3:10 To Suva- Australian Comments Exaggerated

Croz Walsh's Blog -- Fiji: The Way it Was, Is and Can Be: (G) Media Decree: Australian Comments Exaggerated: "The reported comments of Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith on Fiji’s Media Industry Development Decree is grossly exagger..."

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji Times -Hoisted By Their Own Petard. (Edited)

The released independent report (PDF) on tax evasion.

"FIJI Times Limited has been ordered to pay interim Cabinet Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi $30,000 in defamation damages for articles and letters to the editor published between 1999 and 2003."

"It is quite clear that the allegations of the Fiji Times are merely that, and covers the spectrum from absurd to ridiculous".

A foregone conclusion

Fiji Times Editorial. Wednesday, March 12, 2008

THE conclusion of the inquiry into interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's tax matters was foregone. Once the terms of reference were made known at the weekend, even a blind person would have been able to see what the three-member team would say in its report.

There was no mention in the terms of reference of the $A1.6million at the center of the tax issue. There was no mention of who provided the money or, indeed, where these mysterious funds may be at this time. Nor was there any attempt to find out how involved a foreign power has been in the internal politics of this sovereign nation.

It is obvious from Mr Chaudhry's bank statements that over $A500,000 was deposited in his account by a Sydney-based consulate general of a foreign government. This government has always decried the attempts of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to influence our affairs.

This time, however, it has been deafeningly silent. More troubling is the fact that this team was chosen, provided a terms of reference and started work without the public being informed that the inquiry would take place. By the time the interim administration announced the team's terms of reference, the report had been prepared and was ready for dissemination.

This is rich, coming from a regime which espouses transparency and accountability. Last week this newspaper approached several members of the administration to seek information on this matter. At no time was any information forthcoming on the issue.

This secrecy does not augur well for the regime or the nation. Neither does the fact that at least one member of the inquiry team has been contracted by the interim Attorney-General to provide tax advice on a project involving the State.

But the exercise has now been exposed for what it was a sham.

Hoisted By Their Own Petard.

The Fiji Times Editorial of March 12th 2008, decrying the independent report into Mahendra Chaudhry's alleged tax evasion is disturbing for many reasons. First and foremost, it has reinforced the concept that the Fiji Times has an unhealthy fascination to tarnish the reputation of the report, in retaliation for the upcoming court trial for defamation of character.

Secondly, it also appears that the Fiji Times has up-changed gears in its smear campaign against the efforts of the Interim Government, stemming from the proposed charter to take Fiji forward, the proposed native land de-reservation project, to this failed mud slinging effort of tax evasion and its recent released independent report.


The Fiji Times (FT) Editorial says:

“Once the terms of reference were made known at the weekend, even a blind person would have been able to see what the three-member team would say in its report”.

It is rather unfortunate that the Fiji Times had used the example of a blind person to launch its tirade of visceral allegations, based on layers of inaccurate and unfair reportage. The choice of metaphors by the Fiji Times reveals the unapologetic stance of the publication, which has now painted itself into a corner and now has resorted to breaking the walls of reason, to escape the wrath of legal proceedings.

If the Fiji Times had published a braille version of its paper, so that the blind people of Fiji could be updated with current affairs, perhaps they would also detect the subtle and underlying bias, punctuated by a litany of factual errors, as well as an embarrassing track record of plagiarism.

The FT Editorial continues its scatter shot of allegations that, spin off the tangent of tax evasion, into wild speculation:

[...]Nor was there any attempt to find out how involved a foreign power has been in the internal politics of this sovereign nation.

It is obvious from Mr Chaudhry's bank statements that over $A500,000 was deposited in his account by a Sydney-based consulate general of a foreign government. This government has always decried the attempts of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to influence our affairs.

If those allegations are true, the Interim Government would not have jurisdiction in taking action against the Sydney based Consulate General and further to that, if the FT has evidence that alleged deposit came with the expectation to disrupt the tranquility of Fiji via violence; then by all means report that the matter to authorities. To fallaciously assert that all donations from Foreign Embassies, also come with expectations to influence internal politics; then most Non-Profit-Organizations in Fiji would be guilty of the sin.

It is quite clear that the allegations of the Fiji Times are merely that, and covers the spectrum from absurd to ridiculous. If foreign intervention was really a concern to the Fiji Times, then the Fiji public should be concerned about the troubling events in 2006 where covert Australian troopers had overtly undermined the sovereignty of Fiji, by avoiding the Immigration Checks at Nadi terminal, in addition to importing undeclared weapons in silver boxes, which is a serious breach of International Law.
News of this was covered by:

The Australian.

Fiji Times article.

SiFM posting : "Of Arms and Men".

SiFM posting: "Aussie- Oi,Oi,Oi".

It was also brow raising that these troopers were whisked away in Fiji Police vehicles, under orders from the Australian Police Chief. Unashamedly, the FT coverage of this gross and willful defiance of International Protocol was poor and the reportage glossed over the severity of the case, in comparison with the obsession into the alleged tax evasion.

Fiji Times Editorial then returns to the tax evasion and in particular the terms of reference:

“More troubling is the fact that this team was chosen, provided a terms of reference and started work without the public being informed that the inquiry would take place".

This marks the high water mark of the lack of FT's impartiality and objectivity.

Although, the Fiji Times Editorial demanded that an independent inquiry take place over the allegations of tax evasion; now the FT is crying foul, simply because they were not privy to the terms of reference.

Since the report had exonerated Mahendra Chaudhry, one would ponder, if the terms of reference would ever be questioned by the Fiji Times, if the result was reversed?

Sadly, the only secrecy that is embarrassing obvious to readers, is the ulterior motive of the Fiji Times, which had launched a similar defamation campaign against the 1999 Coalition Government; and subsequently lost a law suit pertaining to that campaign. Article on defamation case in Fiji Times.

The excerpt:

Times to pay Vayeshnoi

Thursday, November 29, 2007

FIJI Times Limited has been ordered to pay interim Cabinet Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi $30,000 in defamation damages for articles and letters to the editor published between 1999 and 2003.

Mr Vayeshnoi had filed two cases against Fiji Times Limited. The first case filed in 1999 was against then editor Samisoni Kakaivalu, chief sub-editor Netani Rika and Fiji Times Limited.

In the second case filed in 2005, Mr Vayeshnoi filed an action case against Mr Kakaivalu, Mr Rika, then senior reporter Margaret Wise and Fiji Times Limited. There were 12 occasions on which Mr Vayeshnoi alleged he was defamed. He had sought $320,000 in damages but Justice Jiten Singh found he was defamed on five occasions only and awarded him $30,000.

Fiji Times Ltd had argued that all of the publications were fair comment on a public, political figure and protected by freedom of speech in a democratic society.

It also argued that his electoral support had increased and he had risen in parliamentary ranks after the publications, showing that they had not damaged his reputation.

Mr Rika, who is now the Editor/Editor-in-Chief of The Fiji Times, said they would appeal against the ruling. "We believe there are strong grounds for appeal," he said.

Fiji Times articles had tossed 'soft-ball' questions into the actions of SDL Government during its 6 year reign, which had squandered and mis-appropriated state funds as demonstrated in the Agricultural Scam court trials, involving enormous sums of money that, make the sums in the tax evasion look like loose change.

The Ag Scam was addressed in an article from Pacific Islands Report and SiFm posting: "Probing the Deep End".

The FT also did not question how the donation of garden tools and outboard motors procured by the Agricultural slush fund, was a form of vote buying. Neither did the FT ever question or independently research how such vast sums could be used by the convicted mid-level civil servant, without the complicity of the higher echelons of the SDL Government. Nor has the question of how a $F20 million state loan, which was converted to a grant ever been addressed by the FT.

As an old English expression outlines, “You cannot run with hares and hunt with the hounds”.

Undeniably, the only sham and forgone conclusion that has been revealed is the culpability of the Fiji Times in defaming, discrediting and destroying the reputations, character or integrity of people who are trying to move Fiji forward.
.






Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji's Giant Leap Forward- A Threat To The Elite Minority?

Differing views on the matter of Fijian Affairs Department and its impact on the lifestyles of native commoners. One such view was detailed in a Letter to Fiji Sun Editor.

Fijian progress
Last updated 11/28/2007 8:21:17 AM

It is important to have a clear view of Mahendra Chaudhry’s perceptions (FS 26/11) relating to the position of the Fijian people given that he wields a lot of power in the interim government.

This is because I think his thinking that compartmentalisation is delaying Fijian progress” needs to be debated widely because it has been proved over time to be quite untrue. I also think that the rest of the community are largely no better than the Fijian community itself given the fairly advanced civilisation from which they all emanate.

In fact I think the giant forward steps that the Fijian people have achieved in the 133 years since when Fiji was ceded to Great Britain are so large that it is quite frightening. Even more so is the progress we have achieved can only be viewed as “a steep climb” in a proverbial progress graph.

Now, tamper that with the fact that the Fijian people are poised to reach the million mark in their numbers in several years from today. Yes we have progressed, and how much of that progress can be attributed to what Mr Chaudhry sees as “compartmentalisation” is interesting.

In fact the use of that term misleads somewhat because in reality what has happened can be better described as “incubation”. And let us face it, it has paid off handsomely for a race of people who needed to catch up in a modern world that is galloping faster today than it did yesterday and even more so tomorrow.

Perhaps Mr Chaudhry is questioning the rate of that progress. So the question we would have to address is how much faster really could the Fijian people grow, without destroying the fabric of their own society?

While it is relatively easy for Naigulevu to point fingers at the Interim Minister for Finance regarding the policy, much can be said of the reluctance of some elite Fijians to remove the yoke of oppression and compartmentalization which has served Naigulevu and people of his ilk quite well.

Although, Naigulveu claims the compartmentalization is in fact a period of "incubation"; begging the question, of the need for an unending incubation period. If a segment of the population is perpetually in incubation, it ceases to become a cocoon of protection, but lingers dangerously as an incinerator for aspirations. A death sentence to the native commoner's hope for social mobility

Another correspondence also commends the initiative of removing vestiges of colonialism, which Fijian Affairs Board is an icon of. The letter to the Fiji Daily Post Editor outlines those points:

Downgrading ministry
28-Nov-2007

Sir,

WHILE we are all concerned about such move, we should remain positive that the change will bring about the desired benefits and peace among the Fijian community.

Let’s hope that the Interim Government will explain in details as to why such action has been made and its benefit to the Indigenous people. There is nothing to be worried about.

Laisenia Qarase’s brainwashing tactics has a purpose and that is to incite uncertainty in the hearts of the indigenous Fijians especially in giving “half-cooked” information to the people at village grassroots level. Don’t allow this good initiative by the Interim Government to shake us. Dialogue is the way to solve sensitive issues that affect the Fijian people.

The Interim Government has a combination of people who do feel for the heartaches, struggles and difficulties we encounter.

They are trying to build on from what we currently have. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are mere people whom we can easily talk to and ask for an explanation for the unexpected downgrading of the Fijian Affairs Ministry to Department of Indigenous Affairs. Certainly, the Fijian Affairs Act is still there and it cannot be removed or amended without our consent. Also, it is believed that all institutions remain intact.

Let’s all pray for the indigenous community as we may have felt sad from the surprising news. It will definitely take time for us to understand what’s happening and where we are going. Definitely we are going through “self-help” direction where there will be no more “spoon-feeding”.


Maika Moroca
Fiji Labour Party(Secretary-Fijian Wing)

An article published in the Fiji Sun, questions the need for handouts for indigenous Fijians; which indirectly creates a dependency mentality and undermines the native commoner in seeking a new destiny in the era of IT, cellphones and Supercomputers.

Don’t depend on hand outs: Fijians told
Last updated 11/28/2007 8:13:53 AM

A former politician believes indigenous Fijians should learn how to be more self-reliant and not to depend so much on hand outs.

Former Party of National Unity member and Labour minister, Meli Bogileka said it would make a lot of difference if indigenous Fijians were encouraged to set up their own businesses which could start from selling vegetables to running a tourist driven business.

"We are all proud of being called indigenous Fijians because we are indigenous on this land but we have to also adjust ourselves to changes that are happening around us," he said. "For example technology is changing very fast."

Mr Bogileka said there was no reason to panic because more people were alarmed by the change in name of the Ministry of Fijian affairs to the Department of Provincial Development and Indigenous and Multiethnic Affairs.

"If it can bring about good changes to the indigenous Fijians than it should be encouraged but there is no reason to panic," said Mr Bogileka.
"I believe the old system used will still be the same and the rights of the indigenous people will be intact."

The country had been through 35 years under Fijian-government rule and questions should be asked whether the indigenous Fijians had benefited from it or still lived as one of the poorest people in the country.

Mr Bogileka said one industry to be encouraged for indigenous people is the tourism industry because they are naturally gifted for that. The hospitality, smile and friendliness was already there and there was no need to politicize things and be self pitying.

Fiji Times Editorial of Monday November 26th 2007, regarding the issue of relegating the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to Department status; may be an opinion well entrenched and intertwined with a premise flaunted by the SDL party:

"Many Fijians will see the downgrading of their ministry as a reflection of how the interim Government perceives the indigenous community and their concerns, interests and rights. And, by extension, it will also reaffirm their belief and suspicions of the interim Government's opinion of the Great Council of Chiefs.

It will also reaffirm the suspicions of many indigenous Fijians that this coup is supported by non-Fijians and aims to water down the powers and interests of their community".

Although, the issue of downgrading of status may be a concern from some indigenous quarters; it trivializes an interesting precedent for the nation as a whole, called 'the greater good'.

This is the entire excerpt of the Fiji Time Editorial:

Indigenous affairs

FT EDITORIAL COMMENT
Monday, November 26, 2007

THE downgrading of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to a department will not go down well with the indigenous community. Already we are beginning to see signs of Fijian chiefs and individuals stirring and murmuring against the interim Government's decision to convert the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to the Department of Indigenous Affairs, Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs.

This department, under the portfolio of the Prime Minister, will most likely have a State minister and will cover the affairs of the indigenous people as well as the Indians, part Europeans and everyone else who falls under the multi-ethnic banner.

Many Fijians will see the downgrading of their ministry as a reflection of how the interim Government perceives the indigenous community and their concerns, interests and rights.

And, by extension, it will also reaffirm their belief and suspicions of the interim Government's opinion of the Great Council of Chiefs. It will also reaffirm the suspicions of many indigenous Fijians that this coup is supported by non-Fijians and aims to water down the powers and interests of their community.

Since December 5, 2006, indigenous affairs have been subjected to a whirlwind of change starting from the top the council of chiefs going all the way down to land.
The GCC was suspended by the interim PM after the chiefs refused to endorse the President's choice with the blessing of Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama for Vice-President.

Like an errant child, the council was punished with a review commissioned by the ministry to look into functions and its membership.

And the changes haven't ended there. As announced in the 2008 Budget, the Ministry of Lands will receive a mandate from the People's Charter to conduct land reforms including a review of ALTA.

As the leader of the interim Government, Commodore Bainimarama needs to explain why he downgraded the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to a department. While his motives appear unclear at that stage, he owes the people, especially the indigenous community, an explanation.

He must also be prepared to face the backlash of his decision and there will be backlash from individuals, provincial councils and chiefs and he should not ignore the concerns of the indigenous community.

They deserve to know why.

It is also concerning that, the Fiji Times Editor actively preys on the fears of the indigenous community as seen during the pre-2000 coup days. An independent analysis of the Fiji Times reportage before the 2000 coup confirms this.

It is somewhat disingenuous for the publication not to balance the editorial with the justifications of not having a separate Ministry for Fijian Affairs or even raise factual examples and outline how the Ministry of Fijian Affairs have failed the indigenous community on many levels and on many occasions.

Nor does the Fiji Times Editorial even factor in the gross and willful incompetence of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and their culpability of not facilitating audits for the accounts from the various Provincial Councils, in decades. The issue of FAB audits were addressed in an earlier S.i.F.M post titled "Few and Far Between".

One of the biggest omissions was the analyzing exactly, what will the indigenous grassroots derive from the status quo.

The editorial further inquires erroneously of the motives of the Interim Government:

"As the leader of the interim Government, Commodore Bainimarama needs to explain why he downgraded the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to a department.

While his motives appear unclear at that stage, he owes the people, especially the indigenous community, an explanation."

For a person not well informed with Fiji politics but pretends to be, should not belittle themselves any longer, by believing in Qarase's self-aggrandizement.

To suggest or think that the Fiji Times Editorial was an altruistic or a benevolent defence over the Ministry of Fijian Affairs issue, simply due to their moral and holier-than-thou position would be a gullible reaction at worst.
At best: acknowledging that the only time Fiji Times profit increases is, by the sensationalism done in over magnifying divisive issues that intends to separate and divide segments; rather than amplify the common threads of society that binds people.

It seems rather juvenile for the Fiji Times to ignore the radical paradigm shift announced by the Interim Prime Minister, regarding the clean up of colonial era, native Fijian institutions, which have been extorting the livelihood of the native commoner under the guise of Fijian culture.

Fiji Times seems to go out of their way to quote the xenophobic SDL party and their point guard Laisenia Qarase. Yet, the Fiji Times have also demonstrated their pathetic and inadequate initiative to decipher Qarase's rhetoric/ lip service that have left the common native perpetually enslaved within a fiefdom, constantly bombarded with ingrained fears and warnings alluding that, foreigners will invade and pillage their land. A synonym for the 'fortress mentality', elongating the social slavery of the common native of Fiji.

Laisenia Qarase vigorously defends the Ministry of Fijian Affairs status quo:

"Mr Qarase said indigenous Fijians were not ready to stand on a level playing field with other races and needed to be treated as separate and distinct in identity.

“I don't think the Fijian people are ready for that independence. I think the Fijian people are proud of their culture and traditions and their institutions,” he said.

What facts does Qarase base his opinions on? Does he speak for all native Fijians? Was there an accurate opinion poll which Qarase was referring to, or is this more of an opinion rather than fact?

Mr Qarase also hit out at interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry for removing the tax free status of the Fijian Trust Fund. He said the FTF was established to fund the operations of the Great Council of Chiefs and other activities for the general good of indigenous people.

He said the village, tikina, provincial councils along with the Fijian Affairs Board, Native Land Trust Board and GCC were part of the “Fijian psyche”.

“I think it would be a sad day if Fijian thinking moves away from that position because I'm very proud of being a Fijian. I want a separate identity for Fijians,” said Mr Qarase.

“We are an ethnic group different from other ethnic entities and all ethnic entities are proud of their identities,” he said."

What Qarase's rhetoric fails to address is, detailing exactly how much monetary rewards are actually reaching the lowest common denominator; which he claims are the benefactors of the Fijian Trust Fund?

Clearly, the "Fijian Psyche" is the actual cream from this Trust Fund that, had been funneled into exuberant projects like the new Great Council of Chiefs complex, financed along with state loans that were subsequently converted mysteriously to grants. This grant has also been questioned by the Interim Prime Minister, in an article in Fiji Village.

Bainimarama Questions $20M Grant
Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama has today clarified that the tax benefits have been taken away from the Fijian Holdings Unit Trust and the Fijian Trust Fund in the 2008 budget because only the elite Fijians have been benefitting from these institutions for years.

Bainimarama has rejected suggestions by terminated Great Council of Chiefs Chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini that this decision will affect the handing out of scholarships.

He said a transparent process will always be followed for the scholarship awards but his main concern is the Laisenia Qarase government's decision a few years ago to convert the $20 million loan to a grant for the shares bought in Fijian Holdings.
Bainimarama said the $20 million which was not paid back was taxpayer’s money and the ordinary Fijians did not benefit from that decision.

He also questions Ratu Ovini on the personal loans that were given out to certain individuals through the FAB.

This conversion (under the Deuba Accord 2000)was made under Qarase's 2001 Interim administration that, failed to relinquish the reins of power to the 1999 elected People's Coalition; an act which Qarase now demands from the 2007 Interim Fiji Government. An article published in 2001, outlines this dichotomy in the 20 million grant.

The excerpt of the article:

FIJIAN HOLDINGS LTD: WHY AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY IS NEEDED, AND THE ROLE OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK IN FINANCING SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDING?

ON THE 13TH JULY 2000 THE INTERIM PRIME MINISTER MR LAISENIA QARASE PRESENTED TO THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS A BLUEPRINT FOR THE PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF INDIGENOUS FIJIANS AND ROTUMANS.

THE BLUEPRINT INCLUDED A DECISION TO CONVERT THE $20 MILLION INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD TO A GOVERNMENT GRANT ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;

1. TRANSFER OF $1 MILLION 'B' CLASS SHARES HELD BY THE FAB IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED TO EACH OF THE 14 PROVINCES. 2. BALANCE OF $6 MILLION TO REMAIN WITH FAB [AS EQUITY IN FHL]

FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS PRIMARILY CREATED TO INCREASE EQUITY PARTICIPATION BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND FIJIAN INSTITUTIONS IN SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES. THE $20 MILLION GOVERNMENT LOAN, ANNOUNCED IN THE DEUBA ACCORD IN 1987, WAS INTENDED BY THE COUNCIL OF CHIEFS TO BOOST THE OWNERSHIP OF THE 14 PROVINCES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS.

IT WAS STATED IN THE SENATE IN 1993 THAT ACCORDING TO THE 1992 ANNUAL REPORT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS, FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS DOMINATED BY LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES OWNED BY GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH HELD BY SIMPLE PROPORTIONING 70 PER CENT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS WHILE THE 14 LPROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND THE NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD AND FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD HELD 30 PER CENT.

IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE SENATE IN 1993 THAT WHILE 1 PROVINCIAL COUNCIL'S SHARE IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS $50,100 THREE FAMILY PRIVATE COMPANIES IDENTIFIED WITH THAT PROVINCE HELD A TOTAL OF $450,000 SHARES.

IN 1984 THERE WERE NO PRIVATE COMPANIES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS BY JUNE 1992 THERE WERE 27 PRIVATE COMPANIES.

IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES THERSE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE ABLE TO SECURE FINANCE TO BUY THE SHARES FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY OWNED COMPANIES WHICH OWNED SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS WERE NAMED IN THE SENATE IN 1993. THEY INCLUDED MR LAISENIA QARASE WHOSE FAMILY COMPANY Q-TEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED OWNED 200,000 SHARES, AND MR SITIVENI WELEILAKEBA WHOSE FAMILY COMPANY STIKS INVESTMENT LIMITED OWNED 150,000 SHARES. THESE TWO NAMES WERE HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE AT THE TIME MR QARASE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS, AND FINANCIAL ADVISER TO THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD MR WELEILAKEBA WAS APPOINTED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN 1991.

THE 1998/9 ANNUAL REPORT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS DISCLOSES THAT MR WELEILAKEBA'S FAMILY COMPANY OWNS 10,000 SHARES AND THAT IN 1998 THE COMPANY HELD 100,000 SHARES. ATTEMPTS TO VERIFY DETAILS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF Q-TEN INVESTMENTS, STIKS INVESTMENTS AND STIKS HOLDINGS AT THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE OFFICE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO REVEAL THE DETAILS UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE IN WRITING STATING THE PURPOSE OF THE ENQUIRY. INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTERED COMPANIES IS NORMALLY READILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

QUESTIONS

1. WHY WERE PRIVATE COMPANIES ALLOWED TO BUY SHARES IN EXCESS OF THE SHARES HELD BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS?

2. WHY WAS THE FAMILY COMPANIES OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK ALLOWED TO BUY SHARES IN EXCESS OF THOSE HELD BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS?

3. WHAT ADVICE DID MR QARASE GIVE THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD ON THE ALLOCATION OF SHARES TO PRIVATE COMPANIES?

4. WHEN THE COUNCIL OF CHIEFS APPROVE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES BUYING SHARES?

THIS PATTERN OF PRIVATE COMPANY OWNERSHIP CONTINUES TODAY. FAMILY COMPANIES OWN MORE THAN 2.2 MILLION SHARES IN FHL. THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OWN 1.9 MILLION [MASTER LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS DATED SEPT 1998] IN THE FHL'S TOP TWENTY LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS DATED 31ST JANUARY 2000 ONLY FOUR PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OWN MORE THAN 100,000 CLASS 'A' SHARES.

THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS

UNDER STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING RULES FIJIAN HOLDINGS ARE OBLIGED TO PROVIDE TO THE EXCHANGE A LIST OF THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS. THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME DISCREPANCIES IN THE LIST PROVIDED BY FHL.

ACCORDING TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TWO OF THE COMPANIES ON THE LIST NO LONGER EXIST. THEY ARE CICIA PLANTATION CO-OP SOC. LTD AND VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED WHICH HAVE BEEN DEREGISTERED.

[IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING 'B' CLASS SHARES, AND SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING 'A' CLASS ORDINARY SHARES. 'A' CLASS SHARES ATTRACT A MUCH HIGHER DIVIDEND THAN 'B' CLASS SHARES AND THEY CARRY VOTING RIGHTS WHICH CLASS 'B' SHARES DO NOT. THE DIFFERENCE IS ILLUSTRATED IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT. 'A' CLASS SHARES ATTRACTED AN INTERIM DIVIDEND OF 10 PER CENT AND A PROPOSED FINAL DIVIDEND OF 10 PER CENT [TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT &2,092,930] THE ORDINARY 'B' CLASS SHARES HELD BY THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD ATTRACTED A PROPOSED DIVIDEND OF 5 PER CENT [TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT $1,000,000]

THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS

1. THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS IS THE FIJIANS AFFAIRS BOARD WHICH OWN 20,329,855 SHARES OF CLASS 'B' SHARES [66.7 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL SHAREHOLDING]

2. THE SECOND LARGEST SHAREHOLDER IS THE NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD WITH 893,501 SHARES.

3. THE THIRD LARGEST GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS WITH MORE THAN 100,000 SHARES EACH ARE AS FOLLOWS;

CICIA PLANTATION CO-OP SOC LT 400,000[finance from FDB] RATU SIR K MARA EDUCATION TRUST FUND 300,000 TAILEVU DAIRY FARMERS CO-OP 300,000 BA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 206,917[finance from FDB MACUATA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 203,614 MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED 200,000[finance from FDB] MUALEVU TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD 200,000[finance from FDB] VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LIMITED 179,805[finance from FDB] DUAVATA HOLDINGS LTD 150,000 BUA PROVINICIAL COUNCIL 137,102[finance from FDB] RARA O NAKELO HOLDINGS LTD 117,616[finance from FGDB] MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD 107,111 MOALA TIKINA COUNCIL 101,005[finance from FDB] VUKICEA INVESTMENT LTD 100,000[finance from FDB] NAQARANI HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] DOGOTUKI TIKINA COUNCIL 100,000[finance from FDB]

ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE BREAKDOWN OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PRIVATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES IS AS FOLLOWS;

1. MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED - 200,000 SHARES [FHL]

MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED IS OWNED BY A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS. THE MAJORITY OF THE SHARES ARE OWNED BY THE MAVANA VILLAGE FUND - 108,500 SHARES. Q-TEN INVESTMENTS IS OWNED BY THE FAMILY OF MR LAISENIA QARASE.

2. KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LTD - 179,805 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LTD ARE DESCRIBED AS VILLAGERS FROM VARIOUS VILLAGES IN OVALAU. THE COMPANY WAS REGISTERED ON 6TH MAY 1993. ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS FROM THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LIMITED OWES THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK A TOTAL OF $199,188.65.

3. VUKICEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

VUKICEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED WAS REGISTERED ON 16TH OCTOBER 1992. IT IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE VUKICEA FAMILY OF CICIA, LAU. A DEBENTURE OF $80,000 WAS REGISTERED BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK OF 30TH NOVEMBER 1993. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DETAILING THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY WAS WITNESSED BY MR SITIVENI WELEILAKEBA, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS.

4. MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED ARE KAMELI VOSA AND SOLOMONE VOSAICAKE. THE COMPANY WAS REGISTERED ON 9TH DECEMBER 1989. A DEBENTURE OF $80, 000 WAS REGISTERED BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT ON 26TH FEBRUARY 1995.

5. VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

THE COMPANY WAS FORMED ON 11TH DECEMBER 1993. ITS DIRECTORS ARE VILLAGERS FROM VALUTLELE. THE REGISTRAR WROTE TO THE COMPANY ON 11TH DECEMBER 2000 STATING THAT HE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT OPERATING FOLLOWING A FURTHER LETTER ON 10TH APRIL 2000 THE COMPANY WAS REMOVED FROM THE COMPANIES REGISTER.

6. MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD - 107,111 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE RATU SAMUELA NAULAGO AND RATU MESULAME VOSAILAGI, BOTH FARMERS OF SIGATOKA. THE COMPANY WAS FORMED ON 12TH DECEMBER 1994.

WE WERE ADVISED BY THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF OCMPANIES THAT DETAILS OF THE TIKINA HOLDING COMPANIES IN THE TOP TWENTY WERE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD BY WRITTEN REQUEST.

THE FAMILY OWNED COMPANIES WITH SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS AS LISTED BY THE COMPANY IN 1998 ARE;

1. KINGFISHER ENTERPRISES 77,508 [finance from FDB]

2. KJY INVESTMENT LIMITED [KONISI YABAKI] 50,000 [finance form FDB]

3. LANA INVESTMENT LTD [RATU N. LALABALAVU] 95,000 [finance from FDB]

4. MB INVESTMENT LIMITED [M BULANAUCA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

5. MARKIN INVESTMENT [ISIKELI TAOI] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

6. MEPSAN INVESTMENT [PECELI MATANITOBUA] 67,932 [finance from FDB]

7. NABUABUA HOLDINGS 100,000 [finance from FDB]

8. RABULI INVESTMENT [MEREANI RABULI] 50,000 [finance from FDB]

9. RAFIRE LINVESTMENT [M. RABUKA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

10. SAKIANA INVESTMENT 50,000

11. TAOI INVESTMENT [J VITUSAGAVULU] 150,000

12. TUKULA HOLDINGS [SIR JOSAIA TAVIQIA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

13. VENSALISI INVESTMENT 50,000

14. YALIMAIWAI INVESTMENT [ANARE BULA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

15. 5X INVESTMENTS 100,000 [finance from FDB]

16. BAKANI INVESTMENT 100,000

17. BARAVI ASSOCIATES 50,000

18. FJ JAMNOVIS INVESTMENT 100,000 [finance from FDB]

19. I WAQA & COMPANY 80,000

20. JAY TEE INVESTMENT [S TABAKANACA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

21. KB INVESTMENT 100,000 [finance from FDB]

THE MAJORITY OF COMPANIES BOUGHT THEIR SHARES BETWEEN DECEMBER 1991 AND MAY 1993.

QUESTIONS

1. WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF LOANS MADE BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES TO BUY SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS?

2. ON WHAT TERMS WERE THESE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES GIVEN LOANS BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK?

3. WERE THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS INFORMED THAT THEY COULD BUY SHARES ON SIMILAR TERMS?

ON 26TH MAY 1995 SUBSANTIAL LOTS OF SHARES WERE ISSUED TO THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS. ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY'S SHARE REGISTER DATED 30TH SEPT 1998.

BA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 34,801 SHARES

BUA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

KADAVU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 43,501 SHARES

LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 17,401 SHARES

LOMAIVITI HOLDINGS 52,201 SHARES

MACUATA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

NADROGA/NAVOSA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 17,400 SHARES

NAMOSI PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 35,671 SHARES

RA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 8,700 SHARES

REWA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 43,501 SHARES

SERUA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

TAILEVU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 52,201 SHARES

A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OTHER SHARES WERE ALSO ISSUED ON 26TH MAY 1995 TO MATAQALI, TIKINA AND VILLAGE BASED COMPANIES.

MATAQALI

1. DROVALAU INVESTMENTS 16,743

2. ERENAWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

3. MATAITINI DEVELOPMENT 16,743

4. MATAQALI NATABUTALE 16,743

5. NABAIKPAODI HOLDINGS 16,743

6. NATURUBU TIKINA HOLDINGS 16,743

7. TOKATOKA VUWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

8. TUBANAWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

9. VALELEVU HOLDINGS 16,743

10. DOROKAVU HOLDINGS 16,578

11. RUKURUKU INVEST CO. [RAVUAMA BAISAGALE] 50,000 [finance from FDB]

TIKINA

1. BURETA TIKINA HOLDINGS 26,101 [finance from FDB]

2. CICIA TIKINA HOLDINGS 33,104

3. DREKETI TIKINA INVESTMENTS 17,400

4. MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS 87,000

5. MOALA TIKINA HOLDINGS 34,475 [finance from FDB]

6. MAULEVU TIKINA HOLDINGS 77,508 [finance from FDB]

7. NAMUKA TIKINA COUNCIL 17,400

8. NAWAIDINA INVESTMENTS 17,400

9. RARA O NAKELO 117,616 [finance from FDB]

10. UDU TIKINA COUNCIL 17,400

11. VANUA O SABETO 17,400

12. VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS 78,410 [finance from FDB]

VILLAGE

1. AROVUDI VILLAGE DEVEL CO. 16,045

2. DALICONI INVESTMENT 16,142

3. DELADAMANU INVEST HOLDINGS 16.142

4. LOMATI VILLAGE INVESTMENT 44,716

5. MAULEVU KORO INVESTMENT 73,290

6. MUNIA HOLDINGS 16,142

7. NABUKEBUKE HOLDINGS 75,990 [finance from FDB]

8. NAKABEA INVESTMENT 16,142

9. NAMUKA-I-LAU 73,290 [finance from FDB]

10. NAYAVU VILLAGE 16,142

11. TARUKUA VILLAGE 25,516 [finance from FDB]

12. TAWAVA INVESTMENTS 36,645 [finance from FDB]

QUESTIONS

1. ON WHAT BASIS WERE SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS ALLOCATED TO THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS IN 1995?

2. HOW WERE THE SHARES TO THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS FUNDED

3. WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK USE IN FUNDING THE PURCHASE OF SHARES?

4. WHAT DIVIDENTS HAVE THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS RECEIVED SINCE 1995?

THE NEED FOR AN INQUIRY

WHAT IS CLEAR FROM THE HISTORY OR SHARES OWNERSHIP IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS IS THAT THE $20 MILLION LOAN FROM GOVERNMENT WAS NOT USED TO BENEFIT THE FIJIAN PEOPLE AS THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS HAD INTENDED. THE DOMINANCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE FAMILY COMPANIES BENEFITED A FEW WHO HAD ACCESS TO FINANCE FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT. QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED AS TO WHY THIS WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. WHAT ROLE DID MR QARASE PLAY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK IN FACILITATING LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE COMPANIES TO PURCHASE SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS OF WHICH HE WAS A BOARD MEMBER? WAS FINANCE FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK MADE AVAILABLE TO THE 14 PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WAS BEING OFFERED TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES? IS THE LIST OF THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS A TRUE AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS? THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED BY AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY.

THE DECISION BY THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT TO TRANSFER $I MILLION CLASS "B" SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS TO EACH OF THE PROVINCE WILL BE OF MINIMUM BENEFIT TO THE MAJORITY OF THE FIJIAN PEOPLE. THE ANNUAL DIVIDEND TO EACH PROVINCE FOR ITS "B" CLASS SHARES WILL BE IN THE VICINITY OF $50,000.

IF THE ORIGINAL LOAN OF $14 MILLION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO EACH PROVINCE IN THE FORM OF A LOAN TO PURCHASE ONE MILLION CLASS 'A' SHARES, THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF THEIR HOLDING TODAY WOULD BE $38.5 MILLION AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF HIGH DIVIDENDS WHICH WOULD HAVE ADEQUATELY COVERED THEIR REPAYMENTS.

Inextricably, Qarase provides little to no evidence in detailing how the Fijian Trust Fund empowers the native commoner or explain how it improves their lifestyle which has been more or less, alienated from the rest of Fiji's community via a political policy.

Nor does Qarase explain the financial revenue derived from the flagship company of the elite natives called Fijian Holdings. Fijian Holdings had been touted as the premier ethnic block investment company, the truth is that Qarase and his cronies own more Class A shares than the shares of villages, Tikinas and Provincial Councils put togther.

The minority elite layer via their fictionally named companies, enjoy more spin-offs, royalties and status than the majority of native people, which the company proports to represent. So much for the fallacy of a 'Fijian Pysche'.

The actual explanation given by the Fijian elites to the ignorant masses regarding their monetary rewards, can be equated with number fudging, fuzzy maths and trickle down economics.

The saddest day in Fiji occurred, when these cultural abusers and ethno-nationalists, sought to defraud native commoners in collusion with the existing native institutional framework for political mileage, whilst ignoring the pleas of the common native person whose ancestral land was leased out by the Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB) without succint approval, prior negotiations or sufficient compensation.




Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs