry asked whether the Times was "carrying the torch for people engaged in seditious activities?

"The newspaper needs to take a serious look at where it is headed. Is it not fanning the fires of sedition and communalism by giving undue prominence to stories that are really non-stories?"

Robie, a journalist originally from New Zealand, in a just published academic paper, said some sectors of the Fiji media waged a bitter campaign against the administration and its rollback of privatisation.

Chaudhry got off on the wrong foot with the media industry virtually from the day he took office, Robie says, appointing his son private secretary in a move that damaged his credibility.

But the Fiji Times "appeared to wage a relentless campaign against the fledgling government, both through its editorials and 'slanted" news columns".

Political commentator Jone Dakuvula, a member of former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's Soqosoqo Ni Vakavulewa Ni Taukei party is quoted saying the Times was "blatantly antagonistic to the Government and focused on highlighting allegations of corruption, nepotism and sexual indiscretions" against Chaudhry.

Robie says no journalist seriously analysed the party's manifesto in order to help public understanding of what the government had pledged to do.

"The evidence suggests that The Fiji Times, in particular, had a hostile editorial stance towards the Chaudhry Government.... The focus of news media coverage, particularly the Fiji Times, after the election was to play up conflict.... It tended to play to the agenda of politicians who wanted to inflame indigenous Fijians against the government."

Fiji Times publisher Alan Robinson says Robie's paper was academically and professionally dishonest. "Out of the 106 editorials we ran on the Coalition Government, 54 were in favour and 52 against," he said.

Of the coup itself, Robie said the media "offered Speight a profile and credibility - it aided the rebel leader's propaganda war. "The media, in fact, fuelled the crisis and gave Speight a false idea about his importance and support - it gave him 'political fuel'."

Radio FM96 boss and the head of the Pacific Islands News Association, William Parkinson, accused Robie of "self aggrandisement". Parkinson said the relationship pre-coup with Chaudhry had been an unfortunate one.

"But that was no fault of the media but the fault of the members of the Government who did such an abysmal job of getting their message across and then tried to bully and threaten the media when they held them accountable," Parkinson said.

FM96 news editor Vijay Narayan said he found Robie's paper offensive. "We found it was our duty, whoever was in government, to report on whatever promises were being made. George Speight was part of the story. We had to have someone there to find out what was going on."

Jale Moala, who was editor of the Daily Post at the time of the coup, noted the argument that the coup situation "may not have deteriorated as quickly as it did if the media had played a more responsible role."

It underlined the dilemma of Pacific journalism: "People and events are usually so closely interwoven and related, they can affect the reporting."

The following excerpt are from the Pacific Media Watch article commenting on the role of the media's role in the 2000 coup.

FIJI TIMES DRAWS FLAK FOR 'BIASED' CAMPAIGN

Times of India, 19 December 2000

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

Journalism lecturer David Robie made the attack at a media conference in Mooloolaba, Australia. Robie, a New Zealander, circulated a paper titled "Coup Coup Land: The Press and the Putsch in Fiji," in which he questioned the professionalism of Fiji journalists and the news organizations the worked for.

He claimed some female journalists practiced skirt journalism to the point of being sexually involved with politicians in order to get information. The writings and editorial slant were frequently based on the journalist's race and personal political opinions, added Robie, the head of the USP's journalism school.

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

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

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

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

USP STAFF SUPPORT DAVID ROBIE

Association of the University of the South Pacific Staff , 21 December 2000

Dear Vice-Chancellor

I am aware of the media campaign to discredit Mr David Robie and the Journalism Programme at USP. At the moment the Association of University of the South Pacific Staff is not concerned with the contents of Mr. David Robie's paper, but more on the campaign to curb academic freedom of a staff member who has presented a paper to a conference and has given his opinion and views on a number of issues relating to the role of media in the Fiji crisis.

The AUSPS believes that Mr Robie is being unneccessarily defamed and together with him some elements of the Fiji media are trying to discredit the journalism programme at USP.

AUSPS knows that the journalism programme is a popular programme and has attracted widespread acclaim under Mr. Robie's leadership. We believe that Mr. Robie is only doing his work as an academic and its becomes the university's responsibility to defend him and the programme from unnecessary comments from some elements of the media.

I am sure that you will defend Mr. Robie's right to speak as an academic and if the Fiji media disagrees with him then it should be debated publicly and David's paper should be given coverage by the media and not only their criticism of the paper.

The AUSPS will be closely following the developments and further comments from the Fiji media.

Thank you

Dr Biman Prasad
President
Association University of the South Pacific Staff
Suva
Fiji Islands

ACADEMIC STAFF THROW SUPPORT BEHIND JOURNALISM HEAD

The Academic Staff Association at the University of the South Pacific has thrown its support behind the head of the university's journalism course, David Robie, whose latest clash with sections of the Fiji media has led to a call for his dismissal.

Sean Dorney reports that the Staff Association alleges that several news organisaitons in Fiji are waging an orchestrated campaign against Mr Robie.

In an academic paper delivered to a conference in Queensland earlier this month, David Robie criticised most of the regular Fiji media contrasting their coverage of the coup unfavourably with the work of his students claiming that one major strength of his journalism training website was what he called its incisive analysis.

His attack on the Fiji Times for its alleged slanted news and bias against the Chaudhry Government prompted the Fiji Times to write to the Vice Chancellor accusing Robie of self-promotion and academic dishonesty.

The Staff Association's spokesman, Professor Scott MacWilliam, says the issue is one of academic freedom. He says that at a meeting on campus, the Vice Chancellor, Esekia Solofa, has supported that principle and defended Mr Robie's competence and integrity. Prof MacWilliam says Mr Robie is entitled to express his views of the role of the media and the association rejects any call for his sacking.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Fijian Holdings Ltd. Stock Dump.

South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPSE) website published a list of Unexecuted Orders report (PDF) for Fijian Holdings Ltd, following the news of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) investigative visit to the offices of Fijian Holdings and Fiji Development Bank, as reported by Fiji Times article.

This is the prospectus (PDF)of Fijian Holdings appearing on SPSE website.

It was reported that, South Pacific Stock Exchange was also in the cross hairs of FICAC, in a Fiji Village article. SPSE Board of Directors is listed on their website. Note with interest that Fijian Holdings representative sits on the SPSE board, including 2 representatives of Fiji National Provident Fund and a representative from Fiji Development Bank.

Blog: Why Fiji Is Crying posting comments on the Fijian Holdings stock price on the South Pacific Stock Exchange, claiming that trading may be suspended.
The following is an excerpt of Fijian Holdings Ltd (FHL) stock transactions, published in SPSE website, listed as "Unexecuted Orders". From the table below, it can said that the biggest transaction was from Broker/Dealer No. 171 trading 52, 201 FHL shares, at $4.05. The same broker also appeared to have been the most frequent trader of FHL stocks.

Price ($F)	Quantity	Broker/Dealer No.
3.50	528	170
3.50	7,500	172
3.50	518	172
3.51	8,169	171
3.51	975	172
3.59	300	171
3.60	2,000	175
3.60	500	168
3.60	200	150
3.60	500	172
3.60	2802	172
3.60	500	171
3.60	700	171
3.79	500	175
4.00	3,500	172
4.01	1,430	171
4.03	2,443	169
4.03	1,000	171
4.03	446	169
4.03	500	168
4.03	1,571	171
4.03	1,229	171
4.03	1,428	171
4.04	662	171
4.05	52,201	171
4.05	1,370	171
4.05	1,520	172
4.06	1,356	171
4.06	7,272	171
4.06	2,000	171
4.06	1,850	171
4.06	500	171
4.06	1,000	171
4.08	500	168
4.09	565	171
4.10	4,236	171
4.10	1,000	171

The Next Call Market Session will be held on Monday, 2nd July 2007 at the SPSE Trading Floor at 10.30am .

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

New Corruption Unit Investigates Fiji's Financial Organizations.

Fiji's Independent Commission Against Corruption(FICAC) is carrying out in-depth investigations into statuary agencies like Fiji Development Bank, Fijian Holdings and South Pacific Stock Exchange. This raid is part of surfacing allegations, stemming from the high profile case of Natadola Resorts Project; pointing to a massive web of corruption in Fiji.Already this clean up campaign in Fiji has looked in Native Lands Trust Board and terminated the former General Manager, Kalivati Bakani, suspended a Board member, Keni Dakuidreketi with more suspensions to follow according to a Fiji Live article.

read more | digg story

My Brilliant Career. (Update)

Following up on the S.i.F.M post titled "7 Seven Sins of NLTB" - apparently there has been some developments regarding the sins from the Teflon coated executive of APRIL, Keni Dakuidreketi.

This case raises serious questions into the integrity of the entire criminal justice system in Fiji pre-2006 coup. Among them, Why didn't Natadola raise red flags in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID)of the Fiji Police? Surely, someone had an idea of the alleged impropriety and illegalities in the dealings of Dakuidreketi.

It appears that Dakuidreketi was recently suspended from the board of Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) for questionable dealings, as reported by Fiji Times article and confirmed by Fiji Live article.

Reactions to the story was captured on the Fiji Times web site and readers who commented on the particular story, were overwhelmingly scathing of Dakuidreketi's series of alleged actions, which was tainted with corporate malfeasance.

This is the excerpt:

Dakuidreketi suspended

Fiji Times
Wednesday, June 27, 2007

INTERIM Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau has suspended Native Lands Trust Board member Keni Dakuidreketi after the independant investigation team into Fijian institutions cited certain allegations against him.

In his letter dated June 25, Ratu Epeli wrote to Mr Dakuidreketi stating the allegations surfaced over his role and capacity as a member of the NLTB board, chairman and director of Viti Development Company Limited and director of Pacific Connex.

"In view of these rather unfortunate circumstances, it would not be prudent if you were to continue to sit on the board of NLTB," the letter stated.

"Therefore in the interest of the NLTB and as chairperson of the Fijian Affairs Board, I am suspending your FAB membership of the NLTB board pending the outcome of the investigations into these allegations."

Mr Dakuidreketi confirmed receiving the letter yesterday but described the wording as 'generic' as it talked about allegations. "They are citing certain allegations which I do not know therefore I cannot comment yet," he said.

"Anyway, I am meeting the minister tomorrow and hope to discuss the matter with him."

Mr Dakuidreketi said his position as chairman of VDCL was an appointment sanctioned by the NLTB board.

Both suspended general manager of the NLTB, Kalivati Bakani and IT manager Mojito Mua were handed their termination letters citing 'no cause' recently by Ratu Epeli last week.

Fiji Village article quoted Dakuidreketi saying, "He has nothing to hide". Dakuidreketi met with Interim Minister of Fijian Affairs Board, Epeli Ganilau regarding the suspension letter he received, labeling its contents as "generic".

Fiji Times article reports that Ganilau and Dakuidreketi had a "fruitful" meeting.

This is the excerpt:

We had a good talk: Ganilau
Fiji Times
Thursday, June 28, 2007

INTERIM Fijian Affairs minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau said his meeting with suspended Native Lands Trust Board member Keni Dakuidreketi yesterday was fruitful.

[Ganilau]said they discussed issues stated in the suspension letter which was sent to Mr Dakuidreketi on Tuesday.

"It was a good meeting and I managed to explain the reasons of the letter and what was required from it," [Ganilau] said.

Mr Dakuidreketi agreed the meeting was "a good one" and they had discussed issues which were "well articulated". "There are certain allegations and I will have to look at answering these allegations but I am satisfied with the meeting," [Dakuidreketi] said.

On Tuesday, Ratu Epeli suspended Mr Dakuidreketi after the independent investigation team into Fijian institutions brought up allegations against him.

In his letter dated June 25, Ratu Epeli told Mr Dakuidreketi that the allegations surfaced over his role and capacity as a member of the NLTB board, chairman and director of Viti Development Company Limited and director of Pacific Connex. "In view of these rather unfortunate circumstances, it would not be prudent if you were to continue to sit on the board of NLTB," the letter stated.

"Therefore in the interest of the NLTB and as chairperson of the Fijian Affairs Board, I am suspending your FAB membership of the NLTB Board pending the outcome of the investigations into these allegations."

Mr Dakuidreketi described the wording as "generic", on Tuesday as it talked about allegations. "They are citing certain allegations which I do not know therefore I cannot comment on yet," he had said. Mr Dakuidreketi was also a central figure in the Natadola resort project in Nadroga.

Another Fiji Times article reports that, Interim FAB Minister has received the report from the NLTB investigative committee, which will be tabled in the next NLTB Board meeting. It is unclear if Dakuidreketi will be formally charged anytime soon, however S.i.F.M remains optimistic that the case will be heard in court.

Island Business article covers the initial investigations into APRIL and Natadola project, which began to unravel this web of dubious deals.
French born APRIL co-principal, Louis Gerard Saliot was confronted with his criminal past which he failed to declare on his application for an Foreign Investor License and subsequently APRIL's license was suspended, throwing the entire million dollar project into dire straits. It is interesting to note that, Fiji Trade & Investment Board (FTIB) which issued the Foreign Investor License had undertaken background investigations into Saliot, according to their website.

Unfortunately, this background check by FTIB, forgot to compare notes with Interpol and this error contributed to the present financial quagmire at Natadola. One would hope that the system of background checks has been rectified, but time will tell.

Natadola Development Limited
Posted: Wednesday 28 March, 2007

Natadola Development Limited was granted approval on 26 October 1995 to develop the proposed Natadola Hotel and Tourism Development. The shareholders in the venture were the AD Group Asia/Pacific and Gerard Saliot.

The application went through the investment approval regime which existed at that time where the investment application form did not require an investor to make a declaration whether he had a criminal record or had been declared bankrupt. However, as a safeguard, the Bureau required investors at that time to submit a bank reference.

Mr. Saliot submitted a bank reference, which prompted the Bureau to undertake a due diligence with Dunn and Brad Street. The exercise did not produce any adverse findings on Mr. Saliot’s business conduct and his bank advised that he had maintained a proper current saving account with the Hong Kong Bank.

Based on this finding, the Bureau submitted the proposal for approval, which received Ministerial endorsement in 1999.

On 10th August, 2004 APRIL Fiji’s accountant’s applied for a change in the group’s structure, which saw the formation of Natadola Land Holdings Limited (NLKH). In this new venture, Fiji National Provident Fund owned 51% of the shares and Natadola Marine Resort Limited the remaining 49%. It was on this same application, where one of the director’s declared that none of the shareholders were undischarged bankrupt.


Based on the information provided in the application form, on 23 August 2004 APRIL Fiji was issued with a foreign investment registration certificate to undertake consultancy services for the development and management of Natadola Integrated Resort Development by Natadola Holdings Limited.

On 6th October, 2005 Natadola Marine Resort Limited’s accountants advised FTIB of a change in company name and shareholding. The new name of the company is Hotel Property Pacific Limited. Under the new shareholding structure, Euro Asia Management Limited owns 95% of the shares and Euro Pacific Trade and Invest Propriety Limited own the remaining 5%.

The Bureau strongly views that any lending agency that lends out funds to an investor or companies should carry out their due diligence on the investors and FNPF is no exception. On the same note other government agencies should have carried out their own due diligence before granting approvals/licences etc. Investor screening is a responsibility of all agencies giving approvals.

Given the latest findings on Mr Saliot, the Bureau will now go through the process of reviewing the registrations granted to the NRML and APRIL. The relevant government agencies will be advised accordingly.

Sainiana Waqainabete
Senior Public Relations Officer

Factions of native landowners had threatened to withdraw their land, prompting the Interim Minister to appease their concerns with an official visit and even dangled out equities into the Tourism project, in exchange for the landowner's approval. Fiji Live article reported that, Interim FAB Minister urged the landowning faction of four tribes, out of the total seven; to think of their children's future.

Think of future generation: Ratu Epeli
Monday June 25, 2007

Fiji’s interim Fijian Affairs minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau says Natadola landowners should think of their future generation by making choices that will ensure the development of their land.

Speaking to landowners last week, Ratu Epeli said there is nothing better than investing for future generations.

His advice follows comments by spokesman for the Vanua O Nahoqo at Natadola, Ratu Osea Gavidi, that landowners will be taking their land back from the developers of Natadola Bay Resort and re-investing it for other use.

Ratu Osea said the allegiance of landowners no longer rests with the developers of the resort after they felt they had been mistreated. “There are certain issues that need to be resolved by the landowners and the developers but right now we are thinking of canceling the land lease which was issued to them.”

“By doing this we are able to do something on our land and we are thinking of leasing it to someone else,” Ratu Osea said.

Ratu Epeli however said landowners need to be consulted on such matters.

Fijilive

The final decision from this native faction with regards to the future of Natadola project, is pending. This faction is represented by Osea Gavidi, a colorful character from the same province of Nadroga. According to a Fiji Live article, it is same Gavidi who had attempted to set up an indigenous owned commercial bank with a $6 Billion donation from a fictional organization named: Office of International Treasury Control (OITC).

Former Senator, Dr Atu-Emberson Bain's speech regarding the 2002 Bill to amend the Native Land Act and Native Land Trust Act, is perhaps an impartial look at NLTB's role and underscores the smoke and mirrors behind this amendment in legislation, spearheaded by the SDL Government.



Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

And, Who'll Come a Waltzing Matilda With Me?

An astounding article from the Christian Science Monitor, reports that Australian Government has set loose soldiers to crack down on Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory of Australia.

"Federal troops arrived Wednesday to enforce tighter regulations on welfare payments and a ban on pornography and alcohol in Aboriginal communities."

However another article by "The Courier-Mail" reports that Australian troops in Iraq, have been ridiculed by US troops for avoiding bloody battles.

Unfortunately, the lack of Australian casualties in Iraq is not seen as much of a dent in the bravery of the soldiers, but highlights the increasing cowardice in the Australian civilian leadership.

What can be said of a nation's leader, who chooses to restrain the highly experienced soldiers in free-fire zones in Iraq, yet unleashes them on the civilian populace within Australian borders!

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Jurisdiction of Lawyers.

Fiji Live article reports that Australian-based lawyer John Cameron, who was representing local activist in a case against the Interim Government, was denied entry.

Cameron was detained at Nadi Airport, while flying into Fiji. Immigration Director, Viliame Naupoto stated that,

“Cameron has been abusing our laws for sometime, by unlawfully
using his visitor’s permit to work in Fiji”.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Live article:

Cameron was working illegally: Immigration
Tuesday June 26, 2007

Fiji’s Immigration department has revealed that Australian-based lawyer John Cameron, who represents local activist Angie Heffernan, was deported this morning because he was working illegally in the country.

Immigration director Viliame Naupoto has denied that Cameron’s “denial of entry” into Fiji was political in nature stating it purely related to him working without “proper papers”. Naupoto said two local lawyers had complained about Cameron’s “illegal” work status and the Immigration department acted on that tip.

“There is nothing political about this,” he told journalists in the last hour.

However, Cameron on June 13 had told the media that he would not be surprised if he is refused entry into the country. He departed for Australia two days later.

Cameron had also told High Court Judge Jiten Singh that he could be denied entry to Fiji during a case where he was representing the Fiji Law Society in its case against the appointment of the acting chief justice, Anthony Gates.

But Naupoto said Cameron has been coming to Fiji “and worked by representing clients in court without a proper work permit”.
“Cameron has been abusing our laws for sometime by unlawfully using his visitor’s permit to work in Fiji,” Naupoto said.

[Naupoto] said that while the Immigration Act allows that businessman on a visitor’s visa can work in Fiji for 14 days, “this provision is meant to allow for exploratory work for those that want to come and invest in Fiji”.

“It also allows a little freedom for foreign business people who have business entities both locally and abroad to come into the country and check their businesses here in Fiji.

“The provision was not meant for full fledged employment, like the way Mr Cameron was abusing it.”

Naupoto said it was hard to police individuals from overseas who come and “abuse” the 14 day work provisions but stated that Cameron’s deportation was not an isolated act, adding that the Immigration Department will react similarly to other solicitors who work illegally in Fiji.

“If Mr Cameron wants to work in Fiji, he needs to have approval to do so and that approval is issued via a proper work permit,” he said.

“He will have to first apply for a work permit and he needs to do this from outside Fiji as per the requirement.”

Cameron was to appear as Hefferans solicitor when her case is called before Fiji Court of Appeal President, Justice Gordon Ward later this afternoon.

Justice Ward had earlier today sought reasons from authorities on Cameron’s deportation and Naupoto said a response has been sent to the Appeals Court.

Cameron flew into the country last night to represent Heffernan who is taking legal action against the military for allegedly restricting her movements and freedom of expression following the December takeover.

Heffernan's case is the first court challenge to the Fiji military's attempts to detain civilians following the 2006 coup.

A second article by Fiji Live, reports that Cameron was on his way back to Australia, after being deported early Tuesday. Cameron's deportation was confirmed with an article from Radio NZ.

This is an excerpt from the second Fiji Live article:

Aussie lawyer sent back from airport
Tuesday June 26, 2007

Australian-based lawyer John Cameron was deported back home this morning after being detained by immigration officials following his arrival at the Nadi International Airport last night.

Cameron flew into the country to represent his client, local activist Angie Heffernan who is taking legal action against the military for allegedly restricting her movements and freedom of expression following the December takeover.

Cameron’s colleague and Fiji Law Society vice-president Tupou Draunidalo confirmed to Fijilive.com that Cameron flew into the country yesterday to prepare for the case, scheduled for later today.

“He called me last night saying he was being detained by immigration officials in Nadi and he was later deported at around 9 this morning,” Draunidalo said.

Asked whether Cameron was given any reason for his detainment, she said she had just heard that it had something to do with his work permit.

Immigration director Viliame Naupoto is holding a press conference this hour to explain the reason for Cameron’s deportation.

Heffernan's case is the first court challenge to the Fiji military's attempts to detain civilians following the 2006 coup.

Fijilive

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

US Congressman Backs Fiji and Reveals Double Standards.

American Samoan Congressman, Faleomavaenga Eni Hunkin says the US position on Fiji is unfair and when compared with US engagement with Pakistan, despite having a military dictatorship for 6 years.



read more | digg story

Don't leap to judge Fiji coup

Fiji's political scene was featured in a post from Whale Oil.A learned reader pointed me at this article from the Presbyterian Church. It is something which caught me by surprise.  I didn't know the Presbyterian Church could show such good sense.  [quote]However, the actions of the military and the appointment of the interim regime have attracted much criticism from overseas governments. There have been



read more | digg story

Anatomy of Fiji's Event Horizon.

Two different opinions on Fiji diplomatic ties from the same newspaper, NZ Herald. The first article from correspondent Audrey Young.

A new era of diplomacy
Audrey Young:
Page 1 of 3

5:00AM Saturday June 23, 2007


It may be good politics for Opposition leader John Key to praise Helen Clark and Winston Peters for the way they have handled the diplomatic crisis with Fiji, as he has in today's Weekend Herald, but he has good reason to mean what he says.

It is hard to see how Clark and Peters could have handled the immediate crisis better. Having been hit with the bombshell on June 7 that Fiji intended to declare High Commissioner Michael Green persona non grata, they worked hard behind the scenes to prevent it happening.

Clark has taken the hard line the circumstances demanded of a Prime Minister. Peters has been equally as condemning but adapted a "more in sorrow than in anger" tone, reflecting the sentiment many New Zealanders feel about one of their favourite neighbours.

It is inevitable New Zealand will be accused of bullying by those who prescribe only to fair-weather diplomacy in the Pacific. There are times when the "there, there" approach just will not do.

Clark and Peters have pitched their message carefully to take account of both audiences and to try to avoid pushing ordinary Fijians further into the arms of the military commander. They have also sensibly reserved New Zealand's decision on reprisals. A sudden move would have understated the offence.


They wanted to see what response the Fiji cabinet would have to an assessment that an election is possible in March 2009, which is acknowledged to be more important than the diplomatic insult. It was agreed to in principle, the importance of which was lost in the wash of the Green affair.

Also lost in the wash was an extremely conciliatory statement issued by military head and Prime Minister Commander Frank Bainimarama on Thursday, extolling the value of the relationship with New Zealand and pleading the case for limited sanctions.

Fiji's willingness to see off Green quietly by having him not return from holiday suggests his expulsion does seem to be grounded in a personal dislike by Bainimarama. Bainimarama's failure to set out a convincing case for having ordered the expulsion reinforced the personal nature of the decision.


He has accused Green of interfering but offered as evidence only a speech delivered two months ago on the coup culture. It was a strongly critical speech. It was probably more critical than some New Zealand has endured from former US ambassadors over the nuclear policy, but no less critical than New Zealand could expect from the US if the New Zealand Army installed a puppet government.

Bainimarama's behaviour mirrors the coup itself, purported to have been conducted in the name of ousting a (newly elected) "corrupt" Fiji nationalist Government.

The firm view within the New Zealand Government is that Bainimarama was motivated by his desire to avoid probable charges arising from the deaths by beating of four Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit members after they had killed four loyal soldiers (and almost Bainimarama) in a failed mutiny in November 2000.

New Zealand's short-term response to Green's expulsion will be a package of sanctions foreshadowed by Clark to be "serious and significant". They may not sound as such when they are announced because Clark and Peters are bound to sweeten the sanctions - banning transit for Government and military leaders - with an offer to help prepare for general elections in March 2009.

A replacement for Green is likely to be sent only if and when benchmarks are set in Fiji for the general election such as dates for the electorates and rolls to be finalised.

There are also high-level back-channels of communication open with Fiji which, by their very nature, are not broadcast to the world. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. As importantly, Clark and Peters have also maintained contact with Pacific Island Forum countries.


New Zealand's short and medium term priorities for Fiji appear to be helping it back to democracy which can put it back on path to economic development and independence. How to maintain that longer term is harder in a country with a coup culture that destabilises the whole region whenever one happens.

Constitutional reform hasn't worked on its own. Perhaps the only way to get rid of military coups is to reduce the power of the military.

No serious thought has yet been given to Australia and New Zealand recruiting large numbers of Fiji soldiers, in the way the British Army does, to boost their own ranks.

But it is an emerging idea in Australian think-tanks that may get a little more traction as officials and politicians on both sides of the Tasman start grappling with the need for a serious rethink on how they handle Fiji.

Despite expressing outrage at the situation, Clark and Peters have not delved too deeply into the politics of the coup. It is an unpredictable country led by an unpredictable man and they do not want to inflame the situation.

The racial politics of Fiji makes all coups complicated, this one more complicated that the last.

Although it was led by an indigenous Fijian military leader, it is seen widely seen as an Indo-Fijian coup. As well as the possible personal motivation for the coup, Bainimarama politically objected to measures that disadvantaged Indo-Fijians.

The coup has been embraced by many Indo-Fijians - with whom the commander has close personal relations - on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

The fact that the Fiji Labour leader Mahendra Chaudhry signed up to be Bainimarama's finance minister was a bitter blow for New Zealand Labour and others who had supported him after he was deposed as Prime Minister in the 2000 coup. It may explain the disgust in Helen Clark's tone.

Her hard line has been seized upon by economic victims and apologists of the coup.

In this paper and other media, tourist operators have blamed the New Zealand Government travel warnings - which are relatively mild - for their own economic plight.

Clark expressed concerns again this week, with a hint of moral persuasion - hardly surprising from someone who comes from a tradition of taking moral stands against immoral situations in other people's countries.

Former All Black and Fiji resort owner Brad Johnstone would be familiar enough with that having toured South Africa in 1976 and captained Auckland against the Springboks in the 1981 tour.

New Zealand's style in the Pacific is changing. Kava diplomacy is gone. It may have carved out a more independent foreign policy under Clark's leadership in most parts of the world. But in the Pacific it has worked more closely with Australia, and along the way acquired some of its style.

The appointment of someone as senior as Green to Fiji in 2004 - he was a deputy secretary - was a sign New Zealand was taking the Pacific more seriously than it had.

It is a change of style and emphasis that is set to continue into the future, whether it is under John Key or Helen Clark.

The second perspective from the New Zealand Herald Editorial had a different take on the behavior of NZ Prime Minister, comparing her reactions to the expulsion of NZ High Commissioner to Clark's meeting with the Delai Lama.

Editorial: Fiji needs a diplomatic touch like the one we show to China
Page 1 of 2
View as a single page
5:00AM Sunday June 24, 2007



Zoologists call it displacement activity: an animal in a state of stress, frustration or uncertainty will perform an irrelevant action. A bird confronted by an opponent may peck at the grass. Humans respond to nervousness or confusion by scratching their heads. And that very odd creature called a politician will, when faced with an challenge she does not know how to deal with, start throwing her weight around somewhere where she counts.

How else to explain the startling contrast between the Iron Lady stance adopted by Prime Minister Helen Clark towards the military regime in Fiji and the meek and compliant nature of the snub she and her administration delivered to the Dalai Lama when he visited this week? Clark's meeting with the spiritual leader of the world's Buddhists and the Tibetan leader-in-exile since the Chinese occupation and annexation of his country in 1959, in an airport departure lounge in Brisbane, was carefully planned but intended to look serendipitous. The reason was plain: we are in the midst of negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Chinese, who take a very dim view of any government recognising the Dalai Lama as the leader of a would-be independent Tibet. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters did not meet His Holiness, but NZ First leader Winston Peters did.

Taken together with the Government's apparent connivance in March when New Zealand-based Chinese journalist Nick Wang was denied entry to a photo opportunity between Michael Cullen and Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan, and with previous occasions when protesters have been hustled out of sight of visiting Chinese dignitaries, it adds up to a pretty craven look.

Critics of the Government's tiptoeing, such as Green MP Keith Locke, occupy an impeccable moral position when they demand that our representatives ignore the pressure - implicit and very probably explicit - brought to bear by the Chinese. But the People's Republic is the dragon of the world economy and this country would be foolhardy to ignore its sensitivities in matters of international relations.

Others have compared our position unfavourably with that of the Lange administration, which defied the nuclear hegemony in the 1980s. But the matters are not equivalent. The US in the mid-1980s had much less power over our trade fortunes than China does now. A better comparison is with the Lange Government's decision to release the Rainbow Warrior bombers, Mafart and Prieur, to what everyone knew would be brief internment on a Pacific atoll. Lange's attempt to paint the climbdown as a diplomatic victory fooled no one. And Clark's pas de deux with the Chinese is equally transparent. It would have been better for her to admit, in terms as vague and diplomatic as she chooses, that she was acting pragmatically, in this country's best interests.

Better, too, for her to practice a bit more of the diplomatic soft-shoe shuffle with the Fijians. The expulsion of our High Commissioner, Michael Green, is the sign of a Government under pressure, but no one should take comfort from that. It's hard to back down when your back is against the wall and Clark's thundering approach is the wrong one for a Pacific nation leader who needs to show leadership.

On his return, Green stopped well short of endorsing Clark's security warning to intending travellers. The PM would do well to work quietly behind the scenes to resolve the Fiji crisis, rather than coming out with guns blazing, causing collateral damage to Fiji's tourism industry. She may think she is diverting attention from the cringing attitude to China - but she is fooling nobody.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The 7 Sins of NLTB.

In a follow up to a S.i.F.M posting on Natadola, an article published by Fiji Sun reveals the gross malpractice in the negotiation phase of the project. Other investigations, as reported by a Fiji Village article-that FNPF was investigating the allegations of the loan being unsecured.

Recent report by Radio NZ of a whistle-blower from Fiji National Provident Fund outlining the alleged malpractices in Natadola, sent to the office of APRIL's Chief Executive Keni Dakuidreketi. Ironically, it was the same Dakuidreketi who was heavily involved in securing the native land in question, by virtue of being a board member of Native Lands Trust Board. This issue has ignited heated dicussions in online forums like Fiji Exiles and My Fiji Friends.

APRIL's foreign investor license cancelled
Friday June 01, 2007

The foreign investor license for Asia Pacific Resorts International Limited (APRIL), the sacked project managers of the multi-million dollar Natadola project, and two other related companies has been cancelled.

Interim Commerce Minister Taito Waradi confirmed that the licenses have been cancelled by the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau. It is understood that the FTIB had initially issued a notice of cancellation of licences for APRIL, the Natadola Land Holdings Ltd and a related company Hotel Property Pacific Limited (HPPL) early last month.

The companies were given 15 days to reply. The licenses were cancelled two weeks ago.
Waradi says if the companies wanted to appeal the decision, they have to appeal to the ministry. "And it hasn't come yet. So I don't know whether they are going to appeal or not," [Waradi] said.

A principal of APRIL, Keni Dakuidreketi says he does not wish to comment on this "because there is a legal process involved".

No comments could be obtained from FTIB on why the licenses were cancelled. Both FTIB chief executive officer Lailun Khan and board chairman Jim Ah Koy are out of the country. Ah Koy said he has been in New Zealand for three weeks and could not make a comment.

APRIL has been in the spotlight since the newly appointed Fiji National Provident Fund board axed the company along with contractors COTEBA in March claiming the Natadola project was 26 weeks late and only 10 per cent of the work had been carried out after about $60 million was pumped into it.

Felix Anthony, the chairman of Natadola Bay Resort Ltd (NBRL) also claimed that Interpol reports show that the promoter of the Natadola project Gerard Saliot had a criminal record, which he did not disclose when obtaining a work permit.

APRIL and its chief executive officer Saliot are the founders of the Natadola project. Anthony went on to reveal details of Saliot's past and cancelled APRIL's contact as project managers.

In 2004, the NBRL had hired APRIL to be project managers for this development. Saliot is the principal of the three companies.

Fijilive

APRIL subsequently had their Foreign Investor License revoked as reported by Fiji Live article; the decision of which, is currently being appealed by APRIL according to a Fiji Village article.

The following is an excerpt from a Fiji Sun article:

Natadola has no proper documentation
Fiji Sun.
Last updated 6/21/2007 8:28:02 AM

The ousted project manager of the Natadola Development Project did not provide proper documentation on the project, the Fiji National Provident Fund claims in its report to Cabinet. The FNPF also alleged that with the native defects it has, the Natadola investment does not have valid security.

Defects that are sufficient to void the native land lease include;

• No survey carried out over the native land as requirement of the Native Land Trust Board


• De-reservation of native land not completed on the date of sale on July 2, 2004


• De-reservation of native land for the new lease not completed


• No evidence exist that section nine of Native Land Trust act was satisfied objectively prior to the issuing of the lease of the land sold to NLH


• Dissatisfaction by landowners manifested in Civil action 33 of 2007


• Conflict of Interest that exist at all times between NMRL and NLTB on the issue of common directorship

The report also stated that the value attributed to the land and the concept contributed by APRIL, $20million, was greater than valuations of land prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle and Colliers, which was $5.5million.

• APRIL was entitled to a 15 per cent ‘special dividend’ on gross land sales


• APRIL secured fees from Management Works, was paid a monthly fee of . The whole Natadola project is unknown and it is not prudent investment procedure to have such an investment


• APRIL gained from contributing a defective land lease and not cash to finance the project


• Management services appear to have been given to APRIL to undertake because of its existing involvement in the project. The basis of APRIL’s dollar value of monthly fees is unclear and there appears to be no tender process in this regard


• Feasibility Studies were done by Euro-Asia Management which is an donkey of APRIL and thus independence is questionable


• NBRL continues to pay outstanding invoices to contractors who were contracted by APRIL since August 2006


• Due diligence and analysis originated from APRIL and not from FNPF or FIL


• Increases in total budgeted costs by $73.1 million from $270 million in 2003 to $343 in 2005.

Fiji Times article, quotes the Interim Fijian Affairs Board Minister who commented on the unsecured lease of the land occupied by the Natadola project. Undoubtedly, this very aspect of unsecured lease of native land, raises serious questions on the integrity of NLTB and quality control mechanisms into their entire portfolio of hotel projects in Fiji.

Lease hinders resort: Minister

Saturday, June 16, 2007


THE issue of the unsecured native land lease title at Natadola Resorts could have been ironed out had there been a clear line of communication between all the parties involved and the Native Land Trust Board, interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau says.

He said while the Fiji National Provident Fund required a properly secured lease to release the funds, the NLTB said a provisional or temporary licence was enough for the developers to begin work and even use this provisional title to solicit funds for development purposes.

However, yesterday landowner representative Ratu Osea Gavidi said landowners would now take their land back and would not allow Fiji National Provident Fund Investment Limited to continue development in the area.

Ratu Osea said landowners had been neglected in the ordeal and they were now doing what was best for them. [Gavidi] said they would consult the NLTB regarding their options and if the NLTB did not act in their best interests, they would seek legal redress.

Ratu Epeli said the NLTB's stand was that after issuing the provisional title developers could then secure the permanent title while development continued.

A subsequent article by Fiji Times in light of these discrepancies in Natadola, forced the Interim Minister to offer equity of the Hotel project as a good will gesture to the landowning units, after being manipulated by officials employed by NLTB.

Shares offer for landowners

Saturday, June 23, 2007

LANDOWNERS at Natadola have been offered equity shares in the multi-million dollar hotel project being developed on their land.

This was revealed by interim Minister for Fijian Affairs Ratu Epeli Ganilau at his first meeting with the landowners of the vanua Nasoqo, at Sanasana Village, in Nadroga, on Thursday.

[Ganilau] said the meeting was prompted by a visit initiated by landowners of Nasoqo, who raised several concerns about the Natadola project. He told the villagers they would have to clarify with the FNPF the company they would invest in and how much shares would be offered.

"This was the first vanua delegation to have visited me in my capacity as interim Minister for Fijians Affairs and Provincial Development," [Ganilau] said. Ratu Epeli said at the meeting it was clear to him the issues they wanted to him to look into, which was why he wanted to update them on progress made since then.

The delegation requested: The continuation of development at Natadola; that another meeting be held between the Fiji National Provident Fund and the landowners before they make a decision on APRIL, the original land developers; that the trickle effect of development on the land not be reserved to the lease premium or royalty but equity shares be offered by the FNPF so they could have ownership of the overall development.

Ratu Epeli said the FNPF had decided APRIL no longer held the licence to develop the area. He warned landowners to be vigilant of rumour monger."I urge you, the landowners, to be firm and to love one another in this matter," he said.

What is concerning is that, why weren't these project shares part of the original negotiations by NLTB?
Reviewing the reports into Natadola, it is now apparent that officials within the NLTB had undercut the landowners for their own financial gain. What irks most landowners and the greater public is that, Why didn't these transactions raise any red flags in the entire system of Fiji's land tenure?
What happened to accountability, checks and balances?

A Fiji Live article covers the preliminary investigations in Native Lands Trust Board and their involvement with Hotel developments in Fiji.

NLTB investigation report ready
Thursday June 21, 2007

A report on the investigation into Fiji’s Native Land Trust Board will be submitted to the Interim minister for Fijian Affairs tomorrow. The report will be submitted by the Independent Investigating Team into Institutions Fijian (IITIF), which was set up by the interim Government to investigate all Fijian institutions.

“A report will be handed over to Ratu Epeli and interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama for their scrutiny and also if the need arises than the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption (FICAC) will be involved,” said board member Ponipate Lesavua.

“Altogether 68 cases of corruption, illegal land sales, misuse of funds and secret dealings between certain chiefs and hotel developers are contained in the report,” he said.

He also said contained in the report are investigations regarding Fiji-born millionaire, Ballu Khan concerning his involvement with NLTB. “Although the NLTB board has carried out its own investigations into Khan, our team have come out with a different matter altogether.”

“Credit should be given to KPMG after auditing NLTB and this has also made our work much easier.”He said certain discrepancies have been labeled against Khan which is contained in the report.“This will not be revealed until it has been scrutinized by Ratu Epeli.”

A prominent chief is also under investigations for allegedly swindling thousands of dollars out of landowners and making dubious deals with hotel developers in the Coral Coast.“The case regarding the chief has been classified as a criminal case and we will surely involve police in this matter.”

IITIF have wrapped up investigations on the Native Land Trust Board and will be moving to the Ministry of Fijian Affairs soon before a ‘clean up’ at the Great Council of Chiefs begins.

The team comprises Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga as chairman and Ratu Luke Yavaca as deputy chairperson. Other members are former Senator and police inspector Ponipate Lesavua, Kalaveti Batibasaga, a consultant on indigenous affairs and Alifereti Roko, the senior auditor at the Ministry of Finance.

Other Fijian institutions subject to scrutiny by the team include the Fijian Affairs Board, Native Land Commission and all other interdependent institutions like the Fijian Scholarship Unit and Provincial Councils.

Fijilive

Club Em Designs

Blogging Ethics.

NZ Journalist, Micheal Field's new article post-deportation points to the postings from the blog: Why Fiji Is Crying that openly advocates violence.

Seriously, this blog has certainly made its mark in irresponsibility and should not be a reflection of all other Fiji bloggers. Speaking of which, S.i.F.M welcomes the two new blogs on Fiji: Blog in Fiji and Fiji Rugby Blog.

Club Em Designs

Diplomatic Straits.

Interesting article appearing on blog titled "The Briefing Room" which was also referenced on a NZ blog: Whale Oil Beef Hooked, which had a thought provoking posting regarding the expulsion of Micheal Green and deportation of Micheal Field. A seemingly opposite perspective was seen in the harangue by No Right Turn.

Fiji Problem

This in from a correspondent of ours:

Thought you might be interested in this, which I've sent to the PM, Winston, Mikky Cullen, Ron Mark, Leighton Smith, Rodney Hide Gerry Brownlee and Bill English

Methinks 'tis time for a modicum of good old-fashioned honesty, credibility, and integrity. This was sent to me by Thakur Ranjit Singh, a migrant from Fiji who is concerned about the way New Zealand is trying to undermine the progress of the return to a non corrupt government. It has been claimed that the "democratically elected government" was not above some dodgy dealings involving the Fiji Holdings Limited, no doubt more information will be forthcoming in due course. Jim Sowry, Warkworth

Michael Green and Field cannot blame others for their Fiji expulsion

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

If NZ Government claims that the expulsion of Michael Green came as a surprise then it is a white lie. This is because the NZ government was warned about Michael Green's behaviour some four months earlier by members of Fiji community in Auckland.

NZ Labour Party had been concerned with its falling ratings and intelligence that Fiji's migrant community had been unhappy with its uncompromising and insulting attitude towards Fiji. To gauge the feeling, it commissioned a meeting with Fiji's community leaders in Auckland at Ministry of Internal Affairs office where I was in attendance. The meeting was attended by a NZ Labour Party Minister, a listed Member of Parliament and leaders of Fiji community.

The meeting was told about Michael Green's behaviour towards the military regime as well as people of Fiji seeking services from NZ High Commission. It was reported that Michael Green was very close to Qarase regime and could not fathom the fact that he would no longer be in the cocktail circuit after Qarase's removal in December last year.

Subsequent to that it was recently revealed to me by an Auckland taxi driver where one of his Kiwi passengers reportedly told him that Michael Green was cross with the military because his brother had been involved in some investment in Fiji under SDL regime, and that was on hold at the moment. This I have not been able to confirm, and perhaps is a job involving some investigative journalism. Therefore it has yet to be revealed whether Green's wrath with the military was professional or personal.

We need to see how Fiji citizens got treated by Michael Green's regime at NZ High Commission in the Reserve Bank Building where the Commission is based. Before the coup, anybody seeking services could go up to their offices but after December, people were herded outside the building where you had to queue like herd of Kiwi sheep to seek services, in sun rain and storm.

While Australian High Commission could issue visitors visa in just ten days, NZ High commission took at least 30 days. An aunt of mine who is mother of two leading journalists in Fiji has applied for her visa to visit Auckland so see her sick brother in early April, 2007 but has only got her visa in June, only when the sponsor from Auckland had to call NZ High Commission.

New Zealand professes itself as a country leading in productivity, yet the time it takes them to process visas in Fiji after December shames them when compared to Australians or any other Embassy in the world. Perhaps it would be interesting to know how many unprocessed visa applications are held by NZ High Commission in Fiji today. It would run into thousands, and perhaps the reason why Air Pacific had to cut back on flights, as increasingly larger numbers of Fiji people are visiting New Zealand now.

Every man and his dog either applying for a NZ visa or already on NZ work permit were made to fill forms declaring that they were not related anyway to Frank Bainimarama. Under Michael Green's regime, you were your brother's keeper. Joe Rokocoko's fiancée, daughter of former military spokesperson had her work permit not renewed because she accidentally happened to be daughter of her father, while her cousin, bearing the same surname was denied a NZ scholarship because of accident of birth.

While Helen Clark and Winston Peters are political animals, Michael Green is not. He is supposed to be a respected career diplomat, but he revealed little evidence of this. Merely dancing to tunes of political leaders, who come and go, is not a very good habit for any astute civil servant. As the Commander recently said, we cannot argue about the legality of the events. We must be pragmatic and understand that Military was governing the country with the mandate of the President.

He failed to appreciate the reality of the situation and has now paid a heavy price for it.

The other Michael also came into prominence. The supposedly expert in Pacific affairs, Michael Field was detained at Nadi on the eve of marching orders to Michael Green and deported the following morning to New Zealand.

On 20th December, some two weeks after the removal of Qarase regime, Coalition for Democracy in Fiji held a panel discussion on Fiji affairs in Auckland. Apart from Suliana Siwatibau and N Z MP Keith Locke, I was also one of the speakers. Michael Field also attended this forum. In my presentation which was reported in Fiji as well as NZ papers, I revealed the ills of Qarase regime. The theme of my presentation was that: democracies that are devoid of or lacking in granting freedom, rights and equality to all its citizens and those without social justice are not worth defending. Qarase's regime that Bainimarama removed was an epitome of such a democracy. Michael Field did not report any part of my presentation. I am not cross that he did not report me but he displayed acute case of dereliction of media ethics in not telling Kiwis what they deserved to know.

Michael Field works for a very influential NZ mainstream media which shuns migrants as its journalists. When you look around at the paternalistic NZ mainstream media, they profess to be experts in Pacific affairs but hardly employ any sizable Fiji or Pacific journalists, as they rely on Kiwi parachute journalist to cover Pacific issues, and hence New Zealand's jaundiced views on Pacific.

While Michael Field had a strategic position to inform ignorant Kiwis on the actual Fijian politics, he missed this opportunity and abused his position in joining the bandwagon in calling the military thugs from day one and failed to reveal the shortcomings of Qarase to NZ. It is surprising that I as a migrant to New Zealand was made to reveal the actual truth about atrocities under Qarase's regime. I have difficulty in getting articles to mainstream media in NZ because the perception here is that migrants cannot write.

If Michael Field was indeed the veteran journalist then he should not have abused his position and status in keeping Kiwis ignorant about what was really happening in Fiji. My experience shows that like NZ Labour Party, New Zealanders generally are still ignorant about Fiji and this had to do with a journalist like Michael Field who while occupying an influential position indulge in news selling reporting rather than informative reporting.

Therefore the two Kiwi Michaels, both Green and Field had it coming. It is not only Bainimarama who needs to learn the art of Diplomacy, but on his return to NZ, Green needs to attend a course on diplomacy himself. Michael Green needs to be pragmatic about the situation as the interim administration was governing the country and decides what it does. As a diplomat, he was not a politician and hence should have respected Fiji's sovereignty.

And it is so important for New Zealand mainstream media to have Pacific or Fijian journalists reporting on Fiji issues and informing the ignorant Kiwis on local politics, so that they get the correct picture.

But unfortunately, the mainstream media in New Zealand is in no hurry to use Fiji journalist who have migrated to New Zealand, and will depend on jaundiced views from parachute journalists from New Zealand. Unfortunately, such views appear to get copied as New Zealand's foreign policy in the Pacific.

E-Mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz

(About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is Fiji migrant to NZ, commentator on Fiji issues and is human rights activist and advocate of good governance.)
Download winmail.dat

Another intriguing view of the expulsion of New Zealand's High Commissioner was a blog posting from Micheal Tarry's blog titled Magnus Frater Spectat Te.

This is an excerpt:

Fiji: It's an independent country now.

Sovereignty is a difficult and complex thing. Philosophers in several countries, in several centuries, in several notable tomes, have considered the concept. Thinkers from Aristotle to Bodin to Mill to Schmitt and others have thought and pondered, and each has a different position. Each has dismissed their predecessor, and each in turn was dismissed by their successor.

It would seem that the nature of sovereignty presents conundrums without answers at all; indeed, asking the political theorist to define sovereignty is akin to asking the theologian to define God, or the metaphysicist to define love.

Similarly, asking the theorist to determine who may exercise sovereignty and what rights and prerogatives such a sovereign might have would be like asking our theologian, having defined God, to tell us why we ought to believe in Him and not some other deity, or of our metaphysicist, who once setting out what constitutes love, is then called upon to tell us why, as the case might be, love is limited to relations between people and not animals.

The problem of sovereignty has been brought to the attention of this part of the world by the expulsion of the ambassador of New Zealand to Fiji by that country's current leader. The New Zealand High Commissioner, Michael Green, was ordered to leave Fiji by it's military ruler, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama because the latter had believed Green was interfering in Fijian domestic political matters.

Consequently, and understandably, governments across the Pacific have vented their collective spleen upon Bainimarama. One simply cannot go about expelling diplomats left and right. New Zealand and Australia talked of upping the ante with more sanctions, and our Prime Minister declared that Cabinet (which met this morning) would "weigh up it's options." Such is well and good, and Helen Clark is welcome to consider her position all day and well into the night.

In doing so, she would merely be exercising her right to make whatever decisions she likes as the leader of a sovereign and utterly independent country. New Zealand is it's own master: we have cocked snooks before at the United States, and the United Nations, and Australia, and China, and anyone whom we don't particularly wish to kowtow before on such-and-such an issue.

We lose all semblance of having anything approaching the moral high-ground when it is realised that Fiji, like New Zealand, is a sovereign state. Bainimarama's government can expel whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, entirely upon whim. Clark could do precisely the same for such is what sovereignty allows.

Crawford (in 1979) wrote "Sovereignty does not mean actual equality of rights or competences: the actual competence of a state may be restricted by its constitution, or by treaty or custom. The term sovereignty accurately refers not to the totality of powers which all states have, but to the totality of powers which states may, under international law, have." It doesn't matter whether we approve of Fiji's sovereign actions - we don't need to. We didn't approve of the coup - we didn't need to.

We condemned it, certainly, and we can heap opprobrium and sanctions upon Fiji for the reminder of eternity but it will not diminish in the least the existence of Fijian sovereignty and concordantly the prerogative of Fiji to do whatever it damn well wants within it's own borders. If they want coups galore, so be it: there's nary a thing we can or should do to prevent it. If they want to expel our ambassadors and ignore our entreaties, so be it: we have ignored their demands before.

If New Zealand does succeed in getting it's own way, then we will have proved only one thing. We will have shown that we are merely bullies of the sort we usually disapprove of. We will have refuted the principle that "sovereignty is the ultimate territorial organ which knows no superior." We will have trumped Bodin and his fellows, and will have added our own name to the list of philosophers-of-sovereignty who simply beg to be rebutted.

Interesting enough, the issue of sovereignty was raised last year as reported by Island Business article that, accused Australia of breaching it. Along with ignoring the moral dimensions raised by Journalist Graham Davis in his article.



Club Em Designs