Fiji's Police Commissioner is quitely seething at this R.T.U Bill. This Bill also will receive the baptism of fire when confronted with land issues in Fiji.
This grand Fijian coalition designed by Old Farts like these people in the collage, are gearing up for the 2006 elections with their racial based incentives.
Qoroniasi is up to his old tricks of tampering with existing laws for his own agenda. However Fiji Womens crisis Centre won't let that happen without a showdown in Court.
Qarase's Ministers continue to churn out concentrated dosages of gooey lip-service for the battle against Corruption and Multi-racialism. Mssr Tavola, refer your attention to international accepted precepts used in 'Freedom of Information' or 'Whistle Blower' Laws.
Great Council of Chiefs Chairman does not need to explain their baseless and unsubstantiated decision to support the Bill. Everyone knows that the institution, as well as the Provincial councils are POLITICAL PUPPETS. Just protecting their own interests.
The Fiji Labour unions are also expressing the anger at the honesty deficit within Fiji Public Service. No wonder skilled migration of Health workers from Fiji, is on the exponential rise.
National Alliance Party Chairman and former Chairman of Great Council of Chiefs is moving towards a society of inclusiveness in Fiji which is dratically needed to move forward in todays global village. We need to re-think, re-evaluate all previously held conceptions in Fiji's template of Politics. Obviously change is needed but there are Elements of Danger in Fiji who do not want to decentralize power, decision-making and control. These people defend their turf with tooth and nail.
The race card used by succesive Fiji Governments is a political 'Red-Herring' for failed efforts in multi-racialism. Fiji Times Editorial comments on the modern trends of mobile manpower. Human capital is on the move from Fiji. Too bad, Qarase et all can't stop them. Their despotic policies are in fact accelerating this outflow.
More selected letters to Fiji Times Editor.
Chiefly wisdom
THE wisdom of the august Great Council of Chiefs is questionable as most of them do not pay basic tax for the simple reason that for most of them are unemployed or unemployable villagers.
Why does this government pay so much priority in appeasing the non-taxpayers of this country?
The debate on the Unity Bill should start with the assumption that taxpayers have the last say rather than the least say. There are only two constants in this world — death and paying tax, all others including politics and chiefly wisdom are superfluous.
Jone B Raiva
Suva
Title disputes
I THANK Justice Devendra Pathik (FT 16/7) for referring the title dispute of the Tui Vuna back to the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission.
After all the commission has the evidence and power to decide on the validity of cases that come before it. Perhaps the dispute over the Tui Nadi claim could be resolved in the same manner because it has been dragging on for too long.
As an illustration, taking chiefly disputes to court is like one faction pulling the head of a cow and in the middle are lawyers milking the cow for all she's worth.
I wish all High Court judges followed Justice Pathik so that all pending chiefly disputes are resolved quickly by the commission without interference from the High Court via an injunction. Some lawyers are getting fatter from the amount of milk they're drinking.
Alipate D. Tuidraki
Sabeto
Feeding Fiji
AGRICULTURE Minister Ilaitia Tuisese recently said Fiji could save $300m in costs if farmers produce vegetables for the tourism industry.
Let us be realistic. Were Fiji to be self-sufficient in fruit, vegetables and a wider range of meat/fish products, we would save more than $300m. With a will, I am sure the way forward can be found.
However, the types and quality of produce must meet customer expectations, otherwise the exercise will be in vain.
We all want to eat what we enjoy, not what is thrust at us in the name of import substitution. Witness the amount of root vegetables flown to Fiji military outposts to accommodate the needs of our troops so that they may enjoy their favourite product, unobtainable in their locale.
Years ago I was fortunate enough to attend an Asian Productivity Organisation review of the tourism product in Thailand. There in the northern hinterlands of that land, Thais grow among other things, quality fruit and vegetables ranging from peaches, pears, and rhubarb to asparagus, broccoli and zucchini on land not dissimilar in height above sea level, and of equidistance from the equator to Nadarivatu.
This program was put together by USAid as a drug substitution effort. The production well serves the Thai tourism industry by providing quality product for demanding customers.
Another area renowned for quality of its beef is Taveuni, in many ways similar in quality to Vanuatu beef. Raviravi once produced quality prawns. I know it can be done because once upon a time it happened at Nadarivatu and Taveuni.
However, it needs enormous dedication from the hotel industry, political will from the leadership and commitment from the growers and distributors.
There have been many failed efforts in the past for one reason or another. However, if international hotels in China make it work through budgeting and placing orders for local food a year in advance, it can surely work in here.
Let's look at the Chinese model. It may just work to Fiji's advantage as well.
Kevin Mutton
Nadi
No strikes
STRIKES (FT 23/7) are always depressing.
Invariably they represent a destruction of wealth, often a loss of customers and jobs. There has to be a better way of resolving differences. A strike in a public sector utility causes hardship to everyone.
Everyone is inconvenienced. Fragile and sick people are endangered, businesses lose money and possibly customers and tourists are driven away.
The strikers lose income. Often the losses are never recovered. A strike in a private sector industry like tourism costs the operators money (and encourages them in future to invest in other countries).
It drives away tourists, and again the strikers lose income. Once customers and money are lost, they are never recovered. All contracts of employment should contain binding "no-strike" pacts.
There must still be a way of resolving disputes. A "no-strike" pact must not become a charter for bad employers. A viable alternative is a contract of employment which stipulates that disputes must be settled by legally-enforceable binding arbitration.
This is a big step for both parties to take: Both employer and worker seem to be giving up the right unilaterally to say "no".
But it does provide a way of eliminating the destructiveness of strikes, which is no benefit to the employer, employee, customer and everyone else.
"No strike" contracts of employment and binding arbitration are standard in many industries in the US and in most of the private sector in Britain.
It will only succeed if both parties have faith in the arbitrator. The choice of arbitrator must be specified in the contract.
For example, a high court judge from an independent country might be a sensible choice.
The real danger with an arbitrator is that he will simply recommend a middle path compromise between two positions.
This leads to more inflated demands, and ultimately causes national inflation, which effectively is a tax on age and on savings. There is a way to avoid this by specifying "pendulum" arbitration, where the arbitrator has to find for one claim or the other.
This tends to result in both sides trying to make their position look reasonable and usually leads to a rapid agreement without arbitration. Pendulum arbitration is an unusual addition to labour relations but it is normal in a law court, where a judge (or jury) has to decide if someone is guilty or not.
Someone cannot be half guilty — either they killed someone or they didn't. I worked with pendulum arbitration for 10 years. It was a breakthrough in terms of labour relations, losses against the employer, losses against the worker and lost customers.
There is a better way. Lets get rid of these stupid strikes where nobody wins.
Peter Chadwick
USP
Defence Ministry
WOULD it be possible for the army to come under one ministry to be named the Ministry of Defence?
The minister should preferably have a military background. Thus when the minister, a political appointee, gives the army commander a directive, it should be seen as an order.
The present stand-off between the army and the Government saddens me in that while they should be working together, they are at loggerheads over a damn Bill. Could this be because the minister is a civilian? If the minister had a military background he or she would see the commander's point of view.
And this will also enable the army to have a direct voice in Parliament.
Allen lockington
Lautoka
No comments:
Post a Comment