Fighting Fijians Scare the Springboks.

In a game that captured many hearts, Fiji's team fought with hammer and tongs in a quarter final match in France gaining the support of the crowd who cheered them on, as if it were a home game.

read more | digg story

Snake In The Grass.

In a follow up to an earlier post in SiFM, a letter to the Editor published by the Fiji Times revisits the issue of race raised repeatedly by the SDL personality, Mere Samisoni and the response to her flawed perspectives. This is an excerpt:

Name Calling

Many people have called me names and thrown dirt at me in generalizations, without telling me what wrong I exactly said in the Close Up program of August 19, 2007.

During numerous articles I wrote about church hypocrisy, racist political stance, hoodwinking trade unionists, worthless politicians and exposing other wolf in sheep's clothing, it was obvious there were people out there to crucify me.

I did not respond to any of them because it was not worth it as none were specific in what wrong I said. It appears the only argument they have is that I have moved to New Zealand.

However, I could not let Mere Samisoni's pot calling kettle black go unchallenged. She calls me a racist, an extremist thinker and branded my comments as venomous and dishonest. She appears to think that such qualities are sole privileges of SDL party alone and their boorish and racist behaviour towards Indo-Fijians should be borne silently by us.

Is it all right for SDL racists to call Indo-Fijians names like wild grass and camel in a tent but when they get their own back, it pains? SDL members of Parliament had called Indo-Fijians names in Parliament and their policies have virtually marginalized us, yet so called academics like her and her exiled political boss remained criminally quite.

Truth hurts and absolute truth hurts absolutely. She talks about good leadership for different groups to come together and qualities such as good faith, self discipline and trust. This coming from somebody who allegedly fed the extremists at Parliament during 2000 is the height of hypocrisy.

She questions what criteria and policy does TV One have to protect the public from my type of extremism. I ask, what criteria does democracy have to protect the country from the brand of extremism, racism, corruption and mismanagement displayed by her SDL Party.

That is why I suppose somebody called Bainimarama's action as God sent. To get a response from her, I must have hit some raw nerves. If she wishes to be treated seriously, she indeed needs to rise above those hot breads and walk her talk about good virtues in life.

Thakur Ranjit Singh
Auckland
New Zealand

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Global troubleshooter holding fire on Fiji

In his careful, measured, academic language, Dr Yash Ghai, makes it clear that he is not entirely against the rule of Commodore Frank Bainimarama in Fiji."An election would probably not solve the basic problem," says the constitutional expert. "It would just re-ignite the cycle: dissatisfaction.

read more | digg story

Tale of a Smuggler's Leg

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A man accused of stealing three endangered iguanas from a nature preserve in Fiji and smuggling them into the United States in his prosthetic leg has been indicted.Jereme James, 33, of Long Beach, faces a single count of smuggling, according to a federal indictment returned Friday in Los Angeles.

read more | digg story

A Narrative of the Inquiry - Fiji's Vote Rigging.

The Report Findings:










The report of Fiji Human Rights Commission's Inquiry on the 2006 election, is yet to be released to the public according to a Radio New Zealand article.
The excerpt of the RNZ article:

New Fiji election not public, alleges vote-rigging

Posted at 05:22 on 19 September, 2007 UTC

The Fiji Human Rights Commission says the commission of inquiry report into Fiji’s 2006 general election has not yet been made public. Fiji TV reported last night that it obtained a copy of the report based on evidence given by 59 individuals and organisations.
It reported evidence of irregularities, bias, corruption, vote buying and vote rigging, and is also critical of the Elections Office. The commission says copies of the report have been given only to the state, the SDL party, and the Fiji Labour Party for review.

"The election was fair in terms of the international observers coming here and the report they gave and also the report prepared by the USP team. The big thing is that there was no protest after those or that report were publicly declared. But now they are coming up with new allegations that the elections was rigged and so on and so forth. That’s the problem right now."

The University of the South Pacific’s Dr Alumita Durutalo has been an election observer since the 1990s. She says observers from the EU, Pacific Islands Forum, Commonwealth and the USP deemed the last election in Fiji to be free and fair.

However, a copy of the report was made available to Fiji TV. Another article from Radio NZ confirms that Fiji TV were given a copy of the FHRC report.

The excerpt:

Inquiry claims Fiji 2006 election was flawed by vote buying and vote rigging

Posted at 22:49 on 18 September, 2007 UTC

A commission of inquiry into Fiji’s 2006 general election claims to have found evidence of vote buying and vote rigging. The inquiry was initiated by the Fiji Human Rights Commission and chaired by Suva lawyer G P Lala, with the other members being the former president of the SVT party and Rabuka government minister, Taufa Vakatale, and Dr David Neilson.

Fiji TV says it has obtained a copy of the report which is based on evidence given by 59 individuals and organisations.

"The report claims it found evidence of irregularities, bias and corruption, as well as inappropriate vote influencing in the 2006 general election to the unfair advantage of the SDL party.

It says there was a concentration of all these factors in key urban constituencies. The report says there were significant failures to ensure citizens’ right to vote, in particular against ethnic Indian voters. "

The report also criticises the Elections Office, saying there was a heavy ethnic bias in its employment of staff nearly all of whom were indigenous Fijians. The report has been sent to the interim government, the Fiji Labour Party and the SDL party for their responses.

All international election observers deemed the election to be free and fair.

The former Supervisor of Elections, Semesa Karavaki disputed the findings of the tribunal and described the Inquiry report as inaccurate because it brought up the issue of racial bias.



Karavaki even called into question the expertise of the tri-members in electoral procedures and exclaimed that the report also tarnishes the "Free and Fair" declaration stamped by the International Observers.



National Federation Party (NFP) stalwart, Parmod Rae declared the Inquiry report as a "load of rubbish" and took issue to "prominent and eminent persons like G.P. Lala, Taufa Vakatale putting their names to this piece of rubbish".

Rae further stated that, the Inquiry report into the 2006 Fiji Elections was not a report per say, but "allegations of vote buying and vote-rigging without evidentiary basis". Rae further added that, the 59 submissions were not proportionate to Fiji's number of voters, in excess of 500,000 persons.


FHRC's Dr Shaista Shameem also clarified the next series of steps for the tentative Inquiry report; stating that the draft report would be given to stakeholders for their comments and those additional comments will be taken into account by the Tribunal in their final report.

The Report Recommendations:






Radio Fiji article quoted from the Fiji Election Scoping Mission (FESM) preliminary report for the next General Elections in Fiji and stated that, the estimated cost may reach $F25 Million. FESM had tabled their report to the Pacific Islands Forum Joint Working Group(PIFJWG) in Suva yesterday.



Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Few And Far Between- A Question of Audits in FAB.

Discrepancies to the accounts of several Provincial Councils(PCs) have resurfaced with much disappointment, in a Fiji Live article.

This is an excerpt of the Fiji Live article:

Concern over un-audited accounts
Monday September 17, 2007

The Fijian Affairs ministry is appalled at the status of provincial council financial accounts which have not been audited since 1995.

Executive officer Kini Rarubi confirmed that the ministry is trying to establish why the provincial councils did not get their accounts audited for so long. He said the Independent Investigating Team into Institutions Fijian (IITIF) which was appointed by the interim Government to investigate corruption, is currently looking at this.

“Most of these provincial councils have not had their accounts audited since 1995 and this is a concern for us.”

“We are very surprised because we did not expect this to happen as all provincial accounts should be audited every year.” He said the investigation team led by Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga is trying to establish why it took so long for the accounts to be audited.

The team recommended that the process be contracted to private firms so that the financial status of councils are finalised.

Fijilive

A series of Fiji Sun articles presented a somewhat extruded 'blame game' between the Fijian Affairs Board(FAB), Office of the Auditor General and the various Provincial Council.

The next Fiji Sun article follows up with a denial from Ba Provincial Council. The following is an excerpt:

Blame FAB, says provincial council
Fiji Sun
Last updated 6/26/2007 7:46:08 AM

Another province has revealed that if its accounts were not audited, the Fijian Affairs department should be the one to answer as its accounts were sent to them every three, six and 12 months.

The Ba Provincial Council Roko Viliame Burenivalu yesterday said sometimes the ministry used to call some of its council staff to help sorting out the council accounts with the Fijian Affairs office in Suva. He said when he enquired from his staff after returning from Suva they usually told him that they were working with the ministry’s staff to clear out the 2000 and 2001 accounts.

“If there is any lateness in the auditing of accounts then the ministry should be the one to answer,” said Mr Burenivalu. He said sometimes his staff informed him after returning to Suva that council accounts for 2000 and 2001 did not balance. “If the figures did not match than the Fijian Affairs should also answer,” he said.

Mr Burenivalu made the comment after former senator Ponipate Lesavua who is a member of the investigating team that conduct investigation on the Fijian Institution said none of the 14 provincial council had submitted report of the money that the Government provided every year.

Serua Provincial Council chairman Atunaisa Lacabuka said the last time its accounts was audited was in 2000. He said the Auditor Generals Office had audited its accounts and he wanted its council accounts to be audited every year.

The 2004 Auditor General's report overview for the 1994 accounts.

Another salvo of blaming the FAB, was fired from Lomaiviti, Naitasiri, Lau and Ba Provincial Councils respectively.

FAB blamed for non-audited account
Fiji Sun
Last updated 7/5/2007 7:36:13 AM

Provincial council heads have blamed the Fijian Affairs Board for the non-auditing of some accounts. A recent investigation into the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB)revealed that some provincial council accounts were not audited.

Lomaiviti Provincial Council said it sends its accounts quarterly to its head office (Fijian Affairs Board) in Suva, its administrative head, Ratu Filimoni Baleimua, said. Ratu Filimoni said its accounts were usually prepared and kept properly by his staff before they were sent to Suva. “The accounts are sent every quarterly to Suva,” Ratu Filimoni said. “The FAB is responsible for the accounts' audit.”

The NLTB investigation established, amongst other things, that most of the provincial councils did not have audit reports on funds given to them by the State.

" Tailevu Provincial Council chairman Josefa Seruilagilagi said it had tried to pay a private company to audit its account but was stopped by the Fijian Affairs".

Naitasiri Provincial Council chairman Solomoni Naivalu said that its accounts were usually audited every year. This year's, however, is yet to be audited. Lau Provincial Council's Peni Sokia said it sent its accounts to the Fijian Affairs every month. He said if the accounts were not audited than the FAB should be accountable as it handled all the accounts.

Ba Provincial Council's Viliame Burenivalu said it sent its accounts to the FAB every three months. He said the board should explain delays in the auditing of some of the provinces' accounts.

However, axed Chief Executive of FAB, Litia Qionabaravi defended the Board's track record under her tenure. This is an excerpt of the Fiji Sun article:

Ex-FAB chief defends audit of province accounts
Fiji Sun
Last updated 7/6/2007 4:16:22 PM

The Fijian Affairs Board and the office of the Auditor-General made concerted efforts to update the backlog in the audit of accounts.

"The board had set out target dates for completion of all outstanding accounts and these were followed up with chartered accounting firms and the office of the Auditor-General," Adi Litia said.

Former FAB chief executive officer Adi Litia Qionibaravi said some of the efforts undertaken include giving out the audit of the provincial council accounts to chartered accounting firms since 2004. She made the comment in reaction to statements by some provinces that it blamed the FAB for the backlog in the audit of its accounts.

Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga, who leads the investigation into the Native Land Trust Board, highlighted the problem.

Adi Litia said the board had set up a special audit unit to facilitate the preparation of information required by the chartered accounting firms. She said it established an audit committee of the board to oversee the progress in the audit of accounts. Adi Litia said training had been provided to provincial treasurers on basic accounting, including the preparation of financial statement.

The former chief executive officer said all outstanding audits could be completed if efforts and action approved by the board are continued. She said the provincial councils, through the Roko Tui, remit their accounts on a fortnightly basis to the FAB.

The feeble defense by Qionabaravi begs the question that, if an audit committee had been formed in FAB to collate date for the private auditing companies; surely there is no excuse to say the data set from 1996 onwards, are yet to be prepared.
With such a lax attitude, coupled with no oversight; it is not surprising to see such a sad state of affairs, prompting a major and long overdue clean-up by the Interim Government.

Fiji Auditor General responded to the former CEO's claim in a Fiji Sun article:

FAB failed to send accounts: A-G
Last updated 7/7/2007 8:37:11 AM

The Fijian Affairs Board has not submitted its accounts to the Auditor-General’s Office for the last 10 years. And that is the main problem of the backlog in auditing its accounts, including that of the 14 provinces.

Auditor-General Eroni Vatuloka said yesterday the delay of the audit went back to the last five to seven years. “We audit the accounts of the 14 provincial councils in accordance with the Fijian Affairs (Provincial Councils) Regulations 1996,” said Mr Vatuloka. He made the statement in reaction to claims by some of the provincial councils stating that the A-G’s Office had not audited their financial accounts.

Mr Vatuloka said the only way to solve the problem was to wait for the committee which had been established to assist the FAB prepare the accounts and send them to his office.

Former FAB chief executive officer Adi Litia Qionibaravi said there had been a concerted effort between the Fijian Affairs Board and the office of the Auditor-General to update the backlog in the audit of accounts.

She said some of the efforts undertaken included taking out the audit of the provincial councils’ accounts to chartered accounting firms since 2004/2005. Adi Litia said the board had set up a special audit unit to facilitate the preparation of information required by the chartered accounting firms. She said it had established an audit committee of the board to oversee the progress in the audit of accounts.

Adi Litia said training has been provided to provincial treasurers on basic accounting including the preparation of financial statement.

Although, the Auditor General appeared to defend his office's reputation; he neglects the backlog of accounts gathering cobwebs on his door step. Seriously, the situation presents a recipe for a storm of financial abuse, which is seemingly trivialized by the Auditor General. Whether or not the Auditor General's office was culpable or was involved in any hint of collusion with the Provincial Councils is a worthy question to ask.

Along with those unfulfilled audits by Fijian Affairs Board, was the revelation of the legal costs ringed up by the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB), as reported by a Fiji Village article, which outlined legal companies who were on retainer with NLTB.

Clearly the issue of retainership, appears to be the common thread between the two vestiges of Fijian Administration. While FAB has failed to retain private Auditors to scrutinize the expenditure of State funds to the various PC's, NLTB is guilty of over retaining the legal services to defend their litany of abuses, stemming from their failure in performing their fiduciary duties.

This is an excerpt:

Serious concerns raised over NLTB costs
Serious concerns have been highlighted in the Fijian Administration report on the amount of money spent by the Native Land Trust Board on legal costs.

The report prepared by the team led by Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga said numerous litigations against the NLTB reflect its inability to satisfy land owners requests. It said that litigation is purported to be the board's main business since it ranks second to salaries and wages in costs to the NLTB.

The report highlights that the 2004 Annual Report of the NLTB shows that legal cost alone is 1.474 million dollars and this depicts the notion that NLTB's main activity is litigations.

It has also been pointed out that over the years, staff turnover at the NLTB's legal section has been drastic and the board was forced to outsource legal actions with three legal firms which were Sevuloni Valenitabua in Suva, Vuetaki Qoro in Lautoka and Harry Robinson in Labasa. The report said that three thousand dollars was paid to Valenitabua as retainer fees per month, Vuetaki Qoro was paid four thousand dollars per month for a retainer and Harry Robinson paid two thousand dollars per month as retainer fees.

The Fijian Administration review team has recommended that the board should not outsource its legal work but hire the services of a senior or experienced lawyer preferably with Land Management qualification. The team was appointed to review the Fijian Administration as part of the President's mandate which includes that the NLTB should be restructured to ensure more benefits flow to the ordinary indigenous Fijians.

Another entity within the FAB is also under the microscope, according to a Fiji Times article:

Caginavanua in corruption probe

1201 FJT
Monday, September 10, 2007

Update: 12.01pm THE contract of Native Lands Reserve Commissioner Ilaitia Caginavanua with the Native Land Trust Board has not been renewed since its expiry last month.

Interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau said the board of NLTB decided against the renewal because Mr Caginavanua was under investigation for alleged corruption, according to Radio Fiji Gold News.

"The Reserve Commissioner even though his contract has lapsed...the Board has also not renewed his contract, he is also being investigated by the committee of Colonel Kurusiga on some of the allegations leveled against him during his term as Reserve Commissioner", said Ratu Epeli.

The image below is an organization structure of FAB. Note that the Native Lands Commissioner is under the FAB umbrella. It is the various arms in Fijian Affairs Board which are being currently scrutinized.







Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Earl of Fiji.

2007 Survivor Fiji Winner, Earl Cole has vowed to be an unofficial ambassador of Fiji, after purchasing a house there subsequent to his win. Cole's time in Fiji during the Survivor series has left an indelible impression on his heart.

read more | digg story

A Silk Purse of Democracy Made From The Sow's Ear.

T
wo different articles on Fiji's current affairs, are worthy of comparison. First article published in Stuff and was written by New Zealand journalist, Micheal Field on the news of the reinstatement of Fiji's Emergency Decree.

Although, Field liberally quoted New Zealand's Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, who said ""Let us not gild the lily and make excuses for the regime's backers and the regime itself, this conduct is not acceptable in the democratic world."
It is apparent that the Governments of US, UK, New Zealand and Australia have already gilded the Lily of Iraq; whom they had promised Freedom and Democracy; along with the misguided threats of "weapons of mass destruction".

" It must be realistically pointed out to the numerous 'Monday Morning Fly-Halfs' or 'Monday-Morning Quarter Backs' depending on your choice of sports that, Fiji's democracy is not and should not be a Silk purse made from a Sow's ear. The proverbial Sow in this context, being the robber barons of US, UK, Australia and New Zealand."

This is an excerpt of Field's article:

Fiji under martial law
State of emergency re-imposed
By MICHAEL FIELD - Fairfax Media | Thursday, 6 September 2007

Fiji's military has declared an emergency - or martial law - in a bid to silence deposed prime minister Laisenia Qarase. Self appointed Prime Minister and military head Voreqe Bainimarama has claimed Qarase was trying to incite trouble in the country.

" They probably want to make sure that the transition into the election is not peaceful and maybe the idea is to bring about some instability in the country so that the Australian military can come back in - that's what Qarase wanted in the first place, maybe he's still after that," he told Fiji Broadcasting."

Bainimarama staged a coup in December, bringing down Qarase's government. Qarase fled to his home in the remote Lau Islands and remained in exile until last weekend. Fiji Military Forces Chief of Staff, Lieutenant Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga, claimed they were acting because Qarase was inciting public hatred. Tikoitoga said the military council - which Bainimarama heads - believed Qarase was making statements on behalf of somebody else.

"At our military council meeting we felt that the complaints made by Mr Qarase on death threats and other matters did not augur well with the security situation so we decided it would be best to bring the (emergency) decree back," he said.

"It is unfortunate that he continues to go on this path and we have seen that he has not only gone locally but internationally with these statements that could cause instability in the country."

He said soldiers and roadblocks would not return to the country's streets this time, and the security situation would be left to the police. "At the moment they take the lead while we will play a supportive role and only come in if they need us," he said.

New Zealand is dismayed emergency regulations are being re-invoked, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said today. Speaking at the Apec forum in Sydney, Mr Peters said the move undermined any moves to restoring democracy.

"The public of Fiji should not be unduly concerned about this. This is not going to change anything with regards to the security situation," coup leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimamara said on commercial radio. "It means that the climate for freedom of expression and human rights that is necessary for democracy to prevail in the long term is not there."

Mr Qarase returned to Suva on Saturday from exile on his home island in the remote Lau group of islands ahead of a court case in which he wants the December 5 coup against his government declared illegal. The emergency regulations were lifted at the end of May after being introduced when Cdre Bainimarama announced he was deposing Mr Qarase, in what was the country's fourth coup since 1987.

Under the regulations, some constitutional rights were withdrawn and the military gave itself powers to detain people without charge Fiji has been under the control of Cdre Bainimarama since he seized power in a coup last December.

Mr Peters said the behaviour had become an ongoing embarrassment for Fiji. "There should be no doubt that the Pacific community and the world is watching on this matter and our frank advice to the commander is to take his army back to the military barracks and stop embarrassing Fiji and the Pacific."

Mr Peters said the excuse for restoring virtual martial law was that Mr Qarase had left self-imposed exile and returned to the main island of Suva. "Surely that can not be the reason for such a serious step which has dramatic economic overtones that will be disastrous for the Fijian people" Mr Peters said.

"It also means we have to doubt their sincerity about their pathway to democracy." The action could see suspension in aid from the European Union and this would seriously damage an already weakened economy. Asked if he had concerns for the safety Mr Qarase, Mr Peters said: "One has concerns about safety of people in Fiji, if you go on their recent record of people being picked up and apparently harassed.

"Let us not gild the lily and make excuses for the regime's backers and the regime itself, this conduct is not acceptable in the democratic world." Fiji is not a member of the Apec forum, but Mr Peters said he was certain the issue would come up at the forum in meetings.

Mr Peters said New Zealand would be going to upcoming Pacific Forum, but he hoped some of those countries who have offered sympathy to the Fijian regime, might now change their tune.

"Let's have confidence the Pacific people at the forum will see this with new eyes. Yes he can come to the forum if he wants to. But lets make no bones about it, there will be 15 countries there appearing because they are democratically elected with a mandate of the people... and one will be there at the barrel of a gun."

Mr Peters said New Zealand would not boycott the event if the commander turned up. "We are not going to have our great future and out work in the Pacific contaminated by one aberration."

Earlier today Bainimarama told Fiji Broadcasting that Qarase and Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party director Peceli Kinivuwai would be "put on a plane and sent to Vanuabalavu (in Lau) if they continued to give false statements about the military council".

He said statements by the two were being published overseas.

He said overseas leaders who faced similar exile from their country were Pakistan's former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, who faced exile after the 1999 coup carried out by General Pervez Musharraf.

- With NZPA

The second article published in the Fiji Times, was by local academic and Political Scientist, Dr Steven Ratuva. The following is a excerpt from Ratuva's opinion article:

Stuck in a cycle of political vengeance

Dr STEVEN RATUVA
Friday, September 07, 2007

Like a Hollywood mafia script on vengeance killing, we unfortunately now find ourselves caught in a cycle of vengeance, vindictiveness and recrimination between the SDL and the military-backed interim Government.

Politics of divergence

A manifestation of this was the recent public exchange between interim Prime Minister, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, and the Naitasiri high chief and strong SDL supporter, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata.

The disagreement was more than just a matter of opposing opinions. It was a reflection of the deep-seated personal and political contradictions and psyche of vengeance which now characterise our post-coup political culture. Ratu Inoke and the Naitasiri Provincial Council rejected the proposed People's Charter and in turn Commodore Bainimarama rejected Ratu Inoke's proposal for reconciliation.

Very straight forward

Simple logic would probably suggest that if Ratu Inoke had accepted the proposed People's Charter, Commodore Bainimarama would have looked at his reconciliation proposal sympathetically. Politically and symbolically, both men represent the two opposite ends of the continuum as well as the two major fragments of a divided nation.

Ratu Inoke and many coup opponents saw the proposed People's Charter as another political gimmick by the interim Government to consolidate and legitimise its power and rejected it outright, despite the fact that it contained some very constructive and appealing proposals for national unity.

On the other hand, although Ratu Inoke's proposal contained some attractive concessions for the interim Government such as the granting of amnesty for the 2006 coup makers, it was rejected outright. Commodore Bainimarama probably saw it as another political trick by Ratu Inoke to re-assert his presence, power and legitimacy and divert attention away from his recent conviction.

"In addition, both men saw each other in terms of who they were and what they represented. To Ratu Inoke, Commodore Bainimarama was a usurper of indigenous rights and an illegal coup maker. To Commodore Bainimarama, Ratu Inoke was a murderous mutineer (he was convicted of inciting the 2000 mutiny) and extremist nationalist of dubious political ambitions. "

The respective proposals by the two men were rejected outright by the other because they (proposals) happened to come from the wrong people. The importance of the message was undermined by the nature of the medium. This is one of the biggest political bottlenecks now.

Some political and business interests opposed to the coup and its aims would no doubt be behind Ratu Inoke and some would have even helped him draft the controversial advertisement, which former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and others have referred to as a tactically nave and insensitive approach. Although Ratu Inoke, as a person may be serious about his reconciliation intent, there is serious worry that there are other hidden forces which are propelling him forward and using him and his influential status as their frontline soldier to articulate their demands as well as absorb the incoming flak.

Laisenia Qarase's presence in Suva will no doubt provide a morale boost for Ratu Inoke but I doubt if Mr Qarase, who appears to be in reconciliation mode, is in a mood for more confrontation. However, on the other hand, Commodore Bainimarama's unpromising stance, while helping to consolidate the regime and the reform process, has the potential to exacerbate differences and prolong the stand-off. There is a worry that some within and outside the interim Government may be using Commodore Bainimarama's powerful position to sustain and drive their agenda forward.

Inability to listen

Of concern is the fact that we no longer listen to the good things others say and propose. We are too pathologically fixated on listening only to what we want to listen to and if we listen we are only listening to negative things and use them to design and articulate our political strategies to outshine our political adversaries.

This is precisely where the problem lies. Our capacity to listen and identify the good in others is waning fast. No one seems to be listening any more. Both sides are out to exert their will and claim the moral high ground. This has thrown the nation into confusion.

The problem is not so much the lack of political will to reconcile because everyone is itching for it the military, the interim Government, the Great Council of Chiefs, the SDL Party, the employers, the unions and in fact the entire nation wants it and is ready for it.

" But the problem is differences over how to reconcile, who should define what reconciliation should be and the conditions under which it should take place and who should determine the shape of the reconciliation process. The differences in approach started after the 2000 coup.

The SDL, vanua and the Methodist Church wanted reconciliation using the political, traditional and religious approach. Instead the military and the Fiji Labour Party leadership wanted the legal process to take its course."

After the 2006 coup the situation reversed. The SDL, GCC and the Methodist Church wanted to follow the legal process while the interim Government through the proposed People's Charter wanted to address the problem through political means.

During the 2004 national reconciliation week, the SDL, churches, GCC and the vanua were deeply involved but the military, Labour Party and other political groups refused to be part of it.

Now the situation has reversed. Those who were involved in the 2004 reconciliation have refused to entertain the proposed People's Charter and its reconciliation framework. We have come full circle in our vengeance politics. We have reached a political deadlock out of which we need to wriggle ourselves. How do we do that?

The way forward

Firstly, we have to shift our minds away from the narrow, exclusivist, partisan and self-serving political agenda and begin to see the interest of the nation as paramount. That is the bottom line.

We all have our party, religious, organisational, vanua and personal loyalties and interests, however, at this point in time, these should be subservient to the common national good. Despite official optimism, our economy is not doing well, investor confidence is down, socio-political relations are at their lowest and national moral is in tatters.

Yet despite all these we are still trying to win political and moral points over our adversaries as if that will solve our collective problems when the opposite is in fact happening.

Secondly, on a more practical note, we need to identify the good suggestions from both sides and synthesise them into a common proposal for national reconciliation. Both the proposed People's Charter and Ratu Inoke's proposal contain points worth considering and discussing.

Thirdly, we urgently need to put in place a reconciliation process as well as a framework for political stability for the future before the election. To do that after the election, although constitutionally legitimate, would be politically too late. Since the hurt and pain are very deeply embedded, the election could become an arena for expressions of anger, vindictiveness and vengeance and these have the potential to rear their ugly heads again after the election.

Historically, political instabilities in Fiji have only happened after elections.

The pre-election differences, antagonism and volatility will haunt us once again after the next election if we are not careful. That's why it is important to put in place a reconciliation and post-election governance framework we all agree on well before the election.

We must remember that the reconciliation process must not be merely an exercise in public expression of remorse and apology, although these are very important components, but must be embedded in principles and practices of good governance.

As part of the reconciliation process we should agree on having a government of national unity and put in place mechanisms to promote good and meaningful governance.
We must not allow a single party to rule but establish a power sharing system to ensure sustainable future stability.

Fourthly, as part of the framework for future stability and reconciliation, we urgently need to address the question of coups. How do we ensure that we eradicate the coup culture? What type of governance structure, development policies and security mechanisms should be put in place to achieve this?

One of the sad things is that since the coup, middle ground politics has disappeared as people began to shift to either side of the divide. Even religious organisations and churches have taken sides and contributed to more tension.

Both sides are trying to occupy the moral high ground and in the process breed antagonism. It's time to start thinking positively and imaginatively about our future. Let's transform our negative feelings that we express meticulously and exuberantly in letters to the editor, TV interviews, press releases, internet blogs, pub debates, kava sessions and pulpit sermons, into positive spirit to unite and save our country from disintegration.

We only have until the election to work something out. If we can't then chances are that we might miss the boat again!

Dr Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist and these are his personal views and not of the University of the South Pacific where he works

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Great Spin on the Death of Diversity.

SDL stalwart, Mere Samisoni wrote an over-zealous Letter to the Fiji Times Editor, which was later rebutted by a well informed reader. The following is an excerpt of Samisoni's letter that, maliciously mis-represented research on cultural diversity from a US academic, Dr Robert Putnam:

Tunnel vision

While I respect Dr Wadan Narsey's professional opinion (FT 14/8), I think he may have been guilty of some artistic licence. In order to create some balance in his story, I think he greatly overplayed the alleged "tunnel vision" of the SDL so as not to make the evident and empirical tunnel vision of the interim regime, which seem too bad in comparison. Or perhaps he did it to help the interim regime, see how badly even political moderates such as him perceive it these days.

Whatever the case, the damaging and costly tunnel vision of the interim regime is qualitatively different from the election-promise-keeping fidelity of the SDL party, which may seem like tunnel vision at first blush.

So there is no need for the interim regime to continue with its present course and tactics, since they are not achieving anything (except more divisiveness, rancour, corruption and financial liability).

By contrast, the SDL was and is required by common sense and fidelity to keep our promises to our electorate. That is not to say that compromise and moderation were not possible.

But those must be handled astutely and carefully and doubly so when you are required to deal with someone as wily and devious as the multi-party Cabinet. We also need to develop and show a lot more political maturity than the interim regime and its supporters have been able to demonstrate so far.

For instance, Dr Putnam of Harvard, an American expert on civic engagement, (2000 cited in Diversity 2007), found that social capital in the form of neighbourhood friendship and political involvement have been diminished by race/ethnic diversity in communities.

This research proves the obvious societal point that people are tribal and gravitate toward those who look like them.

Which confirms the often cited advice from former prime minister Laisenia Qarase that "race is a fact of life".

So the sooner the interim regime grows up and accepts this, the sooner we'll be able to deal with it rationally and representatively.

Mere Samisoni
MP Lami Open

Mere Samisoni's flawed quotes of US Academic, Robert Putnam, received a stern rebuke in a correspondence to Fiji Sun Letters to the Editor column.

Racial diversity
Last updated 8/30/2007 9:08:00 AM

Srikant Krishan.
Houston, US


Iwould like to clear the air about some assertions made by a politician in Fiji on the issue of racial and ethnic diversity.

Recent citation by a leading figure of scholar Robert Putnam's work leads to drawing erroneous conclusions, demonstrates the writer's desire to misinform public debate, and should be considered highly irresponsible.

Putnam's latest work is part of his ongoing research on the decline of American civic life since the 1970s - a period of time that encapsulates great social change, the decline of industrial America, rise in immigration, and remarkable shifts in technology.

His latest discoveries are politically charged precisely because they can be misused. Ms Samisoni does just that, shape the debate in a manner that supports conclusions backing her political vision.

To protect his work from such misuse, Putnam offers the following warning to his readers:

“It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity,”.
And at the same time, “It would be equally unfortunate if an a historical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”

It is this latter group that Ms Samisoni and her cohorts fall into. Of course, they don't seek to avoid addressing the issue. Their intention is to garner support for their narrow vision of possible solutions.

Race is a reality of life, especially as identity increasingly becomes a growing fault line for conflict in the 21st century. Only informed debate can help bring us to the solutions, which harness diversity as a strength.

Nothing in Putnam's work suggests that diversity has to be a burden. If anything, it is meant to show us that to truly make our differences our strengths. Much work remains to be done.

Who is this academic called Dr Robert Putnam, which Samisoni erroneously quotes? National Public Radio interviews the man himself, in the context of cultural diversity. Diversity Magazine argues in one article that Putnam's views on the effects of cultural diversity have been mis-understood. It's also the same article which Mere Samisoni cited in her 'Letter to the Editor'.

It was one thing, bordering on reprehensible for Mere Samisoni to plagiarize excerpts of Diversity magazine's article, that quoted Dr Putnam's research. But it is another matter, when this research is blatantly sliced and diced to support an ethno-nationalistic viewpoint in Fiji. This wilfull act raises serious and rational questions, regarding the very integrity of the Ex-Officio from Lami Open.

The following excerpt is the article from Diversity Magazine. The sentence in bold font, represents the words lifted by Mere Samisoni:

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial page argues that research from Harvard professor Dr. Robert Putnam proves "The Death of Diversity." That's not what Dr. Putnam said. In a study that has received significant media attention, he found that social capital in the form of neighborhood friendships and political involvement has been diminished by racial/ethnic diversity in communities.

Dr. Putnam's research is solid and proves the obvious societal point that people are tribal and gravitate toward those who look like them. But a thorough examination of his study shows that he finds in the long run that immigration and diversity immensely benefit U.S. society both economically and socially. In reference to business, Dr. Putnam states unequivocally that most studies of work groups "find that diversity fosters creativity" and that there is "powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving."

Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The Wall Street Journal column, written by Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Journal's editorial page, is not the first newspaper or opinion writer to discuss Dr. Putnam's study since it came out in June. Here's what The Wall Street Journal wrote and our responses, based on a thorough examination of Dr. Putnam's research and DiversityInc's own research.

* WSJ writes: "Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead, or not worth saving."

DiversityInc response: This is not what Dr. Putnam says in any way. He writes in the study: "Increased immigration and diversity are not only inevitable, but over the long run they are also desirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset, as the history of my own country demonstrates."

* WSJ writes: "Colleagues and diversity advocates, disturbed at what was emerging from the study, suggested alternative explanations. Prof. Putnam and his team re-ran the data every which way from Sunday and the result was always the same: Diverse communities may be yeasty and even creative, but trust, altruism and community cooperation fail."

DiversityInc response: Again, the efficacy of Dr. Putnam's study and data is not in dispute. Dr. Putnam does not say that "trust, altruism and community cooperation fail" but that there needs to be a greater effort to create "shared identities."

He writes: "Successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity ... by constructing new, more encompassing identities. Thus, the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of 'we.'" He cites the historic way immigrants came to the United States, "hunkered down," and eventually changed the culture of the country itself as they became part of the mainstream.

* WSJ writes: "The 'antis' [anti-immigration proponents] believe the Putnam study hammers the final intellectual nail in the coffin of immigration and diversity."

DiversityInc response: This is exactly the opposite of what Dr. Putnam intends. He writes in the study: "The weight of the evidence suggests that the net effect of immigration is to increase national income ... In short, immigration and multicultural diversity have powerful advantages for both sending and receiving countries."

* WSJ writes: "The diversity ideologues deserve whatever ill tidings they get. They're the ones who weren't willing to persuade the public of diversity's merits, preferring to turn 'diversity' into a political and legal hammer to compel compliance."

DiversityInc response: As participation in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity® survey shows, corporations recognize the business benefits of diversity and are increasingly using diversity as the competitive differentiator in their direct lines of business. This is not compliance; this is good business (317 companies participated last year, up more than 100 percent over the last three years).

* WSJ writes: "The first chart offered in the Putnam study depicts inexorably rising rates of immigration in many nations. The idea that the U.S. can wave into effect a 10-year 'time out' on immigration flows is as likely as King Canute commanding the tides to recede."

DiversityInc response: We agree that the flow of immigration is inevitable. It's also highly desirable since this nation is facing a serious gap in workers, and immigrants have driven 47 percent of U.S. work-force growth since 2000.

New immigrants and their children will account for 100 percent of U.S. work-force growth between 2010 and 2030, according to the Population Reference Bureau. For more on immigrants' crucial role in the U.S. economy, see the September 2007 issue of DiversityInc magazine, out soon.

About the Study

Dr. Putnam conducted his research in 2000 in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau. He had a sample size of about 30,000 people across the United States. People in 41 different communities from Los Angeles and Chicago to small towns and rural areas were surveyed and sorted into the same classifications used by the Census Bureau—non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic and Asian. A national expert on civic engagement, Dr. Putnam's goal was to examine whether racial/ethnic diversity impacted social networks, which he believes are major indicators of civic well-being.

Dr. Putnam's research, published in the journal "Scandinavian Political Studies", found that all people living in racially mixed communities had a higher tendency to "hunker down" and become more isolated from their neighbors and the civic process. His research showed they volunteer less, work on community projects less often, and register to vote less.


Here are links to other news reports on the Dr. Putnam study and a synopsis of what they said:

NPR interviews Dr. Putnam, who explains what his study really means.

Syndicated columnist Clarence Page talks about the misconceptions over what Dr. Putnam said and his own experiences as a young black man in the military.

ABC News reports on the effort by anti-diversity people to wrongly use the Dr. Putnam study for their own advantage.

The Boston Globe takes a similar view and comes to the conclusion that diversity makes us all uncomfortable—and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

An Orange County Register article says Dr. Putnam makes it abundantly clear that he found no evidence of "bad race relations, or ethnically defined group hostility."



For more on DiversityInc's examination of diversity studies, both good and bad, check out Debunking Diversity Studies.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Fiji Media Cartel - Grasping At Straws.

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

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

The following is an excerpt:

Shameem's wrong

Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Fiji Human Rights Commission has again got it wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an excerpt of the FT article:

Shameem warns dailies
Fiji Times
Thursday, August 23, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



read more | digg story

Doctoring the Truth- Across the Great Divide of Two Patriots with PhDs.

Fiji born Historian Brij Lal, who is based in Australia National University, recently made legal interpretations on the 1997 Constitution; regarding the issue of GCC members.

GCC suspension unlawful: Dr Lal

Sunday, August 12, 2007

A co-architect of the 1997 Constitution, Doctor Brij Lal, says the institution of the Great Council of Chiefs still exists because the laws of Fiji have not been abrogated.

Dr Lal said any suggestion that the GCC had been suspended was unlawful. "The membership of the GCC is provided for in the Fijian Affairs Act," Dr Lal said.
"The Act would have to be amended to provide for any Fijian Affairs Minister to make any intervention at all to the august institution as that move is against the current laws that exist," he said.

Dr Lal said the idea that the GCC was to be part of any government of the day was incorrect because the council was an autonomous institution as clearly stipulated in the Constitution.

"The prevailing feeling within the community is for the council to remain autonomous so it can discharge its responsibilities to the nation as a whole rather than to the tune of any particular government in power," [Lal] said.

"Dr Lal said the chiefs wanted to be seen as a voice of reason and wisdom providing guidance to all the people of Fiji regardless of race. "

"If need be the chiefs can be critical of the government which is within their moral authority. Making the council part of the Government would be completely inappropriate because the country wants to see them for everyone and free from any political affiliation or agenda. After all, they are not just a rubber stamp as members of the council, elect the President and the Vice-President of this country and people need to respect that important role," [Lal] said.

Interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau has announced plans to revamp the composition of the council.

On the four chiefs and their legal team who filed for legal redress over the council's suspension by the interim Government, Ratu Epeli said they had misinterpreted the revocation of the regulation that formalised the suspension.

The chiefs include ousted GCC chairman Ratu Ovini Bokini, Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, Bau chief Ratu Epenisa Cakobau and Ratu Ratavo Lalabalavu. They were seeking a judicial review of the council's suspension and termination of its membership by Ratu Epeli.

After the revocation of the suspension was announced, [GCC members] asked the court that the case be discontinued. [GCC members] said they had reached an amicable arrangement in which the regulation of April 17 which suspended the council had been revoked.

Ratu Epeli later said there were no conditions attached to the agreement with the chiefs to revoke the regulation.

The following excerpt, is another opinion article of Dr. Brij Lal, who speculates on the events arising in the wake of Fiji's 2006 coup.

Fiji: Like a duck treading water

BRIJ V LAL
Saturday, August 11, 2007

Fiji today is like a duck treading water, a Fijian political operative told me the other day. 'All calm on the surface, but unknown currents churning beneath.' As a description of the current state of affairs in Fiji, the imagery is pretty apt.

From various government quarters, the talk of change and improvement is optimistic. The so-called 'clean up campaign' is proceeding apace, we are told, the economy is on the mend, the country is at peace, and the people are 'moving on.' That is the official line: nonchalance in some circles, assertive self-confidence, arrogance even, in others.

" It is true that the country has not descended into the kind of civil strife some feared when the coup took place and people in all walks of life are muddling along, coping as best they can with what they have. But there is a palpable sense of fragility in the air, the sense that things could go wrong at any time."

Mr Taniela Tabu's experience is a case in point. With the Public Emergency Regulations suspended, Mr Tabu thought he was entitled to his freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution.

He believed the interim administration was in charge of the country. But arrested and taken to the barracks, he was, he has told the country and the international community, physically humiliated and his life threatened if he continued to speak up. The military council was apparently still in place and in control, very much so. There were the predictable denials from the QEB, but Mr Tabu's account was credible, his injured outrage believable.

The extreme touchiness of the interim administration and the military to any criticism of its action is evident. It instills fear and fosters self-censorship in the populace. To be issued death threats for calling for the resignation of a minister from government says a great deal about the state of affairs in Fiji today.

The revocation of the suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs by the interim Minister for Fijian Affairs is widely welcomed, encouraging the hope that it may be a harbinger of things to come. The dropping of the cases against Superintendent Josaia Rasiga and Mr Ali is also noteworthy, suggesting perhaps that the State's case against them lacked credible evidence. Is this too a harbinger of things to come? The legal fraternity's mettle will be sorely tested in the months ahead as other notable cases come up before the courts.

The interim administration's optimistic claims about the economy go against the assessments of virtually all the leading businessmen with whom I have spoken.

Contraction is the order of the day, they tell me, in some sectors by as much as 30-40 percent. There is no new investment, and many projects with huge investment and employment potential have been frozen.

They are not likely to re-activated any time soon. 'We are in a shock,' a leading businessman tells me, after attending a board meeting of his company.

What, I ask, will it take to kick-start the economy?

Firm commitment to returning the country to parliamentary democracy, the businessmen tell me. They place much hope on the interim administration's undertaking given to the European Union that the next general election will be held by March 2009. Without that, the country is looking down at the barrel of the gun, so to speak.

The question is: will general election be held within the time frame stipulated by the EU?

There are those who are optimistic, but I have deep doubts. The Fiji Labour Party has stated that holding general election should not be the country's priority; getting the essential electoral infrastructure right should be: conducting a census, drawing up electoral boundaries, educating the voters. Accomplishing these before 2009 may not be feasible.

The interim Prime Minister has said on various occasions that the timing of the next general election is a matter for Fiji to decide, not for the international community to dictate. The 'clean-up campaign' should be seen through to completion. Then there is the so-called 'President's Mandate' whose fulfilment forms a critical justification of the interim administration's existence. The deeply fraught proposed charter to build a better Fiji with the assistance of the civil society is another story, possibly another delaying tactic. But there is a deeper fear that drives the interim administration.

" That is that if elections were held today, or in 2009, the SDL will be returned to power with a thumping Fijian majority. In this assessment, they are correct. Fijian support for the SDL has strengthened, not lessened, in the last six months."

And it will not diminish any time soon. The more the Fijians feel marginalised and excluded, the greater the support for the SDL will be.

'Qarase is not coming back,' Commodore Bainimarama and others in the military have said over and over again. Delaying the election would hopefully achieve that goal, given the former prime minister's advancing years.

The SDL's party infrastructure too could be weakened, if not dismantled in the intervening period, paving the way for a political party, so it is hoped, more acceptable to the military and more understanding of its plans for Fiji. But this thinking is myopic and victory, if there is one, will be pyrrhic.

If the Fijian community continues to feel marginalised and excluded from power, its cherished institutions symbolically humiliated and sidelined, there will be Qarases galore in the future. And they could well be less mindful of multi-ethnic sensitivities and the need for multi-ethnic accommodation than Mr Qarase and other politicians of his vintage.

Talking to Fijians on the streets in Suva, admittedly a small sample, I get the definite sense of frustrated silence in the Fijian community. They feel helpless, hobbled and humiliated. 'What can we do,' a man says to me. 'The guns are there.' There is a silent but definite hardening of race relations. The signs are everywhere.

Every issue, every challenge, is viewed through the prism of race. Predominantly Indian trade unions struck an early deal with the interim administration while predominantly Fijian ones struck, I am told. It is not as simple as that, for support for or against the interim administration is divided across the communities. Not all Indians support the coup, nor all Fijians oppose it. But perceptions, right or wrong, do matter. And the omens do not look good.

The government's handling of the strike has left a bitter taste in many mouths. Its rigid and even vindictive approach to industrial relations, its unwillingness to go to arbitration, its determination to frustrate and break up the trade union movement not willing to succumb to its pressure, all done ironically with the support of some compliant trade union leaders, leaves a sad legacy. The government says its coffers are empty, but then spends funds on purchasing vehicles and paying private attorneys to fight its cases. Somewhere, the priorities have gone wrong.

Repairing or in some instances rebuilding bridges of understanding and tolerance between the two main communities is an urgent challenge for the interim administration.

Preoccupied with its own survival amidst unrelenting international pressure unlikely to end any time soon, it has adopted an ad-hoc, fire-containing, approach to the challenges facing it: an enquiry here, a raid there, a plea for aid and assistance and skilled personnel from this country or that.

All this points to one inescapable truth: Fiji is a part of the international community; it is an island, yes, but an island in the physical sense alone. We cannot afford to thumb our noses at the international community and then expect to escape retribution. Sooner rather than later, the larger challenges of the proper way to build a multi-ethnic nation will return to haunt the nation.

The revocation of the suspension of the GCC augurs well for the future of the country. One hopes that the currents underneath are as calm as the surface upon which the duck treads water. Any other scenario is simply too terrible to contemplate.

Brij V Lal is a historian and writer based at the Australian National University. Views expressed here are his own, not his employer's.

Dr. Lal's selective perspective was fact checked and rebutted by a 'Letter to the Editor', published in Fiji Daily Post from newly appointed consultant to Fiji's Media Inquiry, Dr James Anthony. The following is an excerpt:

Brij-ing that gap
JIM ANTHONY (PhD)
21-Aug-2007

T
he public has been treated to two recent statements (Saturday August 11 and Sunday August 12) by Brij Lal, a historian who is attached to the Australian National University in Canberra.

Dr Lal, it should be noted, is a historian – he is not a lawyer or a political scientist by professional training. More importantly, Lal, as far as I know – does not speak or read Bauan – or, if he does, his command of the language is brittle and limited at best.

1. The “duck treading water” article in one of the dailies is full of unsupported Brij Lal speculation. Some examples: “… there is a palpable sense of fragility in the air, the sense that things could go wrong at any time.” People who read Brij Lal’s newspaper speculation are entitled to know what are the “things that could go wrong”, what evidence is there, besides Lal’s bland speculation, for the suggestion that there is a “sense of fragility” in the air. Or, are these kinds of generalisation designed to create a general sense of unease, a tendency to create instability?

2. Lal speculates that “Fijian support for the SDL has strengthened, not lessened.” Has Lal conducted any polls to reach such a conclusion or is this assessment born of his “talking to a small sample of Fijians on the streets of Suva – in fact, talking to a small sample of Fijians on the streets of Suva in English?

3. Lal said that he gets the definite feeling that Fijians are possessed of a sense of frustrated silence and says that they feel “helpless, hobbled and humiliated … and that there is a definite hardening of race relations”. Granted that Lal has a right to voice these musings but he does not have the right to foist them on us without evidence.

4. And then there have been shallow and simplistic statements: “Not all Indians support the coup, nor all Fijians oppose it”! Do we need a historian from the ANU to tell us this? That all Indians do not support the present government and neither do all Fijians, is a glimpse of the obvious.

People’s opinions on recent and not so recent political events in Fiji differ. They have always differed – the sign of a healthy society where different views exit and compete with each other for acceptance. Perhaps we don’t do this very well or very elegantly in Fiji but, nevertheless, we try: we are learning … perhaps too slowly for Lal but we are learning slowly and perhaps, painfully. But we are learning.

The second article headed “GCC suspension unlawful” is pretty thin by any standard.

"First of all, Lal is not a lawyer. To blandly pronounce the GCC suspension unlawful is to engage in what Americans call the “unauthorised practice of law.” The tenor and substance of Lal’s arguments on this issue are thin at best. "

But there is a larger issue at stake here. I have learned from many years in Hawaii, looking at and studying indigenous people’s movements and the dynamics of their politics, that one has to realise that these are complex matters possessed of many layers, many sinews, many shades of meaning.

The metaphor of indigenous people’s cultures and their cultural motifs are subtle and often times possessed of a complexity that is elusive. All of us – and that includes historians, perhaps, especially historians, are all ill equipped by reason of intellectual preparation to analyse politics and the ebb and flow of indigenous people’s political events, need to be especially careful in our pronouncements about indigenous matters.

In this great debate about sovereignty that has occupied native Hawaiians for the last 40 years – one thing has been made manifestly clear: Hawaiians resent and are deeply suspicious of non-Hawaiians offering speculative and other thoughts on what Hawaiians think or – what might be good for them.

Lal, who has spent time in Hawaii, appears not to have learned that important lesson. That’s unfortunate. When Lal, under cover of his historian mantle and his connection to the 1997 Constitution makes pronouncements about current events in Fiji he is not a duck treading water but acting like a tourist, unaware that he is in shark-infested waters, ventures sufficiently far away from shore that he leaves himself open … well … for want of a better term … shark attack.

The complex issues that have to do with indigenous people’s politics – indeed all politics of whatever culture, Fijian, Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan – whatever else – are areas of intellectual inquiry into which we should tread carefully, and with great respect – particularly – if like Dr Lal, we are hobbled by the fact that we force ourselves into the mine-ridden field of indigenous politics presumably without speaking their language. Lal’s observation – and there have been many in recent months – ought to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt – full of apparent sound and fury, not signifying very much.

The views, opinions and arguments expressed in the article above are entirely those of the author and not the Fiji Daily Post.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs