Chronic Misfeasance

Opinion article by former Fiji resident and blogger whose article was published by Fiji Sun is a worthy read. The excerpt is as follows:

Coupists and wrangling lawyers By Victor Lal The Fiji Human Rights Commission director Dr Shaista Shameem's report against the deposed Laisenia Qarase government has drawn flak from some quarters of the legal fraternity. It has been described as "mostly laughable" by Suva lawyer Richard Naidu, who in an unwarranted broadside went on to suggest that "somewhere in her academic career, Ms Shameem apparently picked up a law degree. Her latest effort illustrates the dangers of allowing academic sociology types to study serious subjects like law". However, in the next breath he himself has been portrayed in the press as a leading expert on constitutional law. If I am not mistaken, both Dr Shameem and Mr Naidu are a cross breed between law and journalism, having worked as newspaper reporters before qualifying as lawyers. In Mr Naidu's case, he is a senior partner in Munro Leys specialising primarily in commercial and advisory work for clients in Fiji's aviation, energy, finance, sugar, media, telecommunications and tourism sectors. According to Munro Leys, he had recently been involved in advice and submissions to the deposed Laisena Qarase government on policy and regulation of both the tourism and telecommunications sectors. He was a member of the Government appointed Fiscal Review Committee appointed in 2004 to advise Government on tax and fiscal reform. In reply, Dr Shameem said Mr Naidu had a hidden agenda which would be revealed in due course. By whom, and when? Mr Naidu's legal partner Jon Apted, on the other hand, argues that the granting of immunity to the Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and his soldiers will arguably infringe on the human rights of others who want to sue them for wrongs they may have committed since the military takeover. One begins to wonder whether the lawyers in Fiji are truly committed to their vocations or are simply changing tune in different contexts and eras. Take, for example, Mr Apted, who had no legal reservations to act as the Supervisor of Elections in the 1992 and 1994 general elections, which was held under the blatantly racist 1990 Constitution, and which had basically disenfranchised half of Fiji's population - the Indo-Fijians following the racially motivated Rabuka coups of 1987. The positions of Prime Minister, President and armed forces commander were reserved for ethinc Fijians, as well as 50 per cent of civil service jobs for Fijians and Rotumans, and also 37 seats were reserved for Fijians in Parliament. The notorious affirmative action programme was also introduced into the 1990 Constitution. It was only recently that I condemned the hypocrisy practised by the president of the Fiji Law Society, Devanesh Sharma, in relation to the military lawyers, and challenged him to state why he had no qualm in defending the godfather of the coup culture, Sitiveni Rabuka, who was charged and found not guilty of inciting mutiny against the Commodore. Here again, one can ask Mr Apted to explain what is so repugnant about the proposed immunity planned by the President for Commodore Bainimarama and his soldiers, and yet Mr Apted saw nothing wrong in supervising two general elections which had returned Mr Rabuka as Prime Minister. Mr Rabuka had only become the Prime Minister because he had clothed himself under the sulu of immunity from prosecution for the crime of treason, which had carried the death penalty in 1987. Mr Apted, in reference to Commodore Bainimarama, now claims that "If you grant civil immunity for the men and women of the RFMF and you deprive somebody of the right to sue them for something wrong that they might have done, arguably you are infringing on that person's human rights" "Even if somebody made a law granting immunity, the immunity that has been promised is criminal and civil immunity prevents a person, whose rights have been breached, from suing in a court for damages", he said. In 1987, it was the former Governor-General Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, who after becoming the post-coup President, and supported by the GCC, had granted Mr Rabuka and his co-coup conspirators and others immunity from prosecution for executing not one but two coups, and hence shielding them from prosecution for the violence, brutality, and torture that was inflicted largely on the Indo-Fijian community. Although I disagree with some aspects of the FHRC report, it ought to be read, as Reverend Akuila Yabaki has urged us, with open mind. It was only a decade ago, in 1997 when Justice Daniel Fatiaki (later CJ) had ruled that Mr Apted, as Supervisor of Elections, had misdirected himself in law when he (Mr Apted) had refused to entertain a request from Dr Wadan Narsey that the latter be registered on the voter roll to enable him (Dr Narsey) to contest the Suva City Indian communal seat on an NFP ticket which had become vacant by the death of lawyer Harilal Patel. Dr Narsey had erroneously thought that he was already registered previosuly, and that registration continued until the death of the individual. Mr Apted had refused to use his discretionary powers to entertain Dr Narsey's application for late registration (The State v The Supervisor of Elections, ex parte Wadan Narsey, 1997). Moreover, Mr Sharma now says his society is seeking an independent view of the move by the military to send the Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate on leave while an inquiry is held into the judiciary. Mr Sharma, who is also a member of the Judiciary Services Commission, said the appointment of the Chief Justice was made in consultation with the chairman of the Public Service Commission and the president of the Fiji Law Society. The society has also challenged the legality of the appointment of Commodore Bainimarama as interim prime minister. Mr Sharma said the Constitution stated that the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Representatives and be a member of the controlling party in the House. He is talking about the rules and procedures that existed during peace times in a democracy which, according to the former Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, is 'a foreign flower' on Fijian soil. We live under a State of Emergency and in abnormal circumstances, and the appointment of Commodore Bainimarama has been made by the President who not only fully supports the coup but claims that he would have himself executed a coup against the Qarase government if he was wearing the Commodore's military jacket and boot. Now the GCC has also endorsed the appointment. In any event, the former chairman of the PSC, Stuart Hugget, is away in Australia, claiming to have taken an extended family holiday. The CJ went on leave without any protest. As I have repeatedly pointed out, since the Commodore has executed a military coup, he has the sole authority to decide which parts of the Constitution is defunct, and which parts are intact. Whatever these wrangling lawyers do or say, they must remember that it was none other than Dr Shameem who initiated the now famous Chandrika Prasad case on which these lawyers are basing their legal positions. Where were her critics after the 2000 crisis? Why they did not themselves initiate a legal test case? Well, here is more legal food for thought. Since Fiji has been suspended by the Commonwealth, why is the Fiji Law Society not calling on the foreign judges, mostly Australian and New Zealand citizens, to vacate the bench? The archaic Commonwealth practice allows these judges to decide the consitutional fate of Fiji. How many Fijian judges are sitting on the Australian and New Zealand benches? Also the overseas lawyers' membership of the society needs to be re-considered. Those lawyers who are so offended by what has taken place can simply hang up their legal robes and close their law firms as a protest against the decision of the President and the GCC, who have now recognised the Commodore as Interim PM. What took place on December 5 cannot even be described as a coup. Mr Qarase and his cabinet ministers had simply abandoned their portfolios and ran away, creating a public necessity for the Commodore to step in and take executive authority of Fiji, which he partially handed over to President Ratu Josefa Iloilo on January 5. As to the clean-up campaign, the Commodore has emabrked on a path which the United States, Great Britain and Australia had undertaken when they illegally invaded Iraq in search of the perceived weapons of mass destruction which they claimed the executed dictator Saddam Hussein had in his possession. They had even set up an Interim Administration to run Iraq, with the American Paul Brenner as its governor. In our case, let us hope and pray that the Commodore will find weapons on mass corruption in Fiji. The Commodore must not hurry up, for the Coalition forces are still in Iraq after four years. He must not be deterred by the lawyers preaching the rule of law and constitutionalism to him. The rule of law seeks to ensure that the Government will not behave in an arbitrary, corrupt, or oppressive way. And yet when it comes to lawyers, they are immune from legal suit. The primary basis for justifying an immunity from negligence within the legal profession is to maintain the lawyer's duty to the court over the duty of the client. Is it time to abolish the lawyers' own immunity from suit. Machiavelli once wrote: "For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order." Maybe, it is time Commodore Frank Bainimarama sent one of his men to the offices of the Registrar of Companies to see which lawyer and which legal firm drew up the business deeds of the Fijian companies and shareholders who are now under investigation in his clean-up campaign. All governments are subject to overthrow - either at the ballot box or by the gun if they refuse to mend their ways or in our case tried to compromise the safety and security of the nation and her citizens for selfish political ends. The rule of law is largerly a procedural notion; it does not address substantive questions. The 1997 Constitution needs major re-structuring before Fiji reverts back to civilian rule. Democracy gives no government the right to do what it wants to do in the country. victor_lal@yahoo.co.uk

The objective white glove inspection of Native Lands Trust Board has been one of the issues that was long advocated by S.i.F.M and welcomes the decision by the interim Government to conduct an official inquiry and subsequent proposal to overhaul N.L.T.B's charter, operations and management of native land in Fiji, as reported by Fiji Sun news.

Landowners hail NLTB review

The decision by Army Commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama to restructure the Native Land Trust Board has been welcomed by the Viti Landowners Resources Association. Association interim president Ratu Osea Gavidi said the restructure of the NLTB, which is already guided by the Native Land Trust Act, needs to be reviewed.

"It can be reviewed either by a decree of the interim government or convening of the next parliament or amendments to the Native Land Trust Act could be entertained," said Ratu Osea. So far, he said, the administration of the NLTB has been too centralised. "There is only one national board and four offices that includes Suva, Nadi, Lautoka and Labasa," he said.

"They should decentralise it at the vanua level and the mataqali level where it should be administered from." He said the bulk of the land is in the rural areas and this is one reason why the landowners are falling back all the time. NLTB, he said, is an arm of the government.
"And it is about time government returns management and administration of the native lands to native people. Restructure means you've got to return administration and management to the owners who are the mataqali and the tokatoka"

Ratu Osea said the chairman of the NLTB is the minister of Fijian Affairs who is a political appointee and is not appointed by the landowners. Because of the lack of resources and education within the vanua, he said, it had been put to the government to govern it and "this is why we welcome the restructure". Additionally, the civil servants who administered the land are undervaluing the native land, he added.

"Millions of dollars are being exchanged with the sale of the freehold land," he said. Ratu Osea said the qoliqoli is another asset of the native people that is in the hands of the State. "We ask for the ownership, management and administration of our qoliqoli be returned to the native people and people who go against that are unjust," Ratu Osea said.

This review of Native Lands Trust Board also follows the Fiji Sun reports of the military projecting their power by seizing control and encasing the Gold Mine infrastructure in a security envelope.

The seizure may be an effort by the military to ascertain the reasons by the current mine owner of ceasing mining operations, subsequent to the Fiji coup. As well as pursuing the linkages between N.L.T.B and the Gold mine operations with respect to the royalties, outstanding taxes, export taxes and the justification of a reported tax free holiday that the mine had enjoyed as thoroughly documented by this Roman Grynberg led academic study-PDF.

Surprising enough, the threats of closure by the Mine owners is also featured in the report and has been described as, a well used form of political bargaining in Fiji.

Lead Us Not Into Temptation.

The Fiji Times Editorial of Saturday Jan 6^th 2007 titled “Civilian Rule” warrants a reply.

The choice of the opening sentence of this editorial: “The military has dropped another bombshell with the swearing in of Voreqe Bainimarama as interim Prime Minister.” These words speaks volumes, of the decision by Fiji Times to defer the news of President Iloilo's reinstatement, to a subordinate and subservient role in the second sentence. The editorial assumed that the Army Commander had “negated his intention to hand back power to legal authority.”

The cynical commentary of the military's intentions to normalize the operations of the machinery of government may have conveniently escaped the Fiji Times' observations. Including the hostile takeover of the most coveted offices in the civil service that had been rumored to be so inept that, the million dollar expenditure as documented in the Kunatuba-agricultural scam case was overlooked by career civil servants and other rudimentary oversighters; who either had no scant idea whatsoever or were neck deep involved, in determing how the lion's share of the Fiji Government's budget was to be being spent so lasciviously.

Fiji Times Editorial further claims that, “The military therefore misses a golden opportunity to hand back to a civilian government but also returning the country to constitutional rule.”

It is appreciative of the Fiji Times to have their own schedule of when and how changes in the military clean-up campaign within the Fiji Government should be orchestrated.

Unfortunately and undesirably theirs is not a schedule tailored to meet the military's strategic plans for the nation of Fiji. Rest assured the military has duly noted the Fiji Times' keen interest in political timekeeping and how the milestones of governance should be aligned. As such, the transparent intentions by the Fiji military to fast track legislation for Freedom of Information in government machinery demarcates the abilities of the Fiji Times and the military. Suffice to say, highlighting the inabilities of the Fiji Times to achieve anything in governance, worthy of mention or remembering by the average citizen. History remembers players with heart, not observers with profit induced agendas.

It is also indicative of the apparent absence of such media persuasion, when the SDL Government was holding the reins of power and proposed to pass the controversial Bills of R.T.U, Qoliqoli and Lands Tribunal respectively.

Why did Fiji Times avoid protesting the reports by voters of impropriety during the 2006 elections, using their same method of sensationalism used to defend the Media Broadcasting Bill? Their mulled silence is similar to Fiji Times' token reaction to the decision by the SDL Government to increase Value Added Taxes from 12% to 15%.

No marches, protests, sit-ins were evident in the aftermath of the 2000 coup in Fiji. Nor did we see a symbolic stand by the Methodist church, or from the current leader of the World Harvest Center church in Fiji, Pastor Suliasi Kurulo against the spate of religious intolerance seen in the numerous Hindu temple defilements in Fiji. Even though, Pastor Kurulo was tempted to speak on the political developments in Fiji, by labeling the re-instated President a puppet as reported by this Fiji Live article; this does not exclude Pastor Kurulo from ignoring, glossing over and de-emphasizing the rectitude absconded in the 1987 and 2000 coups.

Church shocked with President's support
Friday January 05, 2007

The Christian Mission Fellowship in Fiji has expressed shock at the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo's statement yesterday that he supported the overthrow of Laisenia Qarase's government.

CMF president Reverend Suliasi Kurulo said it is apparent that Ratu Josefa is a puppet of the military.

"The whole country is reeling from the shock of these unfortunate utterances. To hide behind the rational of culture is unacceptable.

"To say that he (Ratu Josefa) would have done exactly the same thing is a crying shame," Rev Kurulo said.

He said the contradictory statements from the President before and after the illegal takeover by the Commander, confirms that he is being used by the army.

"His statement has made a mockery of our culture, government and our beloved nation."

Ratu Iloilo yesterday said he backed the military takeover saying the RFMF acted in the interest of the nation and upheld the Constitution.

Fiji Times Editorial concludes with this stylistic flaw of beginning a sentence with the word “And”.

“And there is no other effective and acceptable way forward of achieving that than for the military to disappear from the scene and allow reputable and honest civilians to take this nation back to constitutional rule. Period (sic).”

If it wasn't for the disparity of the Fiji Times' editorials skewed intentions, one would have already concluded that, this was the prime objective of the Fiji Army. These particular nuances in understanding the Army's intentions, is at times clouded by externalities and other pressures that may affect the slant of the media piece and underscores the major difference between those who get paid to write and those who live to write on Fiji.

Club Em Designs

Fiji re-installs President.

The interim military council has reappointed as President and Vuda chief Ratu Josefa Iloilo in a ceremony held in Suva, Fiji.

read more | digg story

Countervailing Theory.

Amazing developments have occurred in the wake of the release of the vote-rigging video by the Fiji Military; whose spokesperson acknowledged in this podcast by Niu FM, the existence of other video footage. The surfacing of this particular incriminating video has set off cascading denials by SDL representatives, fueled by this media frenzy.

Australian news agency ABC's podcast covered this video revelation, as well as attempting to verify the video's substance and this ABC's online article portrayed Foster's involvement, as a redeeming effort to clear his name. Fiji Time article reports further that, Foster had asked the military to free him.

Attempts by Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer to downplay the significance of these vote-rigging video allegations was covered by an ABC article and his comments are considered by S.i.F.M, as nothing more than predictable belligerence.

Other frenzied reaction was in the un-journalistic form of shooting the messenger, which was employed by Fiji Daily Post's Editorial of Wednesday January 3rd, 2007 and the Fiji Times editorial also revealed an undertone of muted frustration regarding the political clean-up . The following verbatim, is the excerpt of Fii Daily Post's editorial comments:

Our newest patriot: a conman-spy or just another political prostitute?
3-Jan-2007

IS the military wise in having an internationally reputed con-man as a part of their arsenal against the deposed SDL government? Is Peter Foster an asset to the ‘clean-up’ cause? What credibility does someone of his questionable reputation bring to our ‘national audit’?
When one thinks of ‘clean government’ one does not think of Peter Foster. When we think of reformation, or a fresh new start for the republic, we have to confess the chubby face of Fiji’s newest patriot does not come to mind.

When the commander first announced his clean-up, few could argue with his ambition of wanting to seize the high moral ground. Everyone, including the publisher of this newspaper, Mr Alan Hickling, wants corruption out of Fiji’s business loop.

That being the case, the subsequent appearance of Peter Foster – not as target but as cleaner or auditor - in the clean-up campaign has surprised many. With someone of his colourful reputation now at the centre of the national audit, the integrity of the whole operation would seem to be at risk. Peter Foster just does not accord with the values inherent in the military government’s praiseworthy campaign.

Moreover, what are we to make of Mr Foster claims to have Fiji ‘in his blood’? How did it get there – given his recent treatment at the rough-end of a boat propeller and by our courts?

Or is it that his newfound affection for Fiji has sprung conveniently through his preferential treatment at the hands of the military? Is it that his ‘evidence’ against the Qarase government has become a trigger for emotions for Fiji never before expressed by the alleged fraudster?

The military government has rightly thwarted any thought of foreign intervention by Australian troops, yet it seems happy to allow a one-man Australian con-force to impact on its anti-corruption policy.

We suggest the military would do well to rethink this strategy and to distance itself from the bodgie efforts of Peter Foster. He is a super-intelligent person capable of manipulating many - and of planting his shifting feet in both camps at once. No one should be fooled.

This stinging response by the Fiji Daily Post editorial, had conveniently misapplied the straw man fallacy, to undermine the character of Peter Foster eventhough, he had paid his debt to society in other cases of fraudalent activity. Do the labels of fraudster automatically write off any good intentions harboured by this man?

Undeniably the damage done by the video allegations was far -reaching than anyone would have predicted and may have also contributed to the Fiji Human Rights Commission Chairperson's recent bombshell in this Fiji Village article, by declaring the Laisenia Qarase's SDL Government as constitutionally illegal, in another Fiji Village news article.

The actual 32 page legal summation by Fiji Human Rights Commission has been made available by Fiji Village in a document in PDF format.

Fiji's Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate have been ordered to take paid leave; pending a full, unbridled clean-up within the judiciary, as this Fiji Sun article reports. News of this judicial 'in -house cleaning' was also reported on by ABC and Fiji Times.

An opinion article by Fiji born, New Zealand Human Rights advocate, who outlined a series of flagrant misappropriations that, were virtually allowed to grow unchallenged, spreading the cancer of corruption further into the massive behemoth called Government; until it became a cesspool of institutionalized cronies, protected by a code of silence.

The opinion by T.R. Singh was posted in a Fiji forum on Fiji Village, by a writer whose user name is Kaicolo. This is the excerpt:

Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2007, 13:47

How Fijian Provinces were betrayed and looted by the Fijian Initiative

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

People of Fiji had been told of corruption and questionable dealings by those who were considered the marshals, saviours and guardians of Fijian race. When Frank Bainimarama sacked the government and took charge, his reasoning, among others, was to save the Fijian race from unscrupulous and wanting leadership. My purpose here is to substantiate this through reporting on Senate proceedings of some 14 years ago.

When Adi Quini Bavadra was alive she tried her best to reveal the dealings in Fijian Holdings Limited (FHL) but people with power and influence won and this matter never saw the light of day. My lament had been that while Fiji has an abundance of copy journalists and copy feature writers, there is dearth of good, conscientious, bold and sincere investigative journalists. Perhaps somebody like that can pick the hints from here, and perhaps create an FHLgate.

However I will report on what took place in Fiji's Senate on 18 May, 1993. In the Senate sitting of 18 May, 1993 (pages 731 to 748), Senator Manu Korovulavula moved a motion for the Senate to call on Government to carry out an investigation into the method adopted by the Board of the Fijian Holdings Limited to allow limited liability companies to buy shares into the company (FHL) without the knowledge of 14 Provinces. Senator Korovulavula had stated that the motion was brought on a point of principle to reveal less than honest dealings of people in position of power, knowledge and trust.

The intention of the motion was to reveal odd and strange method known to a selected group of shareholders who took advantage of this to borrow funds from the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) or the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) in order to buy shares in FHL.

As example of this a whole Province has only $50,000 Class A shares while a family private company shares add up to $200,000, which is a scam in any language. It is obvious someone somewhere had not been honest and loyal to the Fijian people in not telling them the truth.

FHL was primarily created to be owned by the Provincial Councils, Fijian people and Fijian institutions, NOT the elite limited liability family companies. The Great Council of Chiefs, right from its inception was unanimous to see that FHL was to be owned by 14 Provinces, NLTB and FAB.

However the irony and shame is that according to 1992 annual report, 14 Provincial Councils and two Fijian institutions, Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) and Fijian Affairs Board (FAB) hold only 30 % of total shares while the elite Fijians with their family limited liability companies hold 70% of shares. This is a fraud on the common indigenous people who are supposed to be shareholders of FHL through their respective provinces!

People of Fiji need to be made aware of Fijian Initiative. This Fijian advisory body comprised of intellectuals, professionals, businessmen and senior executives in the private and public sector. The aim of this initiative is to pull these resources, convene regular meetings and seminars to enable it to come up with recommendations to develop and assist Fijians to better themselves in all aspects of life, more so in the field of trade and commerce.

Senator Manu Korovulavula reported to Senate that it was interesting to know that some of the senior members of the Fijian Initiative did not consider it appropriate to advise the 14 Provincial Councils that they could borrow three or four times more from FDB, the amount of shares which they already had in FHL.

All this while, these senior Fijian sons took secretive actions to line their own and family's pockets at the cost of Provincial Councils!

Senator Korovulavula revealed private shareholding of three provinces with which he was familiar. Please note that all figures, amounts and situations reported are as at 1993, and they may have changed now. In Kadavu Province, he spoke about 3 companies. The first, Kadavu Development Company, which is fully owned by people of Kadavu, owned only $50,000 shares.

The other, KJY Investment Limited, owned by Qarase's Cabinet Minister Konisi Yabaki and his family, owned $100,000 shares. The third, Taoi Investment Limited, owned $200,000 shares. Shareholding in this Company then belonged to Jesoni Vitusagavulu and Ulaiasi Taoi.

Vitusagavulu is former staff of FDB, former Air Pacific Executive, former Director of Fiji Trade and Investment Board and currently Fiji's High Commissioner to USA, appointed by deposed PM Qarase. Taoi is President of Indigenous Fijian Business Council. Previously Rodney Acraman also used to own shares which have since been bought by the remaining two shareholders.

The interesting issue here in that Konisi Yabaki was then the Chairman while Vitusagavulu was Secretary respectively of Kadavu Development Company. They went ahead, used their positions to build their own interests at the cost of Kadavu Province.

The next province is Lomaiviti, which had only $55,100 shares while KB Investment Limited and 5X Investment limited owned $100,000 each while Vensalisi Investment Limited had $80,000 shares.

KB Investment Limited, with $100, 000 shares is owned by Bakani family. The head of this family Kalivati Bakani is former executive of FDB, former Deputy General Manager of NBF, former Carpenters Executive and current CEO of NLTB. The purchase of shares was financed by NBF

5X Investment, with $100,000 shares, is owned by Lote Rabuku, Semesa Matanicake, Delai Sainikinaivalu, Penisoni Gauna and KB Investments. Note that acquisition of these shares was also financed by NBF. Vensalisi Investment Limited, with $80,000 shares, is owned by Isikeli Mataitoga and family. Isikeli then was Director of Public Prosecutions and is CEO of Foreign Affairs.

Interesting point to note is that in less than two months after registration of 5X Investment, this $1 per Share Company got $75,000 loan from NBF. Additionally, three months after KB Investment Limited was registered, Kalivati Bakani's wife got $107,000 loan from NBF where her husband was the then Deputy General Manager. Three months after Isikeli Mataitoga's family company was registered, he obtained $64,000 from FDB which was headed by Qarase.

Now we move to the Province of deposed Prime minister, Lau Provincial Council, which had only $50,100 shares. At same time, Stiks Investment Limited had $150,000, Q-Ten Investment Limited had $200,000 and Kepa Investment Limited had $100,000 worth of shares.

Stiks Investment Limited shares of $150,000 are fully owned by Weleilakeba family. Sitiveni Weleilakeba is the CEO of FHL and one time business partner of democracy activist Laisa Digitaki, together with whom, he tried to run Mobil Walu Bay Service Station which went into receivership and was then acquired by Carpenters Motors. The shares in Stiks had been financed by FDB.

Q-Ten Investment Limited held $200,000 shares, which is owned by Laisenia Qarase Family. One property CT 14743, Lot 2 was mortgaged twice to acquire finance for $112,400 and $353,217 respectively. Note that at the time, Laisenia Qarase was the Managing Director of FDB, the lender for share acquisition. At that time, Laisenia Qarase was also the financial advisor to the Fijian Affairs Board, but failed to advise them of this insider information of acquiring shares.

Kepa Investment Limited, with $100,000 shares, was wholly owned by Lakepa family, Satini and Milika, and financed by FDB. An interesting point is that one of the nine points of Deuba Accord was for government to make $20m interest free LOAN to FHL through Fijian Affairs Board, repayable over 20 years. What taxpayers of Fiji need to know is under whose authority this taxpayers' loan of $20m was converted to a gift for FHL.

Note that board members of FHL, with shares then included Laisenia Qarase, Sitiveni Weleilakeba and Josaia Mar, who has been removed as Chairman of FEA by [the Army] Commander. Also note that Laisenia Qarase was the interim Prime Minister when this shady and questionable deal took place.

What the Fijian race needs to ponder is that Qarase regime has been projecting Indo Fijians as the common enemy of the indigenous race. Is this really so? Indigenous Fijian people had placed their faith in the hands of these intellectuals, so called professionals and who were supposed to be guiding the Fijian race.

The FHL was the commercial vehicle through which the wellbeing of Fijian race was intended to be improved. The dependency of the wisdom of Great Council of Chiefs and the elders in the villagers was on the shoulders of the so called Fijian Initiative group. However these very same people tricked their own people while projection Indo Fijians as villains.

With friends like the Fijian Initiative, the indigenous race need no enemies at all. There is a saying that enemies who strike from front is miles better than friends who strike on the back. Fijian Provinces have been dealt commercially fatal blows on their backs by their trusted sons.

Perhaps those who are crying for Qarase regime to come back need to consider whether he is worthy of this honour. The Commander is right in trying to save the indigenous race from the enemy within, as there is no fear from those outside.

Those who were Senators in 1993, and were present in Senate, including past President Ratu Iloilo and Adi Litia Cakobau need to answer to the Fijian race why this call for investigation was wiped under the carpet. Other Great Council of Chiefs nominees in that Senate also need to answer to their people.

As part of Commander's cleanup, the whole saga at FHL needs to be reopened and relooked and the $20m of taxpayer funds should be repaid to the nation, and specifically reserved for rural development of each of the 14 Provinces and fat cats Fijians need to be trimmed down to size, so that the whole nation can be spared from ungrateful sons who projected others as enemies of the indigenous race.

And those racist politicians and their hangers-on who projected and put Indo Fijians as red herrings should be made to answer to the indigenous race of this betrayal and who their real enemies are!

This Voyage forum has another post of T. R. Singh, when he dressed down the New Zealand media. An article by Asia Media provides more insight to T.R.Singh's comments in a recent rally for Fiji democracy, held in Auckland, New Zealand post 2006 coup.

Niu FM podcast of 1987 coupster, Sitiveni Rabuka ultimately reflects such tags like parachute journalism attached by T.R.Singh, on the shoulders of New Zealand based correspondents who are assigned to cover Fiji in a story.

Club Em Designs

Video of Allegations to Vote-Rigging in Fiji Elections.

A video that points to culpability of SDL in rigging Fiji's May 2006 elections was released. The video was sourced by a stake-out operation carried out by the Fiji Army.

read more | digg story

The Essence of Time.

Happy New Year to the readers of S.i.F.M.

The dawn of another year is upon us and this transition brings a new tide of concerns. Domestically in Fiji, it is the process of formalizing an interim Government, as Fiji Times article reports.

Developments in Fiji and Tonga and the passage of time seemed to throw a spanner into the works of oversight, dutifully carried out by Australian and New Zealand. Both egalitarian guardians, will grudgingly come to terms with the gray areas, the misty shaded veils that inhabit the fringes of Pacific governance and one stark fact: A gross inability of these Trans-Tasman outposts, of understanding these happenings.

Is the change of the Pacific fabric of society, a dictation of their inadequate level of diplomacy? Or is it a question of how Trans-Tasman diplomacy, is being dictated to these island nations?

Letters to Fiji Daily Post's Editor reflects the cognitive dissonance of political attitudes in Fiji. This is the excerpt of an outstanding one:

Shameful NGOs
30-Jan-2007

Sir,

I WORK for an NGO vested with human rights in New Zealand and generally, as professional courtesy, we are not openly critical of each other.

However the situation in Fiji has gone beyond my tolerance limit. The hypocrisy and double standards coming out from outcries of Shamima Ali, Virisila Buadromo, Laisa Digitaki, Angie Heffernan and company are sickening at best and are a shame to all agencies that fund such NGO chameleons that change their colour to suit the situation.

I have no sympathy with the changing colours of NGOs who condone blatant, naked and institutionalised racism, yet are crying when a few stupid people get what they deserved when they fail to heed warnings and realise and appreciate the reality of the situation.
Where were these champions of human rights when Qarase regime blatantly practised racism against Fiji Indians? They obviously unashamedly mix around with and blaze the cocktail circuits and rubbed shoulders with those who were committing gross abuses of human rights under a charade and guise of democracy.

Dr Shaista Shameem of Fiji Human Rights Commission is correct in her actions and decisions, and I can say that as a director who also works for a human rights organisation in New Zealand.

Our cardinal, first and foremost responsibility is safety, preservation and protection of human life, and if life is lost because of folly of people, then no use protecting rights of dead people.

That is exactly what she was doing when she warned people to exercise caution with due regards to the prevailing situation, because of curtailed rights which is the reality of situation, given the circumstances. Military is in power now and despite rhetoric of legalities from Heffernan and Ali, Dr Shameem was being sensible, pragmatic and a realist in trying to stop stupid people from doing stupid heroics, which we view as grandstanding and reeking of hypocrisy, and could result in loss of lives in extreme cases.

Instead of calling Dr Shameem to resign, the activists with selective sense of activism should look at their own suitability for their respective positions where they are not prepared to act without fear or favour in all cases.

Same applies to the so called freedom fighters who failed to heed commonsense and tried to gain publicity by gazing up the barrel of guns. Under the circumstances they have themselves to blame for their fate, bruises and bruised egos.


Thakur Ranjit Singh,
Auckland,NZ

Governance is now becoming more of a looming problem for Australia's Prime Minister, whose fear of an 'Asian invasion' were reported by PACNEWS and described in this Fiji Times article.

Although Australia's spending on defense has certainly skyrocketed and more directed to U.S manufactured arms; these arms trades are subject to embarrassing questions of quality, now being raised by the Australian media.

The big ticket item in question, is the recent purchase of 24 Super Hornet aircraft .

This particular deal was scruntinized by an article written by Carlos Kopp and published by the Age Newspaper of Melbourne, Australia.

The article's author questioned the aircrafts ability when compared with far superior performing Russian made aircraft like the Sukoi Su-30MK used extensively by Australia's northern Asian neighbor's of China, Malaysia and Indonesia.

What outclasses the Su-30MK from Super Hornet F-18E/F is that, the former has thrust vector controls, which enable the aircraft to perform tighter rolls and pitches. That particular design is now featured in the newest U.S generation of fighter jets.

This million dollar rip-off, is perhaps a reflection of Australia's junior standing in the pecking order of geo-politics, wealth and influence. The cruel irony of U.S foreign policy, is their crude program of defense assistance to Australia. Realistically, a catalog of 'hand-me-downs' whilst, more technological advanced aircraft sales to the UK are given first priority.
The unfolding of facts and time would also hasten Australia's realization to this inconvenient truth and should take heed of former English P.M, Winston Churchill's quote on US foreign affairs: "America always does the right thing. After exhausting all other possibilities."

Club Em Designs

Lines and Limits.

The parameters of the National Audit in Fiji has received much attention and curiosity. Very little curiosity was satisfied, leaving more outstanding questions than answers with readers of this Fiji Times article.

It is understood that more answers to posing questions of corruption can be answered when the notorious fraudster, is willing to shed more light as described by this Fiji Times article into his acquaitances with certain SDL Ministers, as well as some insight into the 2006 Election rigging allegations.

Fiji Affairs Board former C.E.O is reported to have been taken for questioning by the Army, in this Fiji Times article. Perhaps an occasion for a friendly reminder, of her employment status within the machinery of Fiji Government.
Although, the Great Council of Chief's (GCC)Chairman had safely navigated themselves into a corner by his attempt to rescind the Military issued order of employment termination for the FAB CEO, using his authority as Chairperson; the GCC Chairman ignored a niggling fact that, the incumbent of FAB CEO is an employee of the state and not the GCC secretariat . This confusion of powers may underscore the polluted ideals along with contaminated interests, between those of the state and that of GCC.

This question of demarcation between the state and the GCC, represents a legal question that will be raised time and again, along with the relevance of aristocratic influence. Both questions could be solved using alternative models of Government. Those very ideas of alternatives, to the West Minister system of Governance was floated by Fiji Chamber of Commerce President as covered by this Fiji Times article. It is unclear whether the interim Government has even considered such maneuvers, however those alternative models may well be an option that, won't be taken off the table by the Fiji Military Council anytime soon.


Club Em Designs

The Bottom Line.

(Above: Image of Fiji Parliament, Veiuto)

Fiji Times reports that, the interim President and Army Commander forbids the Great Council of Chiefs from meeting, a decision that would further dent their aristocratic aspirations to the reins of power. The date for the interim Government's grand debut was also announced by Frank Bainimarama as described in this article by Radio NZ, as well as confirming the new development on GCC's future.

Although the Fiji Human Rights Commission has been in the cross-hairs of most armchair experts of "rights" as reported in this Fiji Village article, Fiji Times and magnified by Newswire; the Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Shaista Shameem responds sternly to their reprisals especially the concerns of Alice Heffernan, an activist with Pacific Centre for Public Integrity(PCPI) as reported by Radio NZ article with a quick rebuttal outlined in this article by Radio Fiji news.

Surprising enough, the amount of allegations committed by the SDL Government including their involvement with the Agricultural scam was conveniently omitted from the attention of PCPI, revealing a degree of infancy in their general experience of tracking corruption.

So much in fact that, PCPI's relative ability to ignore blantant actions relating to conflict of interest involving SDL Ministers or their prior involvement in the 2000 coup is brow raising.

Although, the Australian Government halted Fiji's role in the RAMSI programs as detailed by this article by Radio NZ, Australian Foreign Minister's reaction is described in this Radio NZ article to the recent sacking of Australian imported Police Chief to the Solomon Islands and the news represents a wonderful example of diplomatic karma. Further reminders of the growing climate of distrust and the rapid erosion of influence into the region by the Trans-Tasman nations.


Club Em Designs

Ipso Facto: Re-gifting Democratic Consent.

Geo-political perspectives driven by some certain Anglo-American conglomerates on international law, may be an issue which inextricably deflates their grip on the moral high ground.

Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia is such a case, which the Bush led U.S Government was quite quick to rally support for such an audacious infringment. An infringment similar to their own escapade in Iraq.

The apparent abuse of international conventions, all began to slide down the slippery slope of faulty intelligence prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequently respect for international conventions began free-fall with the aid of U.S interpretations of the word 'imminent'. Such interpretations were the catalyst of the heightened global dislike for the unfulfilled objectives of WMDs. Invalid conclusions of that hunt for WMDs, intiated a suspicious contempt of those who profess to spread freedom and democracy.

Almost a year ago today in his second Inaugural Address, President Bush laid out a vision that now leads America into the world. "It is the policy of the United States," the President said, "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." To achieve this bold mission, America needs equally bold diplomacy, a diplomacy that not only reports about the world as it is, but seeks to change the world itself. I and others have called this mission "transformational diplomacy." And today I want to explain what it is in principle and how we are advancing it in practice.

This documentary trailer titled “In the Shadow of the Palms” accurately display such a billegerent use of force, under the guise of freedom.

Whilst the western powers denigrate the bloodless coup of Fiji, their appalling silence in decrying such wanton abuses of international law, like Ethiopian Army's invasion of Somalia is apparently deafening. The British assault of a Basra police station is smiled upon because they had reportedly freed tortured prisoners.

While the reports of American and British soldiers torturing prisoners of their own in this report by the Scotsman, has highlighted a serious moral dichotomy.

Although U.S State Department press release reiterated a condemnation of the overthrow of a democratic elected Government of Fiji, a Niu Fm podcast of a New Zealand based Human Rights activist, voicing his approval on the general clean-up in the affairs of Fiji Government was recorded at an Auckland rally on Fiji and provided an ethical counter-point.

In condemning such an overthrow, the U.S State Department canceled military assistance programs with Fiji's Army. Such is the deplorable U.S State Department's over-reaction, which has also revealed an embarassing diplomatic shift, using the Potomac two-step when Fiji is compared with the Palestinian context of similar military assistance.

News reports by the Times of London, confirms the U.S weapons supply to Palestinian group Fatah. This assistance had sent shock waves of dismay throughout the minds of regional observers. Objectors view the military support as a perceived bias for an entity other than the duly elected Palestinian Government; while proponents view this as strengthening the office of the President Mahmoud Abas in this NPR news piece and podcast.

The Palestinian elected Government is filled by members of the Hamas party- recognized by the U.S State Department as a terrorist organization.

It has been said that, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The recent of announcement of Israel resuming settlements in the West Bank, despite tedious brokered accords outlawing such construction, would be a such occassion to raise similar questions on terrorism and freedom fighting.

Despite Israel's provocating attempt to push the envelope of international terms and conditions, this was not a viable enough reason to register change with the US State Department, as reported by Yahoo news .

Indifference to international laws is not an effigy foreign to the U.S State Department. Failure is the poor orphan and success the rich son. Both success and failure have been demonstrated in Iraq by the U.S, sadly not in equal measures. As such, the political demagogues who supported the Iraq invasion have now embarrassingly flip-flopped in their positions and the question of how to get out of a quagmire is the 64 million question that, baffles most political experts.

Not all coups and Governments are judged the same in the eyes of America. Although U.S condemned the Fiji coup, it has not issued such a condemnation of the military takeover of Thailand and Pakistan.

Whilst Iran's objective of obtaining Nuclear Technology has been ridiculed by the International community, US nuclear deal with India upsets the natural law concept of 'equal carriage' and further underscores an application of double standards.

Although, Tranformational Dilomacy is a new direction which the Secretary of State had adopted in her speech in January 18^th 2006.

Tranformations in geo-politics that don't according to U.S play book have been discredited, alienated and riddiculed by the powerful media. While the blantant abuses of international law by the U.S is glorifed, highlighted and revelled. Thus revealing a position within the U.S Foreign Policy and the media's potrayal of it, as alarmingly absent of subjectivity, morality and logic.

Club Em Designs

Clash of the Titans.

Fiji Village reports that, Laisenia Qarase, the deposed Prime Minister had denied any knowledge of the S.D.L strategic paper to defy the military intervention prior to the coup. A series of denials were also raised by Qarase, in a feeble attempt to deflect the onslaught of other military allegations. The Army had acknowledged the existence of an incriminating video, depicting SDL party involved in vote-rigging activites. The video of concern was taken by an Army stake-out exercise during the May elections in Fiji.

The Great Council of Chief's (GCC) new media release, acknowledges the refusal of the interim President and Army Commander to meet with them, as reported by Fiji Live.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation article confirms the incident of Army Commander flatly refusing to meet the GCC. These reports of refusal, would confirm the loss of influence and recognition of GCC in their eyes of the Fiji military.

This is the excerpt of Fiji Live article.

We were turned away: GCC chair
Sunday December 24, 2006

Ratu Ovini Bokini.

The delegation of Great Council of Chiefs seeking audience with the army commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama were turned away from the Queen Elizabeth Barracks yesterday after the army chief refused to meet them.

The delegation, which was led by GCC chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini, had gone to discuss the GCC resolutions with the army commander.

"He (Bainimarama) was not willing to accept us so we just handed a letter informing him of our decision," he said.

He added that the GCC would not make any changes to the current resolutions and that it was up to the commander on whether to accept or reject it.

"Our decision will stay for the time being but will only change if we hold further talks with the army," he said.

Ratu Ovini said the Bainimarama needed to stop being 'stubborn' and start talks with the GCC.

Fijilive

Fiji Village article reports that, GCC Chairman denies any SDL influence in their resolution or in any other manner, after calling the interim President and Army Commander, "Stubborn" in the featured Fiji Live article.

Obviously these face-saving press releases by the GCC Chairman, may be too little and too late in salvaging their eroding integrity with the general public, amid the wake of disturbing videos aired by Fiji T.V featuring active representatives of the GCC visiting George Speight in Fiji Parliament post-2000 coup.

Despite the online reports by Fiji Live or ABC, Radio New Zealand's online article misreports that, Frank Bainimarama had agreed to meet a delegation of GCC at the conclusion of their emergency meeting in Suva. It may well appear that, the online staff of Radio New Zealand, being a Government agency have scored the Christmas weekend off, much to the detriment of their news cycle.

This displays one of the pet peeves of the media industry of Fiji, having the international parachute brigade of journalists, mis-informing their readership with outdated and outlandish information.

Club Em Designs

The Price is Right.

Further reminders of the abuse riddled affairs of Australian Foreign Policy is underscored by news of Australian exporter of Wheat, AWF being slapped with a lawsuit in U.S courts regarding their dealings with the Iraq Oil-For-Food scam, as reported by the Age Newspaper.

Australia's gallivanting excursion of conquest into Iraq, driven by commercial exploits has also brought on the tide of unintended consequences. One revealing their flaws of their idea of spreading democracy, after expending all other WMD rationales found to be seriously flawed. The other unintended consequence of Australia's decision of joining the coalition of the willing, is the apparent loss of influence and attention in detail to the complex affairs of the Pacific.

By the joining the bigger league of geo-political football, Australia sought to galvanize her position in world affairs and trade. Unfortunately larger spheres of influence also required a larger appetite for funding resources. Certainly the hefty price of arms, lives and money would be an exorbiant lifestyle that, many Australian citizens will find downright appalling.

The recent acknowledgement by the U.S President on the Iraq war reported by the Berkshire Eagle, is a reflection of the precarious equilibrium of logic that is rapidly losing its ability to balance itself.

Back to Fiji's unfolding geo-political situation:

Although, Fiji's interim President and Army Commander had indicated signs of relunctancy in meeting a delegation from the Great Council of Chiefs; further remarks published in this Fiji Village article revealed the dwindling patience of Frank Bainimarama, with the aristocracy. The interim President and Army Commander explained the existence of an unholy Trinity between the Church, GCC and SDL Government. Bainimarama further added that, the unholy Trinity was the prime instigator of racial intolerance in Fiji.

Pacific Beat podcast further explores this tenacious jostle by G.C.C to wrestle the reins of power from the interim Government. The interviews also revisits the analysis of the lost video from 2000 Fiji coup.

Club Em Designs

Tryst With Destiny.

Fiji Village reports that, Fiji Army Commander and interim President questioned the leadership of the Great Council of Chiefs( GCC). Whilst the question of the employment of sacked Fijian Affairs Board C.E.O is niggling, it was a subject which the G.C.C Chairman was impelled to defend as reported in this Fiji Village article.
After the GCC meeting concluded New Zealand Radio's online article wasn' t any closer to answers.

Although, Fiji Village(F.V) reports that Frank Bainimarama would meet the G.C.C after Christmas regarding their meeting's consolidated resolution; subsequent reports from F.V publish that, the interim Government would not entertain further negotiations.

The media take on the Fiji's latest political events is analyzed with a Podcast produced by "On the Mat" a production of Pacific Beat, a subsidiary of Australian Broadcasting Corporation. James Panichi interviews Stanley Simpson Editor of Fiji Living and presenter for Fiji T.V's "Close Up Program". Also interviewed was Michael Field correspondent of Fairfax newspapers of New Zealand.

The questions range from journalistic coverage of the coup amidst the High Court Trial for Sitiveni Rabuka and touches on the debate of journalistic experience in covering high profile cases as well as the high turn-over of media employees and the lost footage of Fiji 2000 coup.

Ethical latitude was a question posed by "On the Mat" interviewer, James Panichi on Fiji Television's decision to air the "embarrassing and incriminating" video of behind the scenes on Fiji Parliament in the height of Fiji's 2000 coup and video of a delegation from Great Council of Chiefs visiting George Speight and company.
Further issues raised on the podcast was the 'propaganda' phase of the turn of events as well as the personality profile of the Fiji Military spokesperson, Major Leweni. Overall the podcast was a balanced reportage of Fiji's current political landscape.



Club Em Designs

G.C.C and Privilege.

The nation of Fiji patiently awaits a resolution by the Great Council of Chief’s (GCC) meeting currently in session. Although, many realize that, this rapid turnover in Government Executive Employees is really a coup, according to their selective understanding of democracy. This group believed that, the management change in Fiji was counter-productive to Governance.
Whilst others quip that, the employee turnover is in fact, the process of a system re-engineering itself after years of ingrained corruption, cronyism and systemic abuse.

Some political observers have noted that this could ultimately be the most challenging decision, for Fiji’s institution of aristocrats. This crisis of power brokering, could either sink or lift the prestige for this motley crew of individuals, who were born with Silver “bilo” in their mouths.

Insofar, these GCC meetings are cabal filled with as much ceremony, self-indulgence and stiff upper lip that could render the British version, as half-cocked. Many have heard the saying ”For those that much has been given, much is expected” and those concerns in Fiji are conveniently placed on cold storage, whilst a culture of decadence and exuberance sets in and poisons any ounce of goodwill and honesty that, the individual was raised on as a child.

Prestige in Fiji seems to be an unfulfilled standard that, is built into the new GCC complex, from funds loaned from Government coffers. Entitlement was the excuse used by proponents of the Chiefly system, to convert the 20 million dollar loans into a grant. When presitge and entitlement are frequently used to misappropriate then, the only loss to the nation of Fiji are the qualities of humbleness and modesty.

GCC meetings are the equivalent of a “Treadmill” simply because, there have been numerous of meetings conducted and neither of these meetings are moving the nation of Fiji or GCC any closer or further to a viable solution.

Are there any GCC solutions for unemployment, poverty and justice? How about racial politics, religious intolerance and class warfare? The many points raised by these G.C.C meetings are analogous to the horns of a Steer. That is, a point raised here and point rose there, with a lot of bull in between. This infalliable condition may be reflected in a joke taking on the subject of privilege in Fiji:

Privilege in careers was a subject discussed between a Surgeon, an Engineer and a Chief.
“Gentleman,” said the Surgeon, “Eve was made from Adam’s rib and that surely was a surgical operation.”
The Engineer remarked, “Maybe, but prior to that, order was created out of chaos and that must have been an Engineering job.”
The Chief interrupts both professionals and blurts out “Wait a minute, somebody had to create the chaos!”

Club Em Designs

Occam's Razor.

Radio New Zealand reports in an article and in this podcast that, Army Commander and new interim President might decline the invitation to the scheduled Great Council of Chief's meeting. The interview also features Lasenia Qarase and former Prime Minister who described his inability of attending the GCC meeting. Fiji Village also reports the non-attendance of Frank Bainimarama. The Chairman of the GCC is also tightfisted about the decisions to be made, in this Niu FM podcast .

Dr Brij Lal, one of the architects of Fiji's 1997 constitution provides his view of the Army Commander's options in this podcast by Niu FM.
Dr Tupeni Baba and former Senator riles his old colleague Mahendra Chaudary for his silence, as this podcast by Niu FM reports.
Blog: "This New is Now Public" posts an article on the Double Speak and the Battle for Hearts and Minds through the press in Fiji.

Dr Wolfgramm, the infamous political editor of the Fiji Daily Post published his thesis on titled: "The Forth Estate and Fourteen Vanua.

All views should be view through the lens of Occam's Razor, after the study of the basic principles of Constitutions.



Club Em Designs

Caricatures of Fiji.

Cartoons on Fiji drawn by Rod Emmerson, appear in the New Zealand Herald.

1.) Qarase Vs Army stand off.


2.) The 4th Coup.


3.)On the Army Commander's comment on 50 year rule.




Club Em Designs

Commanding the Heights of Moral Persuasion.

Fiji's Washington D.C based Ambassador has confirmed in a Fiji Village report that, US-Fiji trade will not be affected.

A looming clash of ideals brews in Suva, prior to the upcoming Great Council of Chiefs (GCC)meeting. The GCC Chairman is under severe pressure to provide some form of defiance and to create stumbling blocks to the intentions of the interim Government. This posturing from the Aristocracy will inevitably decide their political future, as well as those belonging to the nation.

Fiji Sun Editorial opinion pursues the lead story in the obfuscated conflict of authority. It is possible that, this logger heads between the Army and Chiefs would result in a major and irreversible paradigm shift in the Fijian political landscape.

Although questioned by the military, Fiji Daily Post Editor and Academic Robert Wolfgramm has been fortunate enough to return to work using the Immigration Department as a shield as reported by a Fiji Times report.

An article written by Jone Dakuvula of CCF (pictured above) presents Wolfgramm's view of the 2000 coup. Another article written by Dr Wolfgramm published by Center for Public Justice, commented on Democracy and Christian politics.

It is certainly odd that, the Methodist Church of Fiji and some Non Governmental Organizations held the same moral stance as well, judging from their lack of protests back in 2000.

This is the excerpt of the article:

---

Asia-Pacific Network: 24 July 2000

FIJI: THE FAILURE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY?

A response to Dr Robert Wolfgramm of Monash University published in Fiji's Daily Post on July 15. This article was published in the Daily Post on July 27.

By JONE DAKUVULA in Suva

---

Dakuvula defends 1997 constitution: Who were the rapists of democracy?.
Photo: Joe Yaya (USP journalism student)

DR ROBERT WOLFGRAMM, of Monash University, published a long article (Daily Post, July 15, 2000) under the title "Why Democracy Has Failed" amongst Fijians. He did not define his subject, "Democracy", and particularly what it means in an ethnically divided country such as Fiji. Democracy as I understand it in a limited sense means elections, civil liberties and the right to organise.

It could have a more radical meaning but that is the fundamental challenge facing all people of the world including indigenous Fijians in the 21st Century. Wolfgramm asserts that indigenous Fijians have never been asked whether they want constitutional democracy and its values. He believes Fijians still prefer their vanua and to be ruled by their Chiefs. This is like saying indigenous Fijians have not been asked whether they should have the Methodist Church, Capitalism, the modern state, public roads, Fiji Bitter, or academics analysing them for that matter.

Dr Wolfgramm should read Dr Esther Williams' and Kaushik Saskena's (of U.S.P) book, "Electoral Behaviour and Opinion in Fiji". This comprehensive study showed that 44% of the voters said the Chiefs had no influence over their votes in the 1999 General Election. Only 9% said the Chiefs did influence their votes. 36% (mostly Indo-Fijians) did not answer the question.

Contrary to what he asserts, a form of liberal Parliamentary system of Government based on regular elections and written Constitutions (albeit four so far) had operated quite successfully in Fiji for close to forty years since before the close of the colonial era. For most of that period, indigenous Fijian leaders held political power in the modern state, only briefly interrupted by about 13 months of two Fiji Labour Party Governments. Dr Wolfgramm should have asked the more specific mundane questions, such as for example: Why were there military-inspired Coups that overthrew these elected Labour-led Governments? And the answers are fairly pedestrian.

In May 1987 and May 2000, characters such as Sitiveni Rabuka, Apisai Tora, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola and George Speight and their followers did not like the result of the Election and got supporters in the Fiji Military Forces to help over throw the newly elected Labour Government. And did they consult the Vanua, Fijian Chiefs or for that matter the Fijian people before they organised the Coups? But rallying some of them after the act was done was convenient and easy because many indigenous Fijians in the vanuas believe that the modern state also belongs to the Fijians, or to the "Vanua," and not to "others".

It is unclear whether Dr Wolfgramm is in favour of election as mechanism for changing government and holding our political leaders accountable. I might be wrong, but he seems to favour the old Colonial System of the Council of Chiefs nominating our Fijian Members of Parliament. He needs to tell that to Speight and his "wannabee Ministers" who prefer to dictate to the Chiefs who they should accept.

But if he still believes in General Election then, the more relevant question is, what type of electoral arrangement and Parliamentary system of Government is more likely to produce results that might avoid characters like Tora or Kubuabola, resorting to other methods that overturn the result! Notwithstanding my reservations about the Alternative Vote Electoral System, I thought the device of requiring the leader of the major party after an Election to invite the parties with more than eight seats into Cabinet is a pragmatic solution to the problems of governance here.

It ensures that all political communities are likely to be represented in a Coalition government. It was not fool proof solution especially with the S.V.T not included, it was free to arouse the Fijians. Any system can be wrecked by fanatics, as we have learnt to our cost.

The 1997 Constitution

Contrary to Dr Wolfgramm's belief, the 1997 Constitution was not the work of what he calls "Constitutional Romantics". The Members of the Reeves Commission were very experienced hard-headed "Constitutional realists". Over a period of 18 months, they received thousands of submissions from individuals, community groups, religious groups, organisations and political parties. They also had the benefit of advice from local and overseas scholars and experts on specific subjects of relevance and from all these, the Commissioners produced their Report with 694 recommendations for changes to our system of Constitutional Government.

Wolfgramm judged the Reeves Report thus:

Realists argue that democracy cannot force itself, it cannot be imposed against the consent of the affected. To do so would amount to constitutional rape.

He makes this assertion even though the Commission had undertaken the widest and most intensive public consultation ever since independence. Thereafter, the Report was discussed over a period of about six months by the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on the Constitution and, most of its recommendations were adopted with some modifications. A Fijian version of the Report was unanimously endorsed by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

In both Houses of Parliament, the Constitution was also passed unanimously in June 1997. If that process is what Dr Wolfgramm calls a "constitutional rape" then we must wonder about his credentials as a student of Fiji's political history.

However, the problem of Dr Wolfgramm is not his scholarship but rather his political beliefs. He seems to support the George Speight-led Coup, whose moment of "Constitutional revolution" was inscribed in Clause B(b) of the Muanikau Accord thus:

The 1997 Constitution which they believe are repugnant to the preservation and protection of the rights and interests of indigenous Fijians in Fiji.

Who were the actual rapists of democracy?

It has been argued by some of Speight's supporters that the majority of Provincial Councils had rejected the Reeves Report, and that this was evidence that the majority of indigenous Fijians had repudiated the 1997 Constitution. And that Prime Minister Rabuka's Government had unwisely implemented the Reeves Report against the opposition of a majority of Fijians.

There is really no firm basis for this belief. Dr Williams' study that I have referred to above revealed 39% of the voters in 1999 thought the new Constitution was a good one, 24% said it was not a good one and 37% either did not know or had no opinion.

At the end of July 1996, Commissioner Tomasi Vakatora was asked by the Prime Minister to explain their Report to the Provincial Councils. He started with the Lomaiviti and the Nadroga/Navosa Provincial Councils. Both Councils supported the Reeves Report.

At that stage however, opponents of the Reeves Commission in the S.V.T. intervened at the Prime Minister's Office and directed that Tomasi Vakatora should stop his visits to the Provincial Councils because they argued it was not his responsibility to explain the Report to the rest of the Councils.

This was to be left to the Politicians. It was these Politicians, Jim Ah Koy, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Koresi Matatolu, Berenado Vunibobo and others, who then successfully campaigned in the other Provincial Councils for the rejection of the Reeves Report, in the expectation that this would put a stop to any further progress at the upper levels. These opponents of the Reeves Commission even succeeded at the S.V.T. Caucus in persuading Prime Minister Rabuka that they be free to vote according to their conscience in Parliament. They were permitted to do so. They did not vote against the Constitution Amendment Bill.

Post 1999 General Elections

However, when the S.V.T. was defeated in the 1999 General Election, they then agreed with members of the Nationalist Vanua Takalavo Party (with Rabuka sidelined to the Great Council of Chiefs Chairmanship), to campaign for the removal of the Chaudhry led-Government. They used the earlier rejection of the Provincial Councils as justification for the removal of the 1997 Constitution. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and his men from Queen Elizabeth Barracks agreed. They compelled the President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (illegally and against his will) to step down so they could introduce an "Abrogation of the Constitution Decree". Dr Wolfgramm argues later in his article and I quote:

Those who have had democracy imposed against their wishes will soon want to repudiate it. They will, having had bitter experience of it, become understandably suspicious of its purveyors.

This statement again presumes that there was was widespread repudiation of Constitutional democracy by indigenous Fijians two years later, in 1999. In the last election, many Fijians were disappointed especially with the unexpected result for the S.V.T. under the new Electoral System. But again it cannot be claimed that a majority of Fijians had rejected democracy either in May 1999 or in May 2000. In the May 1999 Election, the S.V.T. got only 34.4% of the Fijian votes. The Fijian parties who joined the Government had 61.3% of the total Fijian votes.

It was clear that there had been a massive rejection of the S.V.T in the last Election by the indigenous Fijians who voted for other parties. In the 1992 and 1994 Elections, the S.V.T. had received about 66% of the Fijian votes. The marches in May 2000 leading up to Speight's coup numbered at most 10,000. They were the consequence of a relentless propaganda campaign, for about one year by the S.V.T. and the N.V.T.L.P, based on misinformation and sometimes out right lies about the Governments Policies. The indigenous Fijians were aroused to a level of suspicion and hatred of Mahendra Chaudhry and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, and even Sitiveni Rabuka, as evident in the distorted and false pamphlets written by the S.V.T. and Speight's supporters. These were distributed widely all over the country before and after the coup.

Fijian Chiefs

Wolfgramm claimed that the coup of Speight demonstrated that Fijians were as dedicated as ever to their Chiefs. What in fact the Coup showed was the ruthlessness of some ambitious Fijians who are not chiefs, but who merely wanted to use the Chiefs to get into positions of political power. At the last B.L.V. meeting, George Speight's agents strongly pushed for the B.L.V's final endorsement of all that Speight's group wanted. They were unsuccessful because of the resistance of some Chiefs, who demanded the release of all the hostages first before they could proceed to decide on the Presidency and Vice President.

It may be bad news to Dr Wolfgramm that the last Council of Chiefs Meeting had not changed it's earlier resolutions on how the current crisis should be resolved. The May 25th resolution had supported the 1997 Constitution as the appropriate framework for resolving the crisis. A leading Chief who had attended the last meeting told me that most of the Members of the B.L.V. had not accepted the Military's purported abrogation of the 1997 Constitution. Their understanding is that they had merely supported the review of the 1997 Constitution and with possible changes to it if George Speight's grievances, upon examination, are found to be legitimate and amenable to a "Constitutional Solution."

Dr Wolfgramm also seems to be sceptical about the relevance of modern principles of good governance to Fijian institutions such as the Provinces, the Vanua, the Chiefly system and the Native Land Trust Board. I believe that the endurance of the Fijian Vanuas and the system of Chiefly leadership can only be strengthened through the development of a culture of respect for the rule of law and adoption of modern principles of leadership and accountability within the indigenous Fijian social world.

We have to reinvent our traditions. I do not agree with Wolfgramm's thesis that we indigenous Fijians have to choose between liberal democracy and chiefly rule. He has utterly failed in his article to make a credible case that the values and institutions of a liberal constitutional democracy are hostile to or destructive of indigenous Fijian Vanua values. Indeed I believe the continuation of Liberal Democracy and its values is vital for the survival of the indigenous Fijian identity and the Vanua. In his ancestral homeland, Tonga, there is a movement gathering strength for a Tongan version of liberal democracy. In time it will succeed in bringing about popular changes that will give a new lease of life to the Tongan Monarchy. I doubt that even George Speight's supporters will agree with Dr Wolfgramm's argument that indigenous Fijians prefer Chiefly rule to liberal democracy, even though they seem to want to take us to a type of country where competing Vanua and Provincial Warlords decide who will be in power.

Wolfgramm's argument that Fijians prefer autocratic Chiefly rule to democracy therefore has no substance. What does Wolfgramm then make of Speight's supporters' success in rejecting the Bose Levu resolutions of May 25th? Or their persuasion of the F.M.F to force the resignation of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara from the Presidency? Their threats against Ratu Josefa Iloilo? Or their attempt at the last meeting of the B.L.V. to denigrate and diminish the status and influence of the members? Where is the traditional principle of respect and reciprocation that Wolfgramm harps so much about in these action.

Constitutional Change

All that Dr Wolfgramm is doing in his pontifications in the Daily Post is pandering to Fijian nationalist prejudices with his simplistic labelling of people as "Constitutional Romantics." It is he who fits this label, not the U.S.P academics that he wants to denigrate. We are now having to learn the hard way that democratic principles such as equality before the law, equal political rights, indigenous group rights and general human rights are important not just to us but also other nations with whom we have relations in an increasingly inter-dependent global economy. Fijian indigenous rights in particular must be protected in accordance with principles that are universally accepted.

The 1997 Constitution had achieved that, and recognised the Paramountcy of Fijian interests in the COMPACT Chapter as a guiding principle for resolving political conflicts. That is far as we can go, short of introducing political apartheid. We cannot have one special rule for indigenous supremacy for us Fijians and demand that the world either accept or "butt off". Should Speight and his gang win total political power, they will in due course find that their utopian dream of a modern and dynamic Fiji, based on a vague notion of indigenous supremacy will be meaningless with a run down economy, widespread unemployment and poverty, and qualified people deserting for other countries.

A Constitution that satisfies the prejudices (or the "souls" as Wolfgramm puts it of the minority extremist nationalists who support George Speight) will then not be worth the paper it is written on. For how can we expect people of George Speight's ilk to respect a new Constitution that they want to dictate to us when they will not abide an imperfect one that had been democratically implemented? If we are to change the 1997 Constitution, let us do it the right way, under the procedures of that Constitution.

The international community is telling us that we risk international isolation and severe decline in our standards of living, if we do not restore fundamental democratic and human rights values in our system of national government and dare I say, in the culture of the Vanuas. Having a totally Fijian Parliament, such as Speight's group are demanding, and depriving our fellow Indo-Fijian citizens of their political rights is not going to do us indigenous Fijians any good. It will reduce us to the status of a Pariah State in the international community. In such a situation, Speight's Fijian supporters will inevitably turn against him and his office seeking colleagues. Meanwhile, Dr Wolfgramm will remain a long distance student of Fijian political changes, enjoying the comforts and security of University in a liberal democratic country, whose democratic values he believes we indigenous Fijians are not good enough to have and to treasure.

Jone Dakuvula is a political commentator and researcher with the Fiji Citizens' Constitutional Forum.
Copyright © 2000



Club Em Designs