X-Post: Whale Oil- Whale in Fiji: Pio Tikoduadua

by Whaleoil on September 5, 2012 

While in Fiji I was fortunate to meet Pio Tikoduadua, Permanent Secretary – Office of the Prime Minister. Again access was easy to obtain and certainly without the high levels of security that New Zealand politicians have around them. For a country that supposedly is under military control I certainly was left wondering just where are all the troops that need to go back to the barracks.

We discussed the “smart sanctions” and the impact on Fiji. Contrary to the intention of the “smart sanctions” in forcing Fiji to return to the democracy that we want for them, they have in fact helped Fiji to find their won way forward. Trade and Tourism has in fact grown despite the sanctions. The sanctions though have caused a deep resentment of the New Zealand and Australian governments. Mainly because the effects have been at a deeply personal level and have affected the health of people. They believe that the sanctions have failed the foreign policy goals of New Zealand and in fact have strengthened Fiji internationally and economically.

Here is a short summary [video posted below] of the pertinent points:



Pio Tikoduadua was openly dismissive of Phil Goff and his comments about Fiji prior to the South Pacific Forum. New Zealand’s neo-colonial attitude is not appreciated and the Fijian people and government find it insulting and condescending. The discussion around the independence of the judiciary and the effect of the sanctions on recruiting judges and officials. Tikoduadua believes that New Zealand’s and Australia’s belief that their judges and lawyers are the only ones that somehow qualified to work in Fiji is quaint and condescending and without merit.

The discussion over the Constitutional Reform process in Fiji was refreshing and one that perhaps New Zealand can learn from. There are no limits to the constitutional discussion and as I drove around Fiji there were constant advertisements encouraging people to participate and have their say about the Constitutional framework. Which then led into a discussion about the three constitutions that Fiji has suffered under, all that were “cooked up” by politicians and the processes ignored the people of Fiji.

The collusion of politicians and the Great Council of Chiefs to produce a constitution that created racial separatism that could only have caused problems. For these reasons they believe that Fiji needs to create its own Constitution.

The full audio [posted below]of the interview is below:

Club Em Designs

Café Pacific - David Robie | Media freedom and transparency: Freedom of the press on Fiji? You’re joking!

David Robie On NZ Media Reportage
"At long last, I thought, a factual article with opinions from people of differing views, leaving readers to form their own conclusions. My faith in the NZ media went up a notch, but it was not to last"

Café Pacific - David Robie | Media freedom and transparency: Freedom of the press on Fiji? You’re joking!: "Breathless NZ media coverage on Fiji ... Independent Fiji blogger Crosbie Walsh pens an 'editorial' on a New Zealand Herald editorial a..."




Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji Media Cartel - Grasping At Straws.

David Robie, a New Zealand academic, who specializes in media matters, comments on the objections by the industry cartel against the Media Inquiry.

Fiji Times Editorial responded to Dr Shameem's remarks with an exceptional display of predictable belligerence.

The following is an excerpt:

Shameem's wrong

Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Fiji Human Rights Commission has again got it wrong.

This time its director, Dr Shaista Shameem, says this newspaper, the Fiji Media Council and another newspaper"appear to be willfully obstructing and hindering the performance of Human Rights Commission's functions in breach of Section 47 (2) of the Human Rights Commission Act".

She refers to comments and reports in the two newspapers and communications between the council and the commission on matters relating to the media inquiry conducted by Doctor James Anthony on behalf of the FHRC.

She threatens to take legal action against all of us if"there is any further harassment of Dr Anthony" by the council and the two newspapers.

It will be interesting how she will prove in court, if it indeed reaches there, how we have been obstructing, hindering or resisting her work.

All the Media Council has been trying to point out to her and the commission is the apparent oversight in consulting stakeholders in the industry on the inquiry and its term of reference.

Why the heavy hand? Surely we, like anyone else in this land, are allowed to make known our views on such an important issue and Dr Anthony's credentials.

If Dr Shameem says that the Human Rights Act prohibits us that right, then she seriously should consider seeking a second opinion. Her threat to take legal action could be read as an attempt to obstruct us from exercising our constitutional right to freedom of speech. In fact there is a strong urge right now to lodge a complaint with the Fiji Human Rights Commission against herself for this reason.

Secondly, the council had shown its disappointment at the way Dr Anthony insulted and abused council secretary Bob Pratt on the phone. It is totally uncalled for and unprofessional. He wanted to complain about an article about him, but didn't want to follow established complaint procedures, and was, apparently, very rude about it twice. Dr Anthony has not bothered, as the council had requested, to apologise to Mr Pratt.

Dr Shameem's threat to take legal action is not going to stop this newspaper from commenting on the media inquiry, or on Dr Anthony's conduct. We doubt it will stop any media outlet, or the Media Council.

She should perhaps expect more comment: we consider her aggressive, misplaced threat a serious issue which not only concerns the media but which directly threatens an important constitutional right called"freedom of speech".

She should be well familiar with such rights, since she heads the body entrusted with the upholding of such rights. Dr Shameem has urged the Fiji Media Council to seek legal advice on the issue. We urge Dr Shameem to abandon this"tough guy" approach. It's unnecessary, and will ultimately have no effect. Consultation and discussion as we have been urging remains the answer, not dictatorial guidelines and misplaced legalese.

It's a prescription the FHRC could follow for everyone's sake.

Fiji Times published an article, quoting Fiji Human Rights Commission Representative, who alluded that the media cartel was "wilfully obstructing and hindering" the media inquiry in Fiji.

This is an excerpt of the FT article:

Shameem warns dailies
Fiji Times
Thursday, August 23, 2007

THE Fiji Human Rights Commission has warned two dailies that "any further harassment of Dr (James) Anthony" will require them to take legal action against the newspapers.

In a letter addressed to Fiji Media Council chairman Daryl Tarte yesterday, Commission director Doctor Shaista Shameem said she had reviewed the media coverage of the media inquiry it was conducting through Dr Anthony, by The Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun as well as the recent exchange of letters between Dr Anthony and Mr Tarte. She said she found the two dailies appeared to be willfully obstructing and hindering the performance of the Commission's functions, which breached section 47 (2) of the Commission Act.

"If there is further harassment of Dr Anthony by yourself or the Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun, I will have no option but to institute legal proceedings under section 47 (2)," said Dr Shameem. She said the Commission had no knowledge of the contents of Dr Anthony's findings with respect to freedom and independence of the media and would await his report.

[Shameem] said they were duty-bound to ensure Dr Anthony was permitted to do the work for the Commission without hindrance, victimisation or willful obstruction. Dr Shameem suggested that the letter be copied to the council and the newspapers' lawyers so that discussions on the legal implications "of such willful interference in the Commission's media inquiry by the media industry" could be held.

She said she had advised Dr Anthony not to speak to both newspapers and Mr Tarte.

"The independence of his report and personal reputation will henceforth be protected by the Human Rights Commission under the legal processes available to it," she said.Mr Tarte declined to comment on the issue, while Fiji Sun editor Leone Cabenatabua said they had not received anything as yet.

The Fiji Times editor Samisoni Kakaivalu said: "We, like anyone else in this land, should be allowed to make known our views on such an important issue and Dr Anthony's credentials."If Dr Shameem says that the Human Rights Act prohibits us that right, then she seriously should consider seeking a second opinion. Her threat to take legal action could be read as an attempt to obstruct us from exercising our constitutional right to freedom of speech."

Although, Fiji Times had provided reader feedback to this particular story; it is apparent that many posts that were critical of the Fiji Times were unceremoniously deleted by the webmaster. In addition, the next day the link to this feedback was conveniently hidden on Fiji Times website, while still available to the readers who examined their browser history tab.



read more | digg story

Media Matters in Fiji

Fiji Media Council Chairman, Daryl Tarte who also chairs the Capital Markets Development Authority (CMDA) made a remark about the gender imbalance in financial institutions in a speech reported by a Fiji Times article.
It was unclear from the context of Tarte's speech, whether the turn around of Fiji as he advocated; also extends to the "gender-imbalance" issue.

This is an excerpt:

Let us turn Fiji around: Tarte

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

BUSINESSES are operating in a confused, negative and stressful environment paving the political way ahead with uncertainty, says Capital Markets Development Authority chairman Daryl Tarte.

Speaking at the welcoming ceremony of new CMDA chief executive officer Mereia Volavola, he said people often invested at a time when there was blood on the street.

"Fortunately, we do not have any blood on the street but there is an incredible challenge for all of us. Times like this present a great opportunity for lateral thinking, to be innovative, to be bold, to be visionary," he said.

Strong, dynamic and wise leadership was sadly lacking, Mr Tarte said.

"We all know there are opportunities here in Fiji and we are all in a position to stimulate the capital markets.

"It is incumbent on us all to think positively and turn Fiji around. We the stakeholders in the capital markets must make this happen," he said. [Tarte] called for more brainstorming sessions by stakeholders.

In welcoming Ms Volavola, he said CMDA had come full circle after a succession of two CEOs, Julie Apted and Suren Kumar who was unable to make it to the handover as his wife was taken ill in New Zealand.

"Looking at the staff of CMDA, I see we have a serious gender imbalance. It is female dominated. Even the South Pacific Stock Exchange is led by a woman," Mr Tarte said.

He said Mr Kumar had to hand over by phone and email with Ms Volavola.

"What attracted him ( Mr Kumar) to us was his obvious energy, motivation and passion for the capital markets industry. We have not been disappointed. For him, it has been a 24/7 job. That was a tough call, succeeding Julie," he said.

On Mr Kumar's leaving he said "none of us are in control of the events that shape our destinies".

Does Tarte implicitly declare that there is a 'glass ceiling' for men, in the stock brokering industry? Tarte's ability to chair the boards of both entities, raise serious questions of conflict of interest. Where does the line of demarcation lie; when the Fiji Media Council is asked to provide an impartial review of media coverage in CMDA's performance?

One can only wonder how Fiji's Old Media can fathom the issue of wrong messages; as the Fiji Times Editorial accuses the Interim Government of.

This is the excerpt of the Editorial:

The wrong message

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

THE move by the interim Government to block prominent Suva lawyer Graham Leung from leaving the country sends a terrible message to the world.

Mr Leung is not under investigation for any suspected or real wrongdoing. He has no court order against him preventing him leaving the country.

Mr Leung's "crime" it seems, is to have said things that do not meet the approval of the interim Government. Certainly he has been forthright in his views on the December 5 takeover and subsequent events, speaking at a recent Hong Kong law conference about how he believes our nation's judiciary risks being seen as compromised through what he contends are some legally dubious appointments.

Mr Leung is an internationally respected lawyer. He is a vice-president of Law Asia, itself one of the world's most respected bodies of legal minds. Perhaps that position is now working against him too. Law Asia president Mah Weng Kwai was set to head the Fiji Independent Commission Against Crime until there was an uproar about it, with much of the outrage coming from within Law Asia itself.

And Mr Leung had been in the interim Government's sights before that. His law firm has been black-banned from doing work for the interim Government because it is involved in legal challenges to the legitimacy of the regime. The interim Government claims it is a conflict of interest.

Mr Leung has applied for a judicial review of the travel ban and is awaiting a hearing date.

In the meantime, it seems the only person who can fully explain why he cannot leave the country is interim Home Affairs Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, who has so far refused to tell Mr Leung why he is on the immigration watch-list. He is, of course, not the only person in such a situation and joins a seemingly ever-growing group.

The interim Government is desperate to tell the world that all is normal in the country. It is also desperate to win international acceptance of its actions and continually argues it should not be punished because it is acting for the greater good of the nation.

Banning dissidents or people who do not meet some mystery criteria is not the action of a government that has nothing to hide but reeks of a repressive regime intent on silencing alternative viewpoints. The truth is that in this electronic age, banning people from travelling will not stop them being heard and therefore the bans come across as, at the very least, petty vindictiveness.

Once again, the nation has lost ground in the eyes of the world and yesterday's events will do nothing to redeem our reputation in that arena.

T he FT Editorial begs the question of, what is the right message?
Is the Fiji Times along with the cartel called Fiji Media Council, the sole determiner of whether a message is right or wrong; right or left?

The Fiji Media mongols defended the role of the media's coverage in a Fiji Times article.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Times article.

Media is only 'playing its role'

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

AT least two media organisations have labelled the comments made by interim minister for health Dr Jona Senilagakali as a mistake.

Dr Senilagakali said on Sunday the steadfast stand taken by the Fiji Nursing Association were due to the union leaders who were paid to make noise and the media for the headlines it used.

Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter said the comments by Dr Senilagakali were the usual tactic of pinning the blame on the messenger.

"I think he's making the usual mistake of blaming the messenger," Mr Hunter said. He said the media was only there to report on what the nurses wanted.

Communications Fiji Limited managing director William Parkinson said he did not know how the media could be blamed on the issues raised by the nurses. "The media shouldn't be blamed because they are there to cover the story and that is our role."

Mr Parkinson said the media was not a player as it was between government and the FNA.

The Fiji Times, in an editorial comment yesterday, said Dr Senilagakali should sit down and address the nurses' problems rather than blame the media and the union.
End of story

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Common Knowledge of Editorial Stove-Piping in Fiji.

Fiji Media Council was rather quick to denigrate the travel ban placed on the former CEO of Fiji Broadcasting Corporation in this Fiji Times article and FT Editor was only too happy to publish the concerns of one SDL apologist, to another.
This is an excerpt:

Media council berates ban

Sunday, July 08, 2007

THE Fiji Media Council is disturbed that former Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Limited chief executive Francis Herman had been stopped from leaving the country.

Council chairman Daryl Tarte said Mr Herman was a senior member of the media and his treatment was quite disturbing.

"I think the media council is very disturbed that a senior member of the media was treated this way," he said.

Mr Herman was stopped from leaving Fiji for a media conference in Australia last Wednesday by the Fiji immigration after his name was found to be in a watch list.

Meanwhile, the FBCL board has come to the defence of Mr Herman who is being investigated over allegations of alleged abuse of office.

Board chairman Daniel Whippy in a paid advertisement in the local dailies "vehemently denied allegations of abuse of office" against Herman and the company.

"The allegations are mischievous, baseless and considered acrimonious campaign by a former disgruntled employee whose aims are to discredit the FBCL and Mr Francis Herman," he said.

Mr Whippy said FBCL was appalled that both the company and Mr Herman were subjected to vilification and vindictiveness by the former employee.

"External audits of the company's finances have always been carried out by reputable external auditing firms under the supervision of the Office of the Auditor-General," Mr Whippy said.

Mr Herman yesterday confirmed he had met with Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption deputy commissioner George Langman on Thursday.

He said he met Mr Langman on Thursday to clarify why his name was on the watch list.

FICAC media relations officer Loraini Seru said another meeting had been arranged with Mr Herman next week to deal with the allegations.

Immigration director Viliame Naupoto said yesterday Mr Herman's name was still on the watchlist.

T his reaction is rather predictable given that Fiji Media Council is embedded with several Fiji media personnel and any endorsements, or opposition from this cartel should be realistically viewed with extreme caution.

Frequently, any editorial positions from this cartel has been analyzed to sing a unified tune and often echoing sentiments raised from their own stove-piping information or news flow.
An overwhelming amount of evidence supports that premise of bias in the Fiji Media and the burden of guilt now weighs heavily on the conscious of well informed readers.

Unfortunately, it rather misleading to feature alone this incident of Herman's travel ban; without appraising readers of Herman's dark past of muzzling an experienced and well appreciated radio journalist, and further remind readers of this amazing twist used by the media elite in Fiji; which provides lip service to the so called ideals for "Freedom of Expression" and "Media Independence" under a so called "Democractic Elected Government". Mass produced tags that ride a cushion of half-truths, compounded by this entrenched layer of corruption.

Case in point: In March 2006, Messr Herman fired the renown radio personality, Sitiveni Ratulala for interviewing Army Commander Frank Bainimarama, regarding the military truth campaign before the 2006 elections.

It is rather unfortunate for the Fiji Media Council to defend Herman, and disappointingly choose not even raise a finger for Ratulala, let alone issue a statement denouncing it. In the eyes of Fiji Media Council, Herman has more rights of Freedom, than Ratulala. S.i.F.M denounces this hypocrisy and calls for the Fiji Media Council and Fiji Media Watch to step up to the plate call a strike, a strike and a foul, a foul.

Avoiding, Evading, Denying an even playing field in media coverage is among the classic uses of turf protection displayed by the Fiji Media Council.

It is quite simply appalling to observe this degree of selectivity employed by Fiji Media Council. Quick off the mark, to raise the issue of freedom of expression
and defend all and any ethical violations of the media elite;
yet embarrassing slow and cumbersome to even
issue any statement decrying the recent coverage of
the Interim Finance Minister, which unfolded in
a Fiji Times article,
with overtones of sensationalism.

The reporting lines of some of these "Free media" advocates are now being drawn in the sand; separating those despotic media robber barons in Fiji and those on their payroll directly or indirectly, from honest readers and observers. The same readers and observers, who now are increasingly disgusted, with the glass house belonging to the ilks of Fiji Media Council; a corporate ogre, which routinely throws stones of clique idioms like freedom of expression. But only when it suits their agenda, purchased and designed by the highest bidder.

Fiji Media Council does not represent the public, which the Fiji media are duty bound to impart factual information. Fiji Media Council has no representation from native landowners, whose concerns of their native land being abused, fitted their campaign of fear; using the ethno-nationalistic talking points that created a series of divisive political fractures in Fiji society. Fiji Media Council does not have any cohesive grassroots representation from any segment of the multi-racial fabric of Fiji; all of whom have been their silent victims of the media's calculated campaign of defamation, first seen in 1987 and magnified in 2000.

Fiji Media Council, is in fact a culpable mouthpiece and an accessory to capital crimes; for their abysmal effort in encouraging public discourse on abuses of NLTB and native land. Some Fiji media outlets have even used the status quo in native land as a solid revenue stream, rather than providing readers of Fiji with investigative articles, to solve, trace and discern these reoccurring and grave abuses of office(long complained by Fijian mataqali landowners)now being unraveled in the clean up campaign.

Freedom of Expression in Fiji is a two way street, which the media have long exploited. Freedom of the Media, as one scholar exclaimed, is restricted to those who own one. This inconvenient truth, is slowly being understood by the masses in Fiji.


S.i.F.M post titled Fiji Media and Ethical Deviations had pointed out instances of this blatantly unfair coverage that has surprising roots in the 2000 putsch.

The following is a article covering the reactions to Ratulala's dismissal from an earlier S.i.F.M post:

Druavesi warns FBCL

Fiji Broadcasting Corporation chief executive officer Francis Herman should come out publicly on who gave him the directive to sack popular Fijian talk back show host Sitiveni Raturala. Soqosoqo Ni Vakavulewa Ni Taukei Party secretary Ema Druavesi yesterday warned Mr Herman to be careful, as he had been used to fire a Fijian, who had a huge following in the Fijian community for many years.

“The Fijian community is not happy with the actions of the FBCL,” she said. “Mr Raturala’s talkback show has a huge following throughout the country and now the Fijian people are not happy. There was nothing wrong in his interview with the army commander. Actually, it was well received by the Fijian community because they now have heard straight from the horse’s mouth.

“Mr Herman should be careful not to be caught in the web because the Fijian people will see him as a villain even though he is innocent since he is acting on higher orders to safeguard his job as well.” Ms Druavesi said the Government should appreciate the fact that it was through Mr Raturala’s popularity and ways of conducting his talkback shows that had helped the FBCL stay afloat.

Mr Herman said the FBCL’s editorial policies like all other independent and credible news organisations, reiterated their strong commitment to promoting and upholding the free flow of information, the principles of democracy and respect for human rights.

“It also demands objectivity, balance, impartiality and requires that we maintain a high degree of balance, fair play and justice in all our broadcasts,” he said.

However, Ms Druavesi said Mr Herman may have his reasons but the Fijian community did not see that. “Mr Herman should come out publicly whether the directive came from the Prime Minister’s Office but if he refuses he should not blame anyone because now he has been used,” she said. Ms Druavesi said the FBCL for its survival should apologise to Mr Raturala and reinstate him before it lost its Fijian listeners.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs