Sacked CEO to Appear in Special Court Sitting
By fijivillage
Aug 5, 2006, 13:33
Police have arrested and charged the former chief executive of the Ba Provincial Holdings Limited and he will appear in a special court seating in Lautoka this hour.
Divisional Crime Officer Western SP Vijay Singh confirmed that Isimeli Bose was charged in the last hour and police are still questioning some of his accomplices.
Bose allegedly led a group of armed men storming the Rogo Rogo i Vuda House yesterday and assaulting the security guards.
Meanwhile, a plea today from one of the high chiefs of Ba to his people not to take the law into their own hands.
Ba Provincial Council Chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini said the people of Ba should bear in mind that the province and the shareholders have already made a decision.
Ratu Ovini maintains that the interim board has been appointed and is to be led by Ratu Tevita Momoedonu
Audio Comment
Chairman Ratu Tevita Momoedomu and members of the interim board are being interviewed by police at the Lautoka police station as investigations continue.
Land laws
LANDOWNERS are getting the signal of what to expect from the proposed land legislations from your article (FT 2/8) titled Not your land, but NLTB's'.
The proposed Native Land Trust Act takes away the right of bargaining and agreement between the landlord and tenants as enshrined in the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act.
The former only recognises the trustee which, in this case, is the Native Land Trust Board.
How can the judge say that it is not our land but NLTB's? I think I have grasped the cache.
Utiko Nabunobuno
Lautoka
Telecom service
SO the mystery unfolds. While we urbanites relentlessly pour out our frustration regarding telecommunication disservice, media reports highlight that politicking and manoeuvring at the highest level are rife in the market share of the mobile telecommunication sector.
And the billion-dollar question is who will represent our best interests as people of Fiji?
The NLTB seems to be in the thick of things, dabbling in business ventures that its original mission did not have scope for.
How is it that with money to spare for investment, the entity which is the guardian of the landowners' best interests continues to push one agenda while landowners continue to highlight in the news their land issues?
Do landowners want mobile telecommunication and its costs?
Landline penetration to rural areas is not 100 per cent so who is supposed to benefit from the service?
It is odd that Pacific Connex, an IT-specialist entity is a key stakeholder in this venture. We can only assume that any mobile telecommunications expertise required will be outsourced, thus more costs to us taxpayers at the end of the day.
Then we have the drama at the Ba Provincial Council which seems to point to some influence from Vanua Development Corporation NLTB's investment arm in Pacific Connex.
Is the cold weather causing the season of executive coups in the West in the span of two weeks?
It seems the NLTB is overstepping its boundary by lobbying policies that affect the State's obligation to the people.
With great humility we ask provincial councils to remain steadfast in their vision for what is best for people in urban, rural and international centres as our parallel links remain firm.
Blood must remain thicker than water.
Allow us to raise our disgust at the unfolding of the Animal Farm shenanigans being enacted that only perpetuates the "all animals are equal but some more equal than others" syndrome.
We say open mobile telecommunication to Digicel and VDCL.
Let the consumer's buying power dictate and remain loyal to the entity willing to do the hard slog and go the extra mile for us. Consumers are taxpayers and the fact is that real money remains concentrated in urban and international communities.
We hope good sense and judgment prevail.
Seini Lutu
Suva
Maryann Tagi
Laucala
Ulamila Wragg
Cook Islands
Vasiti Ritova
Ra
Sisilia Lewaravu
Lautoka
Vani Twigg
Turkey
Lanna Lomaloma
Papua New Guinea
Tago Fine'Aloto
Suvavou
Mereoni Bola
United States
Tulia Takala
Lautoka
Cabinet okays Qoliqoli Bill
Thursday, August 03, 2006
TOURISM stakeholders are backing a Cabinet decision to table the Qoliqoli Bill in Parliament despite some reservations.
The decision to introduce the Bill in the Lower House was made following a recommendation by Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.
He said the principal objective of the Bill was to transfer to qoliqoli owners from the State the proprietary ownership of their respective qoliqoli areas currently owned by the Government.
Fiji Visitors Bureau chief executive Viliame Gavoka said the Bill was unique to Fiji and, therefore, a major selling point because many tourists wanted benefits to trickle down to landowners. But, he cautioned, that while it was a brilliant idea and experiment to come up with a Bill, a proper management system needed to be put in place.
Fiji Islands Hotel and Tourism Association chief executive Mereani Korovavala said in their discussions with the Attorney-General and other stakeholders, they raised concern on how the Bill may have indirect impact on their operations.
She said the University of the South Pacific was undertaking a study to determine a formula that would be submitted to the Government. This would look at the method and amount to be paid to the State by association members for the lease of land.
She said the association would abide by any decision the Government made in regards to the Bill as any uncertainty would have an adverse impact on tourism. Fiji Resource Owners Association Ratu Osea Gavidi said while they welcomed the Bill, the State should relinquish the land to the vanua or the yavusa and not to the Native Land Trust Board because it was just another arm of government.
"We, as vanua leaders, will decide whether we'll join a body to administer qoliqoli or we'll open a management body to administer it," he said.
Ratu Naiqama said the Bill marked the culmination of 125 years of preparation and expectation by Fijian chiefs and their tribes over their traditional customary rights. He pointed out claims for compensation for past use of qoliqoli areas would not be entertained.
"This is because all land that is to be transferred to the qoliqoli owners is owned by the State, and as such, the qoliqoli owners cannot claim for land that they do not own."
He said a feature of the Bill would be the establishment of a Qoliqoli Commission through the reconstitution of the Native Fisheries Commission.
Ratu Naiqama said no commercial fishing license issued for operation within qoliqoli waters may be issued without consultation with the commission, which may insist on certain conditions. Cabinet has approved the tabling of the Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill.
The Bill seeks to address the long-standing grievances of landowners who claim part of their land was acquired by early settlers through fraudulent or dubious means.
Call for the truth on Ridgway
Senior government appointments should be made in a transparent manner and should not go to those who toe the right political line.
Former Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei party general secretary Ema Druavesi made the comment after the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions suspended Acting DPP Kevueli Tunidau for making public statements against the appointment of an expatriate to take up the job.
“If the Government expelled former Deputy DPP Peter Ridgway, then why is it looking to employ another expatriate?” said Mrs Druavesi.
“Was it because of his successful work in putting to jail some of the well-known names in the community? Who was that junior officer who had given the letter of expulsion to Mr Ridgway? Who has given him the authority to write the letter? The Government should come out clean and explain to the public why it chose to employ another expatriate after they had earmarked Tunidau for the job.”
When Mr Tunidau was sent in as a replacement, she said, it had cost the Government money for him to study overseas. She said the Government should reinstate Mr Tunidau if it was to be true in implementing the blueprint.
State prosecutor cites Fiji vice-president and key politicians in coup
By Michael Field
SUVA, March 7 2003 - A Fiji state prosecutor in High Court Friday made pointed references to the nation’s vice-president and several leading politicians who he said were involved in the treason behind the May 2000 coup which ended the country’s first Indian led government.
Australian Peter Ridgway was summing up in the treason trial of journalist Jo Nata and politician Timoci Silatolu have been on trial for treason before Australian Justice Andrew Wilson here.
Law enforcement sources outside court told AFP a new set of high profile arrests was imminent.
Now convicted traitor George Speight led a group of special forces soldiers into Parliament on May 19, 2000, seizing then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and eventually holding him and his government hostage for 58 days. During that time the military declared martial law and later installed a civilian government. Chaudhry never returned to office.
The handful of arrests since then have prompted numerous questions from Chaudhry over what he saw as a cover-up of other more significant people in the coup.
Speaking in court Ridgway named Speight and Silatolu and the current deputy speaker of parliament, Rakuita Vakalalabure, as “these three men acting in a common pursuit“ at the head of the coup.
Vakalalabure, who leads the Conservative Alliance party formed to campaign to get Speight pardoned, has never been charged with any offence. His party provides key coalition support for the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s government.
Ridgway said the day after the coup Nata played a key role in swearing in the illegal government, and Ridgway stressed that this was sworn by an illegally declared president, Josefa Seniloli, who is now vice-president and who has never been charged for his role in the coup.
Ridgway also cited several other key figures, still uncharged, for their roles. These included veteran one-time Foreign Minister Bernardo Vunibobo and the then leader of the opposition, Inoke Kubuabola, who is now Fiji’s High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea.
Vunibobo, he said, had attended meetings after the coup and advised Speight and his group that they should tell the United Nations of the “new regime” in place and that the seat in the world body should go to them.
Documents seized later from Nata’s home showed that Vunibobo was to be the new foreign minister and Kubuabola the telecommunications minister.
Kubuabola worked with Nata to draft the decrees, the court was told.
In court he made no reference to any charges against the men and referred to them instead as “the cohort of losers” as they had all lost seats in parliament in earlier elections and were engaged in trying to remove a democratically elected government.
During the hearing of evidence a defence witness, former special forces solider Salesi Tuifagalele who had immunity from prosecution, caused a sensation by claiming under oath that Speight, before the coup, had told them that the coup had the financial backing of two leading Indian companies, C J Patel and Punjas.
On Friday Ridgway told the five assessors that Tuifagalele’s evidence was not credible, particularly the reference to the companies: “That is the kind of thing Speight would say to convince greedy, ignorant, stupid people to fall into the plot, don’t believe it.”
In court the significance of the naming of various politicians were not explained, however a law enforcement source outside court said it was a “clear warning.
“We are awaiting the outcome of this trial and more arrests will follow.”
The move will not necessarily directly destabilise the Qarase Government but could wreck its coalition partner. It may force the government to call a snap election ahead another date in court, in June when Chaudhry’s Fiji Labour Party goes to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the government itself.
A public opinion poll this week showed Qarase retaining support among Fijian voters while the pro-Speight camp was losing support.
Justice Wilson was to have begun summing up by now and it was expected a verdict would come by Tuesday.
However it is not now expected until March 17 at the earliest, and Justice Wilson suppressed from publication the reasons for the delay.
All counsel agreed with the reason.
Push for new-look RTU Bill
By Maika Bolatiki
Political Editor
The Multi-Party Government will table a new look Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill in the near future. The President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo in his address at the opening of parliament said: "The Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill, introduced last year, will be brought back to Parliament with a largely revised framework for further consideration. It will take full account of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Sector Committee which held wide consultations with the people." The Prime Minister, Mr Laisenia Qarase has confirmed that a new Bill will be submitted to parliament with changes including significant amendments to the Amnesty provisions.
A new round of public hearings is likely, he said at the Joint Session of National Advisory Council for Indian and Minority Communities at the Tradewinds Convention Center last month. This follows the negative comments directed at the Amnesty clause of the proposed Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill. "We repeatedly emphasized that there would be no general amnesty and that other parts of the Bill were of equal or even greater importance.
These provisions were virtually ignored by the critics." Prime minister Qarase said. The Prime Minister made it clear that they had an open mind about the public debate and attached great importance to the view of the people with changes, improvement and clarification to be made, as necessary. He reiterated that one of the Bill's vital section concerns the appointment of a permanent Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Council, with its own legislation.
"It will replace the existing Council for National Reconciliation and Unity, which does not have any special legal foundation or power," he said "The new Council will play an important part in our National effort to bridge divisions between our communities." The Council will adopt a National policy for National Reconciliation and have the authority to take specific initiates for achieving greater multi-cultural understanding The Prime Minister is optimistic that the granting of amnesty to those who were involved would enable them to tell the whole truth about what had transpired.
It is a fact that the nation is still haunted by the ghost of the May 2000 political upheaval. Both the Fiji Labour Party and the National Federation Party are totally against the Bill, but had strongly backed the call by Commissioner of Police Andrew Hughes for a Commission of Inquiry In a statement by FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry, he said the government should institute a public inquiry to establish the truth of what happened in 2000 and key players behind the terrorist activities.
"The unlawful takeover of parliament, the 56-day hostage crisis and the months of violence and mayhem that followed, wrecked the economy brought untold suffering to thousands of innocent people and led to loss of lives," Mr Chaudhry said."Although some people have been persecuted and convicted for their part of the coup, a lot still needs to be revealed We still don't know who the real instigators were, nor have we tracked down the financiers of the coup."
The same call had also been echoed by Josefa Nata, one of the key players in the political upheaval of May 2000. He is now serving a life sentence at Nukulau. The FLP leader said that the party knew that former coup-convict Maciu Navakasuasua is also prepared to testify before an inquiry. According to Mr Chaudhry the people of Fiji want an inquiry. Government he says must take heed of this. It should stop wasting time and money on the controversial RTU Bill, stop releasing people convicted of coup-related crimes and set up a national inquiry, headed by an eminent jurist, into the events of 2000.
Let us take a look at how amnesty will be granted under this Bill and I'm looking at the Bill that was tabled in parliament last year. First of all I will clarify why amnesty was granted to those involved in the 1987 coup and not to those involved in the 2000 coup. 1987 coup leader and former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said the only difference between the two coups was that the 1987 coup leader managed to exercise control of the country and actually ran an effective "government' albeit "defacto". He managed to run the government with the army and police and the Courts, which were sworn- in. As a result, the position of the Queen in Fiji became "untenable" and Her Majesty's representative here, acknowledging that, resigned, effectively heralding in the new system of a republican government headed by a Military - appointed and supported administration which enabled the transition from the "defacto" state to a "dejure" state, allowing the Military to appoint a President of the Republic.
The 2000 attempt failed to take control of anything and could not exercise any authority to eclipse the legitimate authority of the land.
2000 coup leader George Speight and his supporters according to Mr Rabuka took on something they knew nothing about. The military intervened but the alternative was for them to have disregarded the request of the former President not to be asked to return to the Presidency, and for the Army to restore law and order, return Ratu Sir Kamisese to the Presidency and allow him then to negotiate with Mr. Chaudhry on the way forward.
There was no police investigation against Mr Rabuka and the military about the 1987 coup because they became the law. They were granted amnesty and this was included in the 1990 Constitution and also in the 1997 Constitution. However, there is a great difference in the amnesty section of the Unity Bill. In the current legislation, prisoners could be freed under compulsory supervision order (CSO). This is under the discretion of the Commissioner of Prisons, under the Prerogative of Mercy and under the directive of the Minister for Home Affairs.
Let us have a look at why the granting of amnesty in the new Bill is totally different from the amnesty granted to Mr Rabuka and his colleagues. When they were granted amnesty, they did not make any revelation to the public or a committee as to why they carried out the coup. For amnesty to be granted to someone imprisoned for his involvement in the 2000 coup he will have to make an application to the Commission. Upon receiving an application for amnesty, the Commission may - * reject the application if it is trivial, frivolous or vexatious or that it relates to an act which is not connected with a political objective or on the ground that it is an act committed outside the designated period; or * refer the application to the Amnesty Committee to hear the application. For the applicant, he must successfully argue that an act was associated with a political objective and was not purely criminal. If the argument is not accepted, there will be no amnesty. There has to be a full and truthful disclosure under oath of all the relevant facts. If a lie is told, perjury is committed.
Without this full disclosure, there is no amnesty. The country needs to know the truth about the events of 2000. This is government's last bid for reconciliation and unity. Mr Chaudhry is also party to the political upheaval after he had ignored the advice by the police of a possible coup and that no permit for marches should be granted.
The granting of amnesty will persuade the people involved in the coup to come forward and relate the whole truth of what had happened. Mr Chaudhry in supporting the Commission of Inquiry supports the revelation of the whole truth about the May 2000 upheaval. This is what will also be achieved in the RTU Bill when it is enacted. It is a fact that the FLP leader supports the RTU Bill through a Commission of Inquiry. We should be happy that the Prime Minister has confirmed the amnesty section will be amended.
As far as S.i.F.M is concerned, this watered-down bill is still unacceptable and makes a mockery of the rule of law.
"Give me [the issues of] your tired, your poor,
Your [concerns of intolerance, for the]huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The [tears of injustice from the]wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these [reports of abuse and degradation], the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp[of knowledge] beside the golden door [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]."
For an example if, someone is hurt during their stay and eventually dies; who should be taken to task. Is it the Vorovoro island chief or the Tribes Wanted project organizers?
Landowners query board loyalty
Monday, July 24, 2006
THE Native Lands Trust Board was last week required to provide landowners of one of the country's largest tourism developments the reassurance that they are committed to protecting landowners' interests.
NLTB's Deputy General Manager Operations, Semi Tabakanalagi was swamped with concerns regarding the loyalty of the board during a meeting with landowners from Sanasana Village in Sigatoka.
Seven landowning units from the village own the land on which the Natadola Marine Resort project is currently being developed. A delegation led by Mr Tabakanalagi traveled to the village on Thursday to address grievances raised by landowners.
However, during the meeting Mr Tabakanalagi and his team were bombarded with claims that the board was working more with the project developers and either ignoring or sacrificing landowners' interests.
Landowners' spokesman, former cabinet minister and senator, Apisai Tora said the four units he was representing were concerned about their rights and interests being sacrificed to ensure the project continued.
Mr Tora said a major concern of landowners was Keni Dakuidreketi's position with NLTB while being the main developer for the project.
"This is a clear case of conflict of interest and this has raised a lot of eyebrows within the landowning units of Sanasana."
"Since Mr Dakuidreketi is the main developer, we are concerned that all decisions made by the board would be made to see that the project went ahead regardless of whether our rights were sacrificed," he said.
"Even though NLTB is our trustee, it seems that it is pushing the company's interests," said Mr Tora.
"We have some grievances with several works that the developers are carrying out so how do you expect us to trust that the board will address our concerns when the developer is sitting on the board," Mr Tora asked.
Attempts to contact Mr Dakuidreketi yesterday were unsuccessful.
But Mr Tabakanalagi said there was nothing to worry about because the board always fought for the rights and interests of landowners. He promised that no decision would be made in favor of the developers because Mr Dakuidreketi was a member of the board.
"You do not have to worry about Mr Dakuidreketi because that is our job to see that he carries out his duties properly. NLTB is always for the landowners and your rights and interests are always our priority," Mr Tabakanalagi said.
Vanua Development Corporation Limited - The Board approved the establishment of this investment Company with immediate effect. The Board also approved the appointment of the Directors for the Board:
1. Mr Keni Dakuidreketi, NLTB Board - Chairman
2. Mr Nalin Patel, G Lal & Co - Director
3. Mr Daniel Whippy, Carpenters Fiji Ltd - Director
4. Mr Isoa Kaloumaira, Fijian Trust Fund - Director
5. Mr Kalivati Bakani, NLTB GM - Director
The Company is expected to commence operations from early 2004, following Government's approval of an interest-free loan of $1m to finance the Company. Other current investments of NLTB will be transferred to the Company. Initially the NLTB will be the sole shareholder. It is envisaged that this will be opened up to landowners in future. The primary objective of the Company is to invest in viable, profitable ventures, generating additional revenue for the Board. Over time this may lead to a reduction in poundage increasing distributable funds to landowners.
FIJI: April Development, a subsidiary of Euro Asia Management Group, is looking to develop a world class integrated resort of over 327 hectares (808 acres) with a variety of recreational and resort options at their Natadola Marine Resort site, a stunning natural bay with white sand beaches on the Coral Coast on the main island of Viti Levu. The resort will include:
Hotels of different class and concept (all ocean front)
18-hole Golf Course
Marina
Vacation Ownership Resorts
Second-Home Developments
Multi use Resort Communities
The site is located on the South West Coast of Viti Levu, the main island of Fiji, about 50 km to Nadi International Airport (45 minutes). It's one of those places that when you look at picture of it you just want to be there...
Two main points of contention by S.i.F.M is that:
1.) What measures are in place to ascertain that employers do not have two or three sets of books?
2.)What is the purpose of a national minimum wage when there are loop holes of enforcement and administration?
Club theory and some principles successful regionalism
When assessing Pacific regionalism, the economic theory of clubs contains important lessons. Club theory has been applied to a wide range of contexts, including military alliances, international organizations, and cross-border infrastructure and services. Club groupings of agents, firms, or countries— have different characteristics that make them amenable to different groupings. Yet any collective endeavor or club must satisfy two basic conditions.
1. A club must be self-sustaining.
2. A club must provide a large enough pool of net benefits for each of its members.
The success or failure of a club depends on its benefits exceeding its costs. Economies of scale. The reduction in unit cost resulting from pooling productive capacities are offset by the costs of collective action.
These costs effectively limit the size and scope of a club. In the Pacific, adding more remote countries entails higher diseconomies of isolation the high cost of shipping goods, services, information, and people to increasingly remote countries across the region.
From this tension between scale benefits and distance costs of collective action, the "optimal club" (in this case, a group of countries), can be derived. The composition of the "optimal club" may vary significantly according to the issue or service under consideration.
Arrogant PM
IT was sad to hear the Prime Minister's blunt refusal to accept the Fiji Human Right's report on the Government's Affirmative Action policies.
His unfortunate response showed great arrogance and stubbornness and a refusal to listen. This is also evident in the PM's determination to reintroduce the Reconciliation Bill despite a caution to him by the Vice President that he should not go down this road.
People always accuse FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry of arrogance and stubbornness but it seems that the PM wins the prize hands down.
Not all Fijians support the affirmative action policies of government.
Many think that these policies do not address the cultural causes which are at the root of Fijians' failure to do well in education and in economic ventures. Moreover, it seems that those Fijians who have been helped by these policies are mostly in rural areas and have the right political connections.
We know deserving Fijians in urban areas who have applied for help but have never received it. And most of all we think that any form of affirmative action should benefit all who are in need not just Fijians.
The PM does not like to be called a racist yet he claims to see racist motivation at work with the Human Rights Commission.
He may be well intentioned in wanting to see Fijians advance economically but he is Prime Minister of the whole country, not just of the Fijian people and all who are disadvantaged need affirmative action, Indo- Fijians, Kai Solomoni and others.
In defending the affirmative action policies, the PM stated that "virtual exclusion of Fijians from major sectors of the economy was big factor in what occurred in 1987 and 2000" and consequently "at the root of our past instability".
Yet many of those who have written on the two coups have refuted the claim that "indigenous Fijian rights" and the "indigenous cause" were the real reason behind the coups.
No doubt about misinformation and exaggeration about the economic disadvantages of the Fijians vis a vis the Indo-Fijian populations was used by the instigators of the coup to stir up racial animosity and gain support for Fijian nationalism.
But the real causes of the coup must be sought elsewhere. One writer speaks of Fijians nationalism as being the "Trojan horse" which acted as a cover up for "a complex coalescence of greed and competing interests". The preservation of vested business interests was certainly involved. Moreover some politicians who had lost their political power wanted to regain it and there was definite power struggles also within Fijian society. "Fijian nationalism" was a good scapegoat.
Certainly many Fijians are poorer than they should be and the root causes behind the Fijian economic disadvantage must definitely be sought.
However, some of us think that these root causes are not being addressed by the present form of affirmative action policies.
Semiti Qalowasa
Suva
Human Rights
WHO does the Fiji Human Rights Commission represent? Aisake Delai wants to know (FT 7/7/06). I wish to let him know that the FHRC represents me, my wife, my mother and my two children. We are all citizens of the country.
There might be other families who feel the FHRC represents them as well. Aisake Delai might not know it but the FHRC also represents him as well because he belongs to the same species, humans who live in this part of the planet earth.
Rajend Naidu
Nasinu
Fijian Holdings Building, Suva.Affirmative action for all, chief pledges
Affirmative action is not confined to one racial group, the Minister for Fijian Affairs, Lands and Provincial Development, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, pledged yesterday. He was on a visit to government projects in Ba aimed at assisting the disadvantaged. Ratu Naiqama said the government team was able to mingle with a lot of people benefiting from these projects.
These included the rural housing scheme and other infrastructure developments in villages throughout the Western Division. Accompanied by the Minister of State for Provincial Development, Ted Young, and Minster of State for Fijian Affairs, Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, Ratu Naiqama said the visit was to follow up on developments in the Western Division.
"We have completed visits to parts of Nadi, Lautoka and Ba where a number of government-funded projects have been staged to help a lot of those people who are faced with difficulties in trying to make ends meet," he said. "We're looking at depressed areas also and we met a number of cases that involved a family whose house burnt down three years ago but have managed to rebuild their lives."
The projects are part of the Affirmative Action Programme to help the disadvantaged. Ratu Naiqama said one thing the ministry would like to highlight was the need for everyone to work together in making the projects work for all. "This programme is not just to help one particular race as claimed by people who are saying it is biased," he said.
FijiSun Editorial-Thursday 13th July, 2006
No water sell-off
Water is not a luxury. It is a necessity for human survival and has been quite rightly described as a basic human right. Access to clean, plentiful and potable water should be the right of every man, woman and child in these islands. Unfortunately, however, water has become a political liability for the present and previous governments. This is because they have been unable to deliver an acceptable service due to the lack of vision of their predecessors who failed utterly to invest in the future. As a result Fiji is stuck with ageing infrastructure and equipment that frequently fails with the resultant wait for the water truck that has become so familiar to so many of Fiji's citizens. Little wonder, then, that the Government is keen to pass the problem to the private sector.
But great care will need to be taken and, it must be said, the early indicators are not encouraging. The absence of any form of consumer representation in the study group examining the possibility of privatisation is of particular concern.
The businessmen and government officers examining this concept are eminent people - but business people are perceived rightly or wrongly as representing business interests. In a debate on such a vital service they will not been seen as consumer advocates. Indeed, the Government would do well to balance their input with advice and experience from consumer groups and relevant non-government organisations.
The fear, of course, is that privatisation (which is by no means inevitable) will result in a plentiful supply of good clean water for those who can afford it and a second rate service for those who cannot. The Government has already pledged its solemn word that this will not be permitted to happen - but once the supply of water is out of its hands it will become ever more difficult for it to keep that promise. In fact privatised water has the potential to become even more of a political headache than the present service, however poor that may be. On the other hand consumers need to accept that if they want a reliable service they will have to fund it.
On balance, then, water like education and health is a vital service that should continue to be controlled and delivered by the state. In that way donor - and private sector - assistance may well be available and should be welcomed. For there is no doubt whatsoever that only a major overhaul requiring equally major investment is the only means of providing the people of Fiji with the service they have a right to expect. But water must remain a public service.
View of the corner: Dennison Road(diagonal) and Pender Street, Domain, Suva.
