Scotland's rugby-crazy Fijian soldiers

A look at the Fiji lads in Scotland. Video posted below.






Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Whale Oil- Radio N.Z. perpetrates lies about Fiji petition

Whale Oil recent post on Fiji, analyzes the Radio NZ coverage on the alleged 600k signed petition for a 3 minute democracy in Fiji.

The excerpt:

Radio N.Z. perpetrates lies about Fiji petition

It is a while since I wrote any­thing about the coun­try of my birth, but Radio NZ has finally dri­ven me to it.

Prob­a­bly the sin­gle best site on Fiji is Fiji the way it was, is and Can be. He has got stuck into Radio NZ. Unfor­tu­nately his blog isn’t widely read so I take this oppor­tu­nity to spread the word more effectively.

Before I do I must choke out good com­ment about the recent work of Mur­ray McCully to change the par­a­digm and rhetoric around Fiji.

Now onto the Radio NZ bol­locks.

“Fiji’s peo­ple have been fairly meek and accept­ing in the face of three years of mil­i­tary rule – but not any longer. On Fri­day, they sub­mit­ted a peti­tion to the mil­i­tary regime call­ing for the restora­tion of democ­racy and elec­tions by the end of the year. It was backed by over 680,000 peo­ple – more than 80% of the country’s pop­u­la­tion.

It will be inter­est­ing to see how the regime responds to this. With that level of mass oppo­si­tion, its not as if they can arrest every­one (besides the obvi­ous prob­lem of num­bers, the sol­diers may not be will­ing to arrest their fam­i­lies). OTOH, unless the peo­ple are will­ing to turn their mass oppo­si­tion into colour-revolution-style mass protests, then the regime may not in fact have to do any­thing.”

Now read on to see where this non­sense came from.

RadioNZ reports, with­out prior enquiry, ques­tion or com­ment, that a peti­tion “said to have the sup­port of more than 600,000 peo­ple” has peti­tioned Bain­i­marama to hold elec­tions this year. Link.( See other RadioNZ links below.) And Coup­four­point­five has fol­lowed suit.

So Radio NZ got some info on a peti­tion sup­pos­edly from over 600,000 Fijian cit­i­zens to request a return to democ­racy and silly twat no Mal­colm Har­brow duti­ful starts spread­ing the lie. nor­mally he researches a bit more beyond the issues but his blink­ers are always on over Fiji.

So where did Radio NZ get their info from?

The infor­mant and main peti­tioner was Suliasi Dau­ni­tutu of Quean­beya, NSW, who is linked to the Aus­tralian FijiDemoc­ra­cyNow move­ment. Suliasi said the peti­tion­ers, most pre­sum­ably liv­ing in Fiji, “are afraid to express [their views] openly, so it’s being done through var­i­ous polit­i­cal par­ties … Lead­ers of the Fiji Labour, SDL and National Fed­er­a­tion Party…”

So. This is a peti­tion based on past party mem­ber­ship lists not indi­vid­u­als who have signed in their own right or given par­ties to sign on their behalf. The lists were appar­ently given by these par­ties to Suliasi and then handed by him to Bain­i­marama! I cer­tainly wouldn’t like to belong to a polit­i­cal party, or any other orga­ni­za­tion, which was so free with its
mem­ber­ship list. And if Bain­i­marama is as vin­dic­tive as Suliasi would claim, he isn’t doing his peti­tion­ers any good by giv­ing him their names and addresses. The peti­tion is imme­di­ately sus­pect on these grounds.

Well, well, well three holes in the ground. No-one has actu­ally signed a peti­tion. The peti­tion is made up of mem­bers of oppo­si­tion polit­i­cal par­ties, with not a sin­gle sig­na­ture to sup­port the con­tention that 680,000 or the claimed 80% of pop­u­la­tion have signed the peti­tion. In the num­bers there is a prob­lem to, apart from the obvi­ous that there is no way that the SDL, Labour and the National Fed­er­a­tion Party could pos­si­bly have 80% of the pop­u­la­tion enrolled as mem­bers. Though with Qarase any­thing is possible.

It is also sus­pect on the num­ber of peti­tion­ers claimed:

600,000 by RadioNZ; 685,936 by Suliasi, the main peti­tioner. How does he come even close to his 600,000 made up mainly of those on the party lists?

The adult pop­u­la­tion at the 2007 cen­sus was only 518,000, and the com­bined first pref­er­ence votes given to these three par­ties in the 2006 elec­tion totalled under 240,000. I doubt that more than a few of these vot­ers were reg­is­tered mem­bers of the party for which they voted.

Fur­ther, it can­not be pre­sumed that vot­ing for these par­ties four years ago would result in sim­i­lar num­bers vot­ing for them today,
or the same vot­ers being opposed to what Bain­i­marama has been
try­ing to achieve since 2006. Vot­ing for a party is a lim­ited
man­date.

Mine does not assume it can speak on my behalf on all issues. But if all 240,000 “signed” the peti­tion, a fur­ther 440,000 for­mer Fiji cit­i­zens and other peo­ple liv­ing over­seas would also need to sign to reach 686,000!

Did it not occur to some­one in RadioNZ that 600,000 is more more than the total adult Fiji pop­u­la­tion of 518,000 recorded in the 2007
cen­sus, approx­i­mately one-third of whom were too young to
vote?

Or did they con­sider the daunt­ing task of get­ting at least 360,000 Aus­tralians and New Zealan­ders to sign to get even close to their
600,000? Such a mas­sive peti­tion would have reached the ears of the
media. Why have we not heard of it until now?

Dig­ging deeper, Suliasi’s peti­tion was in sup­port of a peti­tion by Vil­isi
Naduka of Caubati in Nas­inu who first came to pub­lic atten­tion when in Octo­ber 2008 he parked his car across the road at Nabua, Suva, in
protest against the Coup.

Suliasi says the peti­tion was handed to Bain­i­mara last Fri­day
after­noon but Visili says he posted it after pray­ing at the
Methodist Church and pre­sent­ing a copy to the Church
Pres­i­dent, not that the dis­crep­ancy really mat­ters other than rais­ing the ques­tion of what else Suliasi may have got wrong.

Well. the num­bers are cer­tainly sus­pect and so is the fact as to who pre­sented what and when. Sounds like com­plete bol­locks. Time to sell Radio NZ methinks.

The NZ tax­payer should not be sub­si­diz­ing such poor jour­nal­ism. Fancy Labour sup­port­ing such and inept bunch of hope­less fact checkers.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

A Perspective On Fiji.

Thought provoking opinion article from Rajendra Prasad, appeared in Indian Newslink.


The excerpt:

At crossroads of chaos and prosperity

14/02/2010 05:26:00 Rajendra Prasad


Three years have gone by since Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama deposed the Qarase Government.

Much water has passed under the bridge and there is room for conjecture and introspection. Around Fiji, there is calm tinged with uncertainty but not fear or anxiety, as in the past.

People have taken it in their stride. The Interim Government has defied the world and its detractors and has identified a path to accomplish its mission, as specified in the People’s Charter. No one can dispute that the intent and content of the Charter is commendable, more so because it is a product of a military-comprised government. It also promises to re-invent democracy for Fiji that is strong, resilient and fair to all the people of Fiji, removing every trace of racism that was one of the dominant features of the past constitutions.

Vital decisions

In these three years, the Interim Government has taken some vital decisions that no democratically elected government could have in the past.

The banishing of the Great Council of Chiefs and Methodist Church from the political landscape augurs well for the restoration of democracy.

The Great Council of Chiefs and the Methodist Church had become integral part of the political network and were avid sponsors of racism. They were the voice of Fijian ethno-nationalism, where importance was given, not to what was good for the nation but what suited their own ethnic agenda. For 39 years since independence, their influence on Fiji politics was real and toxic.

A historic perspective

On reflection, the chiefly rule and democratic rule, as structured in Fiji was incompatible.

The chiefly rule, as reconfigured during the colonial rule, suited the colonists, who used them to propel the ideals of the colonial government.

In this endeavour, Fijians were enticed to protect and maintain their culture, customs and traditions, as the colonists posed as great protectors of the Fijian race.

The Chiefs were convinced and as the community was neutralized, it facilitated the colonial plunder. The Fijian Administration was established and the Chiefs were at the forefront to keep their people herded within the confines of their tribal areas, eking out a living on subsistence farming.

The Chiefs had their reward for their services, but it did incalculable harm to ordinary Fijians who could not individually or even collectively articulate their future, maintaining rhyme and rhythm with the emerging world for their own good.

Simply, those cultures that remained static, averse to change had embraced poverty and want while those that evolved with times, needs and desires became progressive and prosperous. Fijians were duped by the great colonial lie and the community is still hounded by its negative impact.

The curtain over this period of Fijian history needs to be removed, allowing truth to reveal itself. It was a clever British ploy for ease of governance that left a race of people socially and economically disadvantaged but it escaped censure, as Indo-Fijians were touted by the colonists as the cause of Fijian privation.

This lie gave vent to racism in Fiji to entrench itself. The British hastily left Fiji, leaving Indo-Fijians to suffer the Fijian backlash since independence, which intensified following the coups of 1987 and 2000.

Administration decried

Interestingly, once the elective system expanded and Fijians given the right to franchise in 1963, the role of the Chiefs diminished, as power and authority devolved on the elected leaders.

Dr Rusiate Nayacakalou, a Fijian academic, warned in 1964 (in his book, Leadership in Fiji) that the greatest obstacle that faced them was to realise that there was a contradiction and challenged them to make that momentous choice between changing and preserving their way of life.

He warned them that the belief that they could do both was a monstrous nonsense and, prophetically claimed that its eradication may not be possible, as they had been saddled with it for long.

Dr Tupeni Baba, a Fijian academic and politician, echoed similar sentiments, referring to reports of the Burns Commission (led by Sir Alan Burns) and the Spate Commission (led by Oskar Spate), which criticised the system of Fijian Administration.

Cyril Belshaw, in his Social Change in Melanesia (1954), claimed that the Fijian Administration was archaic and operating in a world of unreality, and that it was a major factor holding the development of Fijian people.

Despite successive reports decrying Fijian Administration and claiming that it was inhibiting Fijian participation in the social and economic advancement, every government rejected the recommendations and shelved the reports.

In essence, the reports favoured ordinary Fijians but disadvantaged their political leaders and Chiefs who felt that the removal of the Fijian Administration would liberate Fijians, ending their domination and harvest.

Conviction, not consent

Understandably, with such advantage and backing from the Chiefs, Fijian Administration and Methodist Church, the Fijian leaders could not be expected to change the status quo.

Yet, the change was vital for the good of ordinary Fijians, Indians and the nation.

The Bainimarama mission is seen by many as the medium for that vital change.

It is accepted that conviction and not consent is the best course for the nation and all citizens of Fiji. To most people, the means justify the end and to others the end justifies the means. Politicians rarely make hard and difficult choices for the greater good in contemporary politics.

Commodore Bainimarama can do it because he does not need anyone’s vote or favour. Establishment of true democracy is his magic mantra, eliminating racism. Bravo!

Some observers say there was no other way for a quick fix to Fiji’s terminal democracy because forces of instability had dug deep into its structure and those that should have removed or kept them out, had embraced them.

While they relished the power and perks that went with it, ordinary citizens of Fiji were left to grapple with poverty, unemployment and bad governance. This cycle had to be broken as Fiji’s political system was self-destructive.

Some have said that it positive changes cannot be brought about by the Indo-Fijian initiative but by Fijian initiative.

But no one could have prophesied five years ago that the military would play such a decisive role. Indeed, in rebuilding the edifice of democracy in Fiji, it requires careful preparation of its foundations to ensure that it remains relevant, resilient, robust and in the safe hands of those who would promote and defend its ideals and not in the hands of those who, by default, exchange prison cells to being members of Parliament.

Divergent views

I had written in similar vein earlier and had the privilege to share briefly views of some friends who differed with my views. I reconsidered my views in light of what they said. I respect their views but remain unconvinced. Some have taken refuge under the slogan, “No coup is a good coup!”

I wonder if people with such belief truly hold that every democracy is a good democracy, when rogue democracies litter the political landscape of the world. I was rightly asked as to what guarantee I had that Commodore Bainimarama would fulfill his promise. I cannot give any such guarantee but I, like many, hope and wager our trust in him and the Interim Government to fulfill its promises.

I do admire the courage, conviction and passion of the Interim Government to pursue an onerous task against difficult odds. The world opinion is stacked against it and there is a simmering discontent among those who have been displaced, their beneficiaries and supporters.

Misused freedom

In its desire to achieve its objectives, media freedom has been curtailed and the judiciary reconfigured and is claimed to be pro-establishment. These ripples are more noticeable now but were always there in Fiji’s so-called democracy.

Further, the law fraternity is peeved at losing its right for self-regulation of the profession and is now subject to scrutiny by the Government-appointed Registrar. Some have been disciplined and some are awaiting their fate with understandable anxiety.

The Fiji media has problems with the past governments and the last Qarase Government had substantially applied the muzzle on the media to make it pliant.

I believe that freedom of the media is one of the most abused rights in world where good, robust and genuine democracies have been its greatest victims. Slanted, biased and skewed editorials feature everyday in every part of the world and yet the media escapes censure for its imprudence.

Freedom is the unfettered right of the media but the proverbial pen has the might of the sword to cause irreparable damage, death and destruction. I hold that the Interim Government should be assisted in its endeavour to restore a true democracy in Fiji.

A challenging journey

Interestingly, New Zealand and Australia are now conceding and realise that little else can be done. There are positive signs and credible evidence that corruption, inefficiency, lethargy and incompetence within the civil service are on the decline in Fiji.

Citizens are gradually coming to terms that the Interim Government is working towards making Fiji a better place for everyone. Some knocks and setbacks unfortunately, are inevitable in that journey.

However, the greater picture must not be lost. The Interim Government has generally ruled with understanding and compassion where it was seen as fair and just to people of all races, contrary to the post-coup ‘democratic governments.’

Opportunity beckons and Fiji stands at the crossroads, lured to the highway to reconstruct the edifice of democracy that gives shelter to everyone, irrespective of race, religion or culture.


Rajendra Prasad is a thinker, author and columnist. His views may be contested but seldom discounted.

Email: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Croz Walsh: Radio NZ Interview.

Croz Walsh continues his dialogue with "Nights With Bryan Crump" 1/25/2010.

Posted on MP3 player below.







Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Letting The Cat Out Of The Bag- Gross Media Bias In The Pacific & Geo-Politics.

Happy New Year to SiFm readers.

As a indication of the power of blogs, this interesting posting from Bronte Capital, reveals its role in uncovering a Ponzi scheme lurking deep within Australia's privatized Social Security (Superannuation) fund.

To start off the 2010 blog sesssion with a bang, SiFM will re-visit subjects and concerns raised from 2009 posts. The starting point of 2010 posts will be from an earlier SiFM post titled "Clenched Fist, Open Hand-The Curious Case Of A Faltering Forum In The Pacific".

The coverage of Fiji media restrictions has drawn a lot of criticisms from regional news organizations lately, clamoring on to the media veneer of independence. This particular issue was raised by a recent posting by Croz Walsh's blog with respect to a NZ Dominion Post editorial.

SiFM has repeatedly pointed out the collusion between some Trans-Tasman media organizations and their respective Governments, pro-actively skewing, slicing and dicing facts to suit their given agenda in the region, at the given time.

The outcome of the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations and the recent legal tribulations of Julian Moti; has now become the embarrassing crown jewel of this Trans-Tasman belligerence; forever squandering the trust built up over past decades.

Based on this postulation of Trans-Tasman media collusion, it does not surprise many regional watchers, that this subject of media bias(out of bounds for some) have been pointed out, alluded to, outlined by many objective and independent regional researchers. Sadly, the mainstream media outlets have buried the lead on these insidious developments within the Pacific.

Sanjay Ramesh's recent opinion piece does touch on that segment. Partly related to the media bias, is the use of Australian and New Zealand radio broadcasts to the Pacific region. Unfortunately, the Trans-Tasman radio outreach, is perceived in the region, as an extension of these re-occurring themes of neo-colonialism.





Radio Australia's F.M transmission were touted in a blog posting from Radio Netherlands. It appeared that Radio Australia had used Tebutt Research, a firm based in Suva, Fiji to measure the local weekly audience listenership of ABC’s Radio Australia, across 5 Pacific capitals- a feather in their proverbial cap.

No Money, No Funny

Tebbutt Research was also once used extensively by the Fiji Times to gauge public perception on the issue of the day.

This controversial practice had raised many eyebrows and is similar to the issue of credit ratings agencies colluding with Hedge Funds to ensure a favorable rating. The poll or rating company are paid to provide a service.

As a service provider, the polling organization or ratings agencies are well aware of who the pays the pied piper. To guarantee that this revenue stream is kept intact, these ratings/polls seek blessings of their client, whoever that may be, prior to its publication.

First, Tebbutt is not a scientifically based opinion poll because it fails to highlight the margin of error of their surveys. Salon posting offers a basic explanation for Polls and Margin of Error.

Creatively and deceptively enough, it was these same skewed talking points, initially raised in a Fiji Times article; which are then polled on by Tebbutt.

The following excerpt is a Fiji Times article, using a Tebbutt poll published in 20 November 2006.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Fiji impasse to be solved without trouble: Poll

Monday, November 20, 2006

Tebbutt/Times Opinion Poll

Dates: 14-15 November

Sample: 1018

Method: Personal interview

Question: Which of these statements is closest to how you feel about the current situation?

1. - I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble;
2. - I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble;
3. - I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Conducted by: Tebbutt Research on behalf of Fiji Times

The majority believes the current standoff between the military and Government will be resolved without trouble, according to the latest Tebbutt Times Poll.

A total of 1018 adults were surveyed for the latest Tebbutt Times Poll on 14 and 15 November 2006 and were asked which of three statements they most identified with either I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble, or I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble, or I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Overall the Tebbutt Times Poll showed that 54 per cent believe there will be no trouble in the resolution of the standoff and are not worried at all.

Of the remainder, 28 per cent feel somewhat nervous and are concerned there might be trouble, and 18 per cent claimed they were very nervous and worried there will be trouble.

Fijians are the least likely to be nervous, and the most likely to have confidence in a trouble-free resolution.

A total of 62 per cent of all Fijians surveyed claimed they were not concerned at all, while 26 per cent of Fijians were somewhat nervous and 12 per cent were very nervous.

In contrast, one in four Indo-Fijians (25 per cent) were very nervous, 29 per cent were somewhat nervous and 45 per cent were not worried at all.

Digging further into the Tebbutt Times Poll data revealed that there was no difference in any segment of the Indo-Fijian sample but there were differences in the Fijian sample.

Among Fijians, an inverse relationship is seen between nervousness and age, meaning that as age goes up nervousness goes down.

Specifically, while 18 per cent of Fijians aged 18 and 29 years are very nervous, only 11 per cent of 30 to 44 year old Fijians are very nervous and just 5 per cent of 45+ year old Fijians are very nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll data also showed that those living in Suva were more concerned and nervous overall than those living in the West.

Overall, while 50 per cent of Suva residents are not worried at all, this confident group is 63 per cent of the sample in the West.

Interestingly those in the West were also more polarised in their views, with 22 per cent being very nervous and 63 per cent being not worried at all, leaving just 16 per cent sitting in the middle claiming to be somewhat nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll is collected in strict accordance with the global polling guidelines published by ESOMAR the world association of professional market research organisations.

Question	Total	Fijian	Indian	Other	Suva	West
I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble	18%	12%	25%	17%	17%	22%
I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble	28%	26%	29%	28%	33%	16%
I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble	54%	62%	45%	55%	50%	63%

The issue of Radio Australia transmitters closure and subsequent removal, were zealously covered by the Australian and New Zealand outlets; playing the innocent victim, as well as the used and abused media freedom card.



Psychological aspects like false scarcity, social proof, perceived value are intrinsically related to the use of opinion polls, skewed news articles, which share a common thread used by pitch-men in TV infomercials. The industry of "Pitching" was covered in a recent "On The Media" (OTM) article. The podcast of the OTM program is posted in MP3 player below.



A recent opinion article by Australian academic and former Fiji resident, Sanjay Ramesh, actually underscores that particular point of biased media in Fiji and dove tails with US academic Bruce Buene de Mosquita's ideas featured later in this post.

The excerpt of Ramesh's article:

Lament over Democracy in Fiji

Sanjay Ramesh
January 4, 2010

A recent wave of articles, mostly from New Zealand and Australian media, criticized the direction taken by the Fiji authorities following the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in April 2009.

These articles should be seen as yet another example of "parachute journalism," where journalists are sent to political trouble spots to compile informed analysis when they have little understanding of the socio-cultural context. On the face of it, it is claimed that Fiji is under a dictatorship, but Fiji had gone through this path before, so why overseas media and their willing interviewees are surprised and shocked by the unfolding political events in Fiji begs belief.

In 1987, the democratically elected multiracial government led by an indigenous Fijian doctor, Timoci Bavadra, was deposed in a bloodless coup by Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who was quickly promoted to the rank of Brigadier General by the late Governor General of Fiji, Ratu Penaia Ganilau. In 1987, Indo-Fijians were a majority in Fiji, and they complained to the international community that an elected government was ousted at gunpoint and democracy was destroyed by indigenous nationalists.

However, the same international community, including Australia and New Zealand, remained silent, and policy makers in these countries actually accused the Indo-Fijians of undermining indigenous interests, thus supporting the nationalist position.

At best, both Australia and New Zealand allowed skilled Indo-Fijians to emigrate, and this trend has continued since. Fast forward 20 years later, and the indigenous Fijians who benefitted from the 1987 coup suddenly found themselves, like their Indo-Fijian counterparts in 1987, under the gun of an indigenous military leader Frank Bainimarama, who became fed up with indigenous nationalism and the associated cronyism and patrimony.

The very people who supported the destruction of democracy in favor of indigenous rights in 1987 are now champions of democracy and rule of law, while Indo-Fijians—reduced from close to 48 percent of the population in 1987 to just little under 37 percent in 2006—have transformed into avid supporters of the "undemocratic" actions of the commander.

The contradictions in both these communities are caused by the complex trajectories of history that Australian and New Zealand media are refusing to comprehend and policy makers overseas are adamant to acknowledge.

Hot on a mission to sensationalize and exaggerate Fiji's political situation, regional media played a major role in the 2000 coup where anti-Indo-Fijian arguments were published in the local press, unchallenged by the Australian and New Zealand journalists, as indigenous thugs held an elected government hostage for 56 days and unleashed unprecedented terror and violence against Indo-Fijians living in rural Fiji.

With unrestricted access to the 2000 coup leader, George Speight, local media created a misguided view that indigenous nationalists were once again reacting to the tyranny of Indo-Fijians and, in particular, their leader, Mahendra Chaudhry.

In 2000, indigenous Fijian traditional institution—for example, the Great Council of Chiefs—was divided along indigenous confederacy and provincial lines because indigenous cultural logic dictated that chiefs from the provinces involved in the Speight coup supported them, despite the fact that rule of law had been effectively compromised.

The Australian Government, which has now taken a moral position on democracy and is deeply worried about the impact of a coup culture in the South Pacific, remained an impotent regional observer, along with its counterpart New Zealand, as Fiji descended into anarchy.

The political establishment that came into power following the Speight coup continued with the agenda of the indigenous nationalists. In 2003, reports surfaced that the commander of the Fiji Military Forces, Frank Bainimarama, had become increasingly uncomfortable with the elected government, in particular with its policies to appease indigenous militants.

A series of events started over a three-year period resulting in the December 2006 coup. Initially, the military government attempted to work within the 1997 Constitution, but this position became untenable following the judgment by the Fiji High Court that the 2006 political order established by the 2006 takeover was illegal.

Overseas media alleged on many occasions that Commander Bainimarama executed the coup to scuttle the investigations into the deaths of eight Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit soldiers who were allegedly involved in a mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva in November 2000. These allegations, while sounding quite serious, ignored the fact that there was a bounty on the head of the commander in 2000 for refusing to acquiesce to the demands of the indigenous chiefs who supported the Speight coup.

It was a dangerous situation of kill-or-be-killed. Supporters of the commander rounded up and interrogated the mutineers and their associates, and some interrogations resulted in death. Human rights conventions abhor deaths in custody, but following the events of 2000, there were deep divisions within the army that had the potential for prolonged violent internal conflict.

Moreover, following the 2006 coup, the military discovered a number of irregularities in the manner in which the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) conducted its business with respect to indigenous land. Much has been written and discussed on the rate of return on indigenous land leased by Indo-Fijian farmers, but a greater and a more interesting story relates to the way elected indigenous nationalist governments conducted business with overseas commercial interests with total disregard for indigenous land rights.

As a result, the military government "cleaned up" the NLTB. There are endless volumes of information compiled by the Fiji Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption that point to past indigenous Fijian leaders exploiting indigenous Fijians and their resources for personal gains. The details of official corruption in Fiji make for very dry reading and do not fit into the agendas of Australian and New Zealand media and, as a result, we never hear about them, except claims that "corruption and mismanagement is often overstated by the military to support their own agenda."

Overseas media are interested in understanding the resilience of indigenous Fijians who have yet to rebel against the Bainimarama regime. The media hopes to overturn an authoritarian system and in its place establish a nationalist indigenous government based on ethnic division as it existed from 1970 to 2006. There is no choice for the Indo-Fijians who are currently supporting the Bainimarama Government because, on the face of it, the Bainimarama regime has offered a "non-ethnic political solution" while the indigenous nationalists want continuation of "positive discrimination," as stated in the deposed government's political manifesto of 2006.

The question is still asked as to why the Fiji regime has suspended freedom of the press indefinitely in Fiji. The answer is quite simple.

The press has, in the past, attempted to instigate ethnic hatred and destabilize the Fiji government. Overseas-owned newspapers in Fiji have continuously emphasized the need for quick elections and democratic rule, but they have yet to make a case for addressing deep-rooted institutional and ethnic problems in divided communities.

What could be done to cement multiethnic democratic values does not fit within "commercial parameters" of contemporary journalism. Overseas media have little idea of the socio-cultural history of Fiji, including the emphasis on communal politics established by the British colonial rulers to support their indirect rule of the colony.

While many indigenous soldiers have sacrificed themselves for the Commonwealth and the empire and continue to volunteer to fight in failed states like Afghanistan and Iraq and replenish war-weary soldiers from "democratic" nations, there is lack of appreciation on the part of Australia and New Zealand journalists for the complexity of Fiji's multidimensional problems.

Past indigenous Fijians as well as Indo-Fijian leaders have failed Fiji because they were interested in protecting their own communal hive. Since independence of Fiji in 1970, Fiji has oscillated between ethnic conflict and conflict between elected and appointed entities, and these conflicts are yet to be resolved.

To argue that democracy is a "magic bullet" that will solve Fiji's problems is naïve. Previous initiatives to move Fiji towards a non-ethnic model were comprised by indigenous nationalist assertions, and the current regime should be allowed to implement its reforms without interference.

Sanjay Ramesh is an adjunct research associate in transforming cultures at the University of Technology in Sydney and is currently completing a research degree on inter-group conflict in Fiji at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.

Send comments to sanjay.ramesh@uts.edu.au

The contenscious issue of regional media bias and false reporting addressed in the above opinion piece by Sanjay Ramesh, among other notable moderate opinions, is buttressed by a revealing Broadcasting Green Paper on Radio transmissions to the South Pacific region by New Zealand and Australia and their 5 year spectrum outlook 2010-2014 (posted below).

Letter_PM_AU-NZ_RA-RNZI_v301 (PDF)



The following images (posted below) are screen shots from the above mentioned paper, that features technical and geo-political issues; undoubtedly a pitch to increase the respective government budgetary allocations to Radio NZ and Radio Australia.















One particular interesting concept of game theory in geo-political forecasting, raised by a US Academic Bruce Bueno de Mesquita was presented in a recent World Affairs Council program. (video posted below).

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita at the World Affairs Council 10 26 09 from Its Your World on Vimeo.

Much of the ideas presented by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, have wider regional applications, or had been demonstrated recently by one form or another. Particularly, when these issues dove tail neatly into alternative academic perspectives from the Pacific area.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs