A threat by Fiji's prime minister to “track down” and jail Fijians living in Australia and elsewhere who support a Christian secessionist movement has been dismissed as a diversionary tactic from domestic problems.

More than 60 people allegedly linked to anti-Muslim separatists have been detained in Fiji, accused of plotting to create a breakaway state on the western part of the main island of Viti Levu.

Their supporters in Australia have vowed to fight on and are raising a legal defence fund. 

“I’m not frightened or scared at all,” said Oni Kirwin, who describes herself as attorney-general of the Ra and Nadroga Christian state.

“There is a takeover in Fiji and it is not a good one. We’re concerned by Muslims. Their influence is very, very high.”

“There is a takeover in Fiji and it is not a good one. We’re concerned by Muslims. Their influence is very, very high.”

Ms Kirwin blames the 2013 secular constitution introduced by prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, guaranteeing equality for all Fijians.

She points to Muslims holding high office in the Bainimarama government, including attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. 

About seven per cent of Fiji’s population is Muslim.

The Fiji-born, Australian-based Ms Kirwin has now reportedly been banned from returning to Fiji.

Some of those detained in Fiji for allegedly plotting to create a breakaway Christian state are also accused of being involved in 'military-style' training.

A week-long search by hundreds of Fijian police and soldiers has not found any firearms.

Prime minister Bainimarama on Friday issued a warning to Fijians living overseas who support the Christian state movement.

“If you encourage sedition you are committing a serious offences. If you urge violence in Fiji, you are committing a serious offence. The hand of the law is very long and authorities will not rest until you are brought to justice,” he said.

“People behind this international don’t believe in democracy or listen to the will of the people. They want to impose their will on everyone else. 

"They are enemies of the state and enemies of the Fijian people. They are enemies of investment and they are enemies of a modern Fiji. They are enemies of a prosperous Fiji and we are going to track them down and bring them to justice."

Critics of the Bainimarama government say his response is an attack on freedom of speech. 

"I think, as some critics suggest, it's a diversionary thing from criticism of the government and diversion from the economy,” said professor Brij Lal, Indo-Fijian historian at the Australian National University.  

“He (Voreqe Bainimarama) has in his sights people who are critics of the government. He equates criticism of the government as an attack on democracy.”

Mr Lal is also baffled by the separatists intentions.

"You have crazy people all over the world, it's simply ridiculous. Western Fiji is fully integrated into the economy. This is a nonsensical."

Supporters of the Christian state have allies in Australia.

They were blessed by the Reverend Fred Nile during a meeting with a group led by Ms Kirwin  in the New South Wales upper house of parliament in April.

“I had a request for a deputation to meet me, tell me what was happening in Fiji and they showed me the flags they were adopting,” Mr Nile said.

"It was all news to me. Obviously I'm pleased to be helping promoting the Christian faith." Source: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/08/31/fiji-pm-distracts-overseas-plotter-threat

By Oni Kirwin

Our Right to Self –Determination:

The right to self-determination has been legally codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESR’). Both stipulate, under Article 1(1), that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.” By virtue of that right, we the Nadroga-Navosa and Ra peoples have together made a conscious decision to UNILATERALLY BREAKAWAY from the current oppressive and dictatorial government of Bainimarama and Khaiyum, following the rule in Kosovo, “the right to secede from an oppressive government.” In choosing to follow the precedent set by Kosovo, we accept the responsibility to “freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development” (ICCPR Article 1(1)).

Our right to self determination is asserted on the basis that we are ethnic peoples, first nation peoples of Fiji and therefore sovereign people of this land, owning all the lands and resources in this country and by law, able to utilise our group rights in pursuit of our basic right to life (Article 6 ICCPR) and to freedom (Part2 Article 2. 3(a) ICCPR) and pursue peace and prosperity for ourselves and for our generations to come.

The decision to unilaterally breakaway has been forced upon us by the oppressive, dictatorial and tyrannical nature of the Bainimarama/Khaiyum regime, which has been introduced into Fiji by statutory stealth under duress of the barrel of the gun. This regime is bent on a perverse form of social engineering which employs constitutionally enshrined laws of “mainstreaming” with which it enforces intensive assimilation that selects only the native Fijian race as its target group (Chapter 1 Section 1(a) and Section 5(1) (2)(a)). The objective of the regime is to turn native Fijian people into their nirvana concept of a polity of equality, whereby the state owns everything and all citizens of Fiji are robots, devoid of soul and humanity, unilaterally succumbing to the will of the state for the transformation of both, land and its people into their ultimate dream of a “modern-progressive-Fiji.”

This ideology has been tried and tested the world over, but failed miserably. One such experimentation involved the creation of a ‘super race’ conducted in Germany by Adolf Hitler in 1930s through to mid 1940s which saw six million Jews killed in gas chambers because they weren’t ‘super’ enough! In the Fijian experimentation, now constitutionally enshrined (Chapter 1 section 5) this mainstreaming of indigenous Fijians into a modern progressive Fiji, in essence amounts to extermination and genocide of the race intended to wipe us out from the landscape of Fiji, which we, Nadroga-Navosa and Ra peoples do not, and will not accept or tolerate.

In their mindless quest to disengage, disempower, dispossess and weaken the resolve of native Fijian people in Fiji, our country of origin, the Bainimaram/Khaiyum government, since their 2006 coup d’état have systematically dismantled all our native Fijian peak bodies and key institutions, and have reformulated to our disadvantage laws of financial institutions (Fijian Holdings and Fijian Trust Funds) and various codes of conduct that previously worked in our favour, have now been changed for the purpose of disinheriting our future generations.

We people of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra reject outright the 2013 Constitution which Khaiyum himself wrote without consulting the citizens of Fiji, or assembling a Constitutional Convention of Fiji’s citizen-stakeholders, or getting the views and submissions from the citizens of Fiji, or involving the citizens of Fiji in any part of its writing or in its ultimate endorsement and adoption. After all the Constitution is the supreme law of the people of the Land of Fiji, which should in principle enshrine the rights and responsibilities they pledge themselves to uphold and be bound by. Since none of the established guidelines were followed, we people of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra reject outright the 2013 Constitution as an imposition and a menace which we did not contribute to, in any way, manner or form.

To add salt to injury, the 2013 Constitution has enshrined ‘secularism’ against our will, ‘comparative religion’ against our will and the repugnant ‘mainstreaming’ laws which we talked about earlier, also against our will. We people of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra, claim to be devout and committed Christians and have been so since 1835, decades before colonisation arrived on our shores in 1874. Our express desire for Fiji to remain a Christian country is embedded in history.

In the Preamble of the 1874 Deed of Cession, which our paramount chief Ratu Kini was a signatory to stated their express desire for Fiji to remain a Christian country. This was later to be reaffirmed by our leaders in 1963 in their Wakaya Letter. of 17 January 1963:

“We also stand by the expressed desire of the high Chiefs in the preamble to the Deed of Cession that Fiji should be a Christian state and that, therefore, no constitutional or administrative changes should take place that would deviate from that intention.” Signed by KKT Mara, PK Ganilau, S Sikivou, R Vunivalu, GK Cakobau, AC Reid (Chairman), JN Falvey (Legal Adviser) and RM Major (Financial Adviser).

We have now fully articulated the basis upon which our conscious decision is predicated, to unilaterally breakaway from the Bainimaram/Khaiyum oppressive and dictatorial regime in order to form our autonomous Christian governments.

We reiterate that our right to self determination is clear in our minds. This right is enshrined in various United Nations conventions and is well established in international precedents and international case law. While Fiji has not ratified the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007), we obviously have access to other international conventions such as ILO C169, ICCPR, ICESR and the Statutes of Genocide 1948 to name a few, that equally validate our indigenous peoples’ legal right to seek self-determination in the international arena, from the Bainimaram/Khaiyum regime hell-bent on exterminating and annihilating us from the landscape of Fiji, our country of origin.

In spite of arguments against these rights, they remain the legal instruments best suited to progress our indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination.
The right to self-determination of indigenous peoples under international law has been codified as customary international law under the Modern Custom theory. International Customary Law (ICL) is one of three main sources of law that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) derives its laws and verdicts from. The other two are the international conventions accepted by states as law and the general principles accepted by states as law. The ICJ’s Statute Article 38 classifies all three sources of law, so ICL is one of its main sources of law. and thus further validating this theory.

As regards the UNDRIP 2007 this was the first time in indigenous peoples’ legal history that their right to self-determination had been enshrined in a document that recognizes their legal rights under international law.

Under the modern custom theory, I will argue that human rights principles enshrined into UN Declarations or Resolutions can be crystallized into ICL. This is based on the strong opinio juris and the strong moral content (Lex ferenda) of the document being passed through the General Assembly. To support this belief this I will provide four case studies that show a strong opinio juris of state compliance with the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples from both regional human right bodies and national state legislation to the Human Rights Council.

PM stresses use of proper English at FNU awards

“Creating and maintaining the quality of written expression in the English language in Fiji is very important.”

This is the comment made by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama during the Fiji National University’s Inaugural Alumni Awards. Bainimarama says far too many people in our schools, tertiary institutions, government, private sector make basic spelling, grammar errors and sentence construction. He says it is a particular curse in the civil service where he continually sees even the most senior people unable to write English with clarity, simplicity and in the correct manner.

Bainimarama adds that instead of choosing simple words to get their message across, they use big words as if they have to demonstrate to everyone that they have been educated. He says some of these people have high degrees from overseas universities but either they haven’t learnt or have forgotten that words are the tools they use to convey ideas." Fijivillage News

Singapore's government has long insisted that everyone in the island nation should speak English - it's the language used in schools, at work, and in government. But in practice many people speak a hybrid language that can leave visitors completely baffled - Singlish.

Singapore is known for its efficiency and Singlish is no different - it's colourful and snappy.

You don't have a coffee - you "lim kopi". And if someone asks you to join them for a meal but you've already had dinner, you simply say: "Eat already."

Singlish first emerged when Singapore gained independence 50 years ago, and decided that English should be the common language for all its different races.

That was the plan. It worked out slightly differently though, as the various ethnic groups began infusing English with other words and grammar. English became the official language, but Singlish became the language of the street.

Repeated Speak Good English campaigns, drummed into Singaporeans in schools and in the media, have had only limited success. Singlish has not only shrugged off these attacks, it has thrived.

It's been documented in a dictionary and studied by linguists. And it has been immortalised in popular culture. Take for example the 1991 comedy rap song Why U So Like Dat? by musician Siva Choy, which dramatises an argument between two schoolchildren.

"I always give you chocolate, I give you my Tic Tac, but now you got a Kit Kat, you never give me back!" sings Choy.

"Oh why you so like dat ah? Eh why you so like dat?"

Over time, Speak Good English campaigns have evolved from trying to stamp out Singlish, to accepting that properly spoken English and Singlish can peacefully co-exist. The language has even come to be seen as part of Singaporean identity and heritage - it appears in advertising campaigns for SG50, the big celebration of Singapore's Jubilee Year, and will feature on floats in Sunday's National Day Parade.


Among ordinary Singaporeans, Singlish tends to be spoken in informal situations - with friends and family, taking a taxi or buying groceries. It indicates casual intimacy. English, on the other hand, is used for formal situations - at school, or at work, especially when meeting strangers or clients.

Over time, it has become a social marker - someone who can effectively switch between the two languages is perceived to be more educated and of a higher social status than someone who can only speak Singlish.

Someone who can only speak English, and not Singlish, meanwhile, may be seen as a bit posh, or worse - not a real Singaporean.

So how do you speak it?

The grammar mirrors some other regional languages including Malay, which is indigenous to Singapore, by doing away with most prepositions, verb conjugations, and plural words, while its vocabulary reflects the broad range of the country's immigrant roots. It borrows from Malay, Hokkien, Cantonese, Mandarin and other Chinese languages, as well as Tamil from southern India.


Having coffee, "lim kopi", is a combination of the Hokkien word for drink, "lim", and the Malay word for coffee, "kopi".

A person who worries a lot is a kancheong spider - "kancheong" is from the Cantonese word for anxious, and the term evokes the image of a panicked spider scurrying around.

If a situation is intolerable, you may exclaim, "Buay tahan!" The word "buay" is Hokkien for cannot, and "tahan" is Malay for tolerate.

But Singaporeans have also appropriated English words and turned them into something else.

To reverse is to "gostan", from the nautical term "go astern" - a reminder that Singapore was once a British port.

"Whack" means to attack someone, and transposing that to Singapore's favourite pastime, eating, it can also mean ravenously attacking or digging into a hearty meal.

Singlish also has an array of words that are simply invented, that don't mean anything on their own, but dramatically alter the tone of what you're saying when tacked on to the end of a sentence.

"I got the cat lah," is an assurance that you have the cat. "I got the cat meh?" is the puzzled realisation that you may have lost it.

Some Singlish phrases are also used in Malaysia but others are unique to Singapore.

To "merlion" is to vomit profusely, and refers to Singapore's national icon, the Merlion, a half-fish half-lion statue that continuously spouts water.

Thanks partly to social media, Singlish, which used to be only a spoken language, is now starting to evolve in written form with spelling that reflects how the words are pronounced.

"Like that" can be "liddat."

"Don't play play" - a phrase popularised by 1990s sitcom character Phua Chu Kang, meaning roughly "don't mess around with me" - is more accurately written as "Donch pray pray".

Confused? Donch get kancheong.

Spend enough time in Singapore and you sure get it lah: BBC News, Singapore, Magazine, 6 August 2015

VICTOR LAL writing in the Fiji Sun during the 2006 general election campaign:

Fiji Hindi baat bolo, Indo-Fijian politicians!

You are not contesting election to Indian Parliament

By VICTOR LAL

ONE of the most ridiculous and nauseating features of the election campaign is the language usage of Indo-Fijian candidates on the election trail: a pseudo pompous and counterfeit Hindi, as if they are contesting for power in India and not in Fiji.

Several potential voters wrote to me complaining that instead of speaking in the everyday Fiji Hindi to them, the candidates have been making speeches in Shudh (Standard/Correct) Hindi, a language a vast majority of the Indo-Fijian voters hardly understand.

A similar spectacle has been displayed during Question Time and Talk Back programmes on Fiji TV. I decided to watch the appearance of Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi of the Fiji Labour Party, Bimal Prasad of the National Federation Party, Shiu Ram of COIN Party and Dildar Shah of the National Alliance Party on these two programmes.

Again, a pathetic reoccurring pattern, as if Vayeshnoi, who is contesting the Nadroga Indian Communal seat, was reading a script out of the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita. When, all he was trying to do, was to explain his party’s manifesto (for which there is no Fiji Hindi word).

The other three were equally guilty, and at times I felt sorry for Shiu Ram, who even resorted to English to make his point, instead of opting to speak the language of the Indo-Fijian masses, and over 30 per cent of taukei Fijians – Fiji Hindi.

What is wrong with speaking Fiji Hindi? Are they ashamed of the language of their coolie forefathers? Why are these Indo-Fijian candidates contesting the Indian communal seats when they are by commission or omission, speaking to the voters in the language of ‘Mother India’.

For God’s sake, even Indian candidates, despite belonging to different political parties, speak in the 700 different dialects and languages to their prospective voters in India. A regional aspiring candidate in Madras will be speaking in Madrassi, and even the Communist candidate in Bengal will be pouting his Maoist and Stalinist propaganda in Bengali. The Italian-born Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, also speaks in a Hindi language which is understood by the vast majority of the voters.

More importantly, the candidates in Bihar would be speaking in Bhojpuri or Awadhi, from which the corrupt version of Fiji Hindi has originated in our country. So why can not our own aspiring Indo-Fijian politicians speak the language of their people?.

As Nemani Bainivalu, a University of the South Pacific Hindi graduate, and later a cultural assistant with the National Reconciliation Unit, had once pointed out, only 20 percent of Indo-Fijians can read and write their formal language.

Many Indo-Fijians cannot even read their holy books written in the Khadee Bolee dialect, and pass on religious teachings by word. I am not suggesting that Sudh Hindi be replaced in our education system, or that everyone should be writing novels like Dauka Puran by Professor Subramani of the Department of Literature and Language at the USP.

What I am protesting against is the gibberish Shudh Hindi that is being shoved down the throats of Indo-Fijian voters who are struggling to ‘swallow’ the words. The election message and manifestoes of the political parties would be better understood if the Indo-Fijian candidates resorted to the conversational Fiji Hindi at the hustings. It will also help bring the taukei Fijians into the campaign, especially the 30 per cent who speak the language, and many others who have a smattering command of it.

It must be made very clear to Indo-Fijian candidates that despite the teaching of Shudh Hindi and Urdu in schools, Fiji Hindi is an integral part of the identity and culture of the Indo-Fijian population. It is unique to Indo-Fijians in the world. The day Indo-Fijian politicians kill Fiji Hindi, they will be killing a part of their history and heritage in Fiji.

For no matter where one goes in the world, the moment one hears an Indo-Fijian open his mouth, one immediately asks him: ‘What part of Fiji are you from?’ In a similar vein, India Indians are able to separate us from them solely on the basis of our Fiji Hindi.

If the Indo-Fijian politicians and aspiring candidates are too ashamed to speak to us in the language of our coolie forefathers, they should pack their bags and their manifestoes and take the next Air India flight to India, and wait there for the next general election in that country to practice their Shudh Hindi. We don’t need Indian political impostors in Fiji.

Such candidates and Indo-Fijian leaders do not deserve our sympathy or votes.

Long live FIJI HINDI.

Joint Statement

[1/8/2015]

SODELPA President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa today issued a joint statement in response to allegations against the party made by Prime Minister Bainimarama at the commissioning of the Government vessel MV Cagivou.

The SODELPA leaders said the Prime Minister’s utterances are prime examples of the hypocrisy of his leadership and government. The Leaders said his threats are becoming more pronounced and aggressive and have a similar tone to those he made during the lead up to the 2006 coup he launched against a democratically elected government.

According to Ratu Naiqama and Ro Teimumu the difference this time is that Government strategy is orchestrated by QORVIS, the US based PR Company that is paid $1 million a year from taxpayer’s funds. The Fiji Sun is also a key strategic player in the Government’s plans, along with other organizations. The Fiji First government is using them to portray Mr. Bainimarama’s military take-over not as a coup but as some sort of reformist initiative. That approach is a fraud on the nation.

Ratu Naiqama and Ro Teimumu remind the government that a coup is a coup and treason is treason.

The SODELPA leaders said the level of the Prime Minister’s hypocrisy is so excessive, it is important to respond to each of his misrepresentations.

PM: Sedition: He is reported to have said quote ‘if you encourage sedition, you are committing an offence’ unquote.

SODELPA: In 2006 Frank Bainimarama was himself on the verge of being arrested and charged with sedition. To escape the consequences of this he committed treason and carried out his coup.  Now he warns the citizens of Fiji not to break the law, but refuses to answer for his own lawless behaviour.

PM: Violence: He is reported to have said quote ‘if you urge violence against anyone in Fiji, you commit a serious offence’

SODELPA: Under Frank Bainimarama’s leadership following the 2000 and 2006 coups there have been deaths and brutal murders of civilians and soldiers as well as human rights violations against innocent citizens. He is warning against anyone urging violence.  But he led a regime that survived on violence, threats and repression.  He has many questions to answer himself about specific acts of violence and torment.  He has attempted to protect himself from fronting up to courts of law to answer for his role.

PM: The Law:  He is reported to have said quote ‘the hand of the law is very long and rest assured the authorities in Fiji will not rest until you are bought to justice’ unquote

SODELPA:  Ratu Naiqama and Ro Teimumu agree totally with Prime Minister Bainimarama.  The arm of the law is indeed very long.  This is what keeps him awake at night.  While he is threatening other citizens with being brought to justice, he hides behind immunity provisions in Chapter 10 page 147 of the constitution.  The SODELPA leaders accuse Prime Minister Bainimarama of lacking integrity and the moral courage to do as he expects all others to do.  When it comes to ‘equality under the law’, he exempts himself. 

But Ratu Naiqama and Ro Teimumu reiterate that the arm of the law is very long.  “We want to assure everyone that in this globalised day and age, it will also reach the Prime Minister and all his treasonous accomplices.  They will have to face up to the serious wrongs they have committed.”

PM:  Dividing Fiji: The Prime Minister urges people not to be fooled by those trying to divide Fiji and asks citizens to report any illegal activity to the Police.  He says if people know anyone who is involved, they should tell them they risk spending many years in jail.

SODELPA:  This kind of fear mongering and urging family and friends to spy and report on each other is typical of the tactics of Adolf Hitler and his Gestapo and Josef Stalin and his KGB in imposing control on their people.  This thinking by the Prime Minister is a confirmation of his desire to deny people their rights to personal liberty, freedom from degrading treatment, freedom of speech, expression and publication as outlined in the Bill of Rights in his 2013 constitution. By implementing such a policy he would be dividing the people to serve his own ends.

PM:   Enemies: He is reported to have said quote ‘ They want to impose their will on everyone else, they are enemies of the state, and enemies of the Fijian people, enemies of Investment, enemies of modern Fiji, they are enemies of prosperity for all, and we are going to track them down and bring them to justice’  unquote

SODELPA:  The prime imposition on our people is what was done in 2006 by Prime Minister Bainimarama.  It continues to the present. The real enemies of the state are those who broke their sworn oaths to defend us, and instead turned their weapons on us. The real enemies of investment are the officials who indulge in favouritism, nepotism and corruption to support favoured investors over others; the real enemies of modern Fiji are officials who are aware of the wrongs and injustices being done to the people and the country but remain silent out of fear; the real enemies of our prosperity are the Prime Minister and Finance Minister who, in their arrogance, think it is acceptable to spend $100 million of taxpayers money without proper records and documentation.   They apparently believe this is as transparent and accountable as they need be. 

PM:  Attack on Democracy: He is reported to have said quote ‘Attacks on democracy will not be tolerated, the lives of Fijians could only be improved via working together as a nation and one Fiji. Unquote

SODELPA:  It is fitting that our final response is in relation to his claims of attacks on our democracy. He admits that the lives and future well-being of all our people can only be improved via working together. This is the policy approach SODELPA has repeatedly put to the Fiji First government since the opening of parliament in October 2014. The Prime Minister himself has repeatedly rejected overtures from SODELPA and the National Federation Party for an inclusive collaborative approach.  The recent offer by Ratu Naiqama of an olive branch to find a solution to the current issues in Ra, Ba and Nadroga is another example in that he says he wants to do this, but is incapable of it.

His preference as is to continue to operate as he has done since 2006.  He sees Parliament as a continuation of his dictatorship while it provides a façade of democracy that does not exist.

PM:  Elected Government by the people: He is reported to have said quote ‘the said Government was chosen by the Fijian people in the elections last year and this made it the only lawful government, and to challenge it is to defy the will of the Fijian people. It is an attack on democracy and it will not be tolerated’ unquote

SODELPA:  This is the ‘mother of all hypocritical remarks’ made by the Prime Minister.  It demonstrates the level of dysfunctionality in his thinking and the unreality of the world he occupies.  In 2006 the people elected the SDL government, so it was the lawfully elected government of the people. And yet he attacked it illegally with military force. But he is afraid to subject himself to the law for his actions.

Our decision to contest the 2014 general elections under the imposed 2013 constitution was never an endorsement of it and we expressed these views in a signed letter to the President after we were sworn in. We decided that contesting the elections was an important first step away from military dictatorship which had prevailed for eight years, and that would help us begin our return to accountable and transparent governance.

There is still a long way to go.  Democratic freedom does not come easily.   Many of us have paid and are still paying a very high price for the journey we have embarked on.  There will be many more hurdles to overcome before we can achieve true democracy.  We in SODELPA are committed to achieving this.

For now, we call on all law-abiding citizens, not to be moved from doing what is right and just.  Speak out as loudly as you can about all of the wrongs this government and QORVIS are sweeping under the carpet.

We do not condone or support any acts of violence against anyone. We support everyone’s right to life and right to personal liberty as well as freedom from cruel and degrading treatment.  We stand for all the other rights that protect our citizens.  We call on the Prime Minister to stop making his outrageous allegations and let the Police do the job they are constitutionally obliged to do. He should instead concentrate on fixing our failing economy and sugar industry.

Authorized By             
Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu                  
President
Ro Teimumu Kepa
Leader of the Opposition             

From the Archive, Raw Fiji News:

By Victor Lal and Russell Hunter

Dictator Frank Bainimarama narrowly escaped New Zealand charges days before the 2006 coup. There were already sedition charges against him in Fiji, where the police were also keen to talk to him regarding the murders of the CRW soldiers that followed the 2000 mutiny. He was aware of all of this.

Now he is calling Lt Colonel Ulilakeba  Mara a “fugitive” from law and seeking extradition from Tonga.

Betrayal and cowardice are two traits that are deeply ingrained in the veins of dictator Frank Bainimarama, the self-anointed illegal Prime Minister of Fiji.

Our claims are based on five years of painstaking research, personal interviews, top secret State, military and other confidential documents. For a detailed account of our findings, please wait for our forthcoming book tentatively entitled Treason in Paradise: Commodore Frank Bainimarama and the 2006 Fiji Coup – The Inside Story.

We will shortly disclose how Bainimarama left New Zealand in November 2006 where the local police had reversed an earlier decision to arrest him on a charge of perverting the course of justice in a foreign jurisdiction. If convicted he faced a maximum sentence of seven years. Perverting the course of justice in a foreign jurisdiction is a crime in New Zealand.

Remember there was also a pending charge of sedition in Fiji. Plus the police were closing in the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit murder inquiry.

The Fiji police wanted to establish whether or not Bainimarama was an accessory to the crimes. But Bainimarama had avoided at least two invitations for a non-caution police interview but couldn’t maintain that indefinitely. And he knew that.

It was one of many motives which prompted him a week after his departure from New Zealand, where he had gone for his grand daughter’s christening, to overthrow the democratically elected multi-party SDL-FLP government in December 2006.

But, first, let us examine the “Fugitive” Bainimarama’s pattern of betrayal and cowardice.

The 2000 Speight Coup

Despite conventional but uncontested narrative, we can disclose that Bainimarama was behind the 2000 George Speight putsch that resulted in the overthrow of the Chaudhry government and the subsequent hostage crisis that lasted for the next 56 days.

And the mutiny that followed in November 2000 was a result of his betrayal of Speight and others after the signing of the Muanikau Accord. Bainimarama not only deceived the then President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, the father of Ratu Ului, to step aside at the height of the crisis, but he also betrayed the “Speight Gang” in order to ensure that the way was now open for him to enter the corridors of political power in Fiji.

Bainimarama, according to confidential documents and statements in our possession, had suggested military rule for at least five years shortly after the release of Speight’s hostages. Certainly some of his senior officers at the time were aware that he thoroughly relished his taste of power, when he took over as president in 2000 before handing over to an interim civilian regime, led by Laisenia Qarase. But Bainimarama longed to taste it again.

We are well aware of the much publicised “cassava patch” dash that Bainimarama made as the bullets were flying all over the Nabua barracks.

What he has refused to disclose is that he began suffering post trauma stress syndrome. In the aftermath of the mutiny Bainimarama had brushed aside all offers and suggestions of counselling thinking it perhaps unsoldierly.

The full results of that can only be guessed at, by psychologically unqualified writers, but results there certainly were.

We may recall that three loyalist soldiers died during the 2000 mutiny. The 20 or so wounded would all recover. The scar of that day, however, has never healed.

The potential for violent retribution was obvious – but few in Fiji expected what followed from a once proud disciplined service.

Five members of the Counter Revolutionary Warfare unit were quite literally kicked to death the following day, November 3. Post mortem photographs in our possession display viciously mutilated corpses barely recognisable as human remains. At least one of the dead played no part in the mutiny. It seemed CRW membership alone was sufficient motive for the most brutal of murders.

Acting Police Commissioner Moses Driver pronounced the deaths as murder and launched an investigation – a deed that marked him for later attention by the military. Bainimarama remains the principal person of interest in the murder inquiry. To date, no one has been charged over those murders.

The shootings and killings were over – but the stain of the 2000 mutiny would never be removed. And Bainimarama could never feel safe again – from those whom he betrayed and the long arm of the law.

He became a deeply paranoid individual who concluded that his career advancement depended on the barrel of the gun and pliable military men around him.

Commodore Frank Bainimarama tried and failed three times to seize power in Fiji before his 2006 coup. Victor Lal and Russell Hunter reveal how the warning signs went ignored

It was February 2007 - two months after Commodore Frank Bainimarama seized power in Fiji - when Time magazine's Australian editor Steve Waterson arrived in Suva to assess the situation.

The coup leader, aware that his image abroad needed serious repair, immediately granted an interview and launched a charm offensive.

"Just call me Frank," he told Waterson, and later added, "I didn't want this job." He explained he was needed to clean up corruption and put the nation on a path to prosperity.

A series of documents smuggled out of Fiji tell a vastly different story. Bainimarama not only wanted the job but had tried three times previously to seize control of the nation.

His first attempt occurred during the negotiations to end the George Speight hostage crisis in August 2000. Several of those present confirmed that the Commodore - who had tacitly supported the Speight coup - declared that the military should lead the nation "for the next five, 10 or 50 years".

A heated argument between Speight and Bainimarama ensued, ending only when President Ratu Josefa Iloilo said a democratic solution was the only way forward.

Bainimarama proposed that banker and businessman Laisenia Qarase should lead an interim government with elections after one year. But to his frustration he found his "advice" to the interim government was routinely shunned.

By December 2003 the Qarase government - tired of the Commodore's constant and often public interference - was reluctant to renew his term, due to expire in April the following year.

When Bainimarama got wind of this, he flew into a rage and ordered his senior officers to start planning a coup. But he reckoned without senior officers who counselled against such action and finally refused to implement his orders.

On January 5, 2004, secret advice to Bainimarama not to stage a coup warned of the chaos and damage that could follow.

The document, composed and signed by Lieutenant Colonel Jeremaia Waqanisau, Colonel Alfred Tuatoko, Colonel George Kadavulevu, Colonel Samuela Raduva and naval commander Timoci Koroi, reads in part:

"We feel that the interests of the RFMF (Republic of Fiji Military Forces) and the nation have been overridden by your personal wishes ...

"Under the circumstances there is no way you can justify your intent and impending action. On the other hand the consequences of such action would be catastrophic for Fiji. The despair and suffering will be unbearable and longer lasting than that experienced after 1987 and 2000."

None of the officers agreed to be interviewed.

However, the later "redress of wrong petition" also contains a statement by Tuatoko, who wrote: "In my interview with [Bainimarama] he stated that he would forcefully remove the present government if his term as Comd RFMF was not renewed.

"I advised him that such an act was illegal and amounted to treason. I advised him that there are legal ways to settle his disagreement with government and that he must follow that legal path. Comd said that doing so would take too much time. He said that removing the government would be legally wrong but was morally correct."

This document was sent to the Minister for Home Affairs, Joketani Cokanasiga, and is likely to have been seen by Qarase. Incredibly, nothing was done. A senior minister told Hunter at the time: "We're not too worried about him [Bainimarama]. He doesn't have the support at the camp that he thinks he has."

The aborted coup of January 2004 persuaded the Government that the soldiers would not obey their commander if he ordered them to commit treason by removing it.

In December 2005, Bainimarama decided to try for a third time. He had been reappointed, so his job was no longer an issue, but he knew Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes had no intention of backing off a murder inquiry into the deaths of five members of the elite Counter Revolutionary Warfare unit, kicked to death by loyalist soldiers after the November 2000 mutiny.

There was also anger in sections of the officer corps (by now mostly hand-picked Bainimarama men) that the Qarase Government was "soft" on those involved in the 2000 coup.

Bainimarama had sacked the five officers who refused to carry out his first attempted coup and appointed Lieutenant Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka as Land Force Commander - effectively his deputy. He told Baledrokadroka to prepare plans for a military takeover.

Like his brother officers before him, JB (as he was known) refused to be involved in treason. He was told to take leave and not come back but again the coup had to be postponed.

JB told Hunter on the day of his dismissal: "I saw an order that I deciphered as treasonous and I could not accept it."

By May 2006, in the full realisation that Bainimarama's reappointment had not bought off its troublesome military commander and with a fresh election victory under its belt, the Cabinet wanted him gone.

There was talk of surcharging him for the blatant abuse of military funding in the army's "Truth and Justice" campaign that sought to influence voters during the 2006 election. It came to nothing - but Bainimarama was to hear of it and it fanned the flames of his fury.

With the dismissal of JB he was able to surround himself with an officer corps that owed their positions to him alone. His coup would take place within a year.

Claim strongman threatened to kill officer

Fiji leader Frank Bainimarama threatened to kill a former top army officer who challenged his 2003 coup plan, according to the officer's written testimony.

The late Lieutenant-Colonel Jeremaia Waqanisau refused to carry out the Commodore's coup order and took a new job as CEO at the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In a file note at the time he recalled in January 2004 the Commodore barged into Home Affairs Minister Joketani Cokanasiga's office with several bodyguards, accusing Waqanisau of raising an army against him.

"Bainimarama further said had it not been for the minister I would have been dead already, and next time the military came back to finish what they started he would personally lead [them] to town and make sure I would be the first to die.

"I told Bainimarama when he came down next time he should come alone, without his weapon and his armed body guards and then try to kill me. He became furious challenging me to a fight taking off his [weapon] and posing for a fight... I said I didn't want to fight him and he should go away. The minister was holding him back and eventually pushed him out the door."

TERMS OF REFERENCE

INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE SODELPA PARTY

The General Secretary of the Social Democratic and Liberal Party (hereinafter SODELPA) had received the following formal complaints against certain officials and members of the party between the period, 14th August to August to 19th August, 2015.

1.      Letter signed by 5 Members of Parliament dated 14th August, 2015

2.      Letter by the Principal Administrative Officer at the Sodelpa Opposition Office, Mr. Beddoes, dated…………

3.      Letter signed by 5 Members of Parliament dated 19th August, 2015

Prior to the first written complaint was received, an anonymous Report termed as the Gaunavinaka Report was circulated via the internet and such report was published by the Fiji Sun newspaper on………

SODELPA has provisions on Disputes and Disciplinary Action in its Constitution.

The Management Board as the governing body of the Party is fully authorized to investigate the subject of complaints and is further empowered to constitute a 3-member Disciplinary Committee to assess the investigation report and recommend to the Management Board the penalty(ies) and or fine(s) that may be imposed on those implicated in the breach of the party Constitution.

A team of ….  has been put together to investigate the subject of the letters of complaint the last 8 days. 

The Investigating Team is mandated by and reports to the SODELPA Management Board to facilitate and nature of the complaints and t the Nadave outcomes.

Membership

Members of the Investigating Team will be drawn from the professional rank of the Party as well as independent individual with the integrity, skills and professional knowledge. The confirmed names are attached.

Duration of service

The Investigating Team formally will commence its work on endorsement by the Management Board and operate until the 3rd September, 2015.

Remuneration

Members of the Taskforce are expected to volunteer their time and meet the cost of their own expenses.

Functions

The functions of the Investigating Team are as follows –

The Investigating Team is to summon witnesses, take evidence on oath and report their findings and recommendations to the Management Board not later than 3 September 2015 on the following matters:

I               Allegation on the ANZ Bank, SODELPA Opposition Account no. 12258786


a.       Is the Opposition Office or the Party responsible to administer this government grant of $225,000?


b.      What was the caucus decision on this government grant?


c.       What was the Management Board decision on this government grant?

d.      Was the opening of account no. 12258786 in compliance with section 17(1) (e) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosure) Decree, 2013? (ie. Estimates of expenditures of the political party in accordance with the laws relating to public finance management)?

e.      Does account no. 12258786 exist at ANZ?

f.        When was this account opened and who are the signatories?

g.       Who gave the directive to deposit the government grant cheque with a sum of $225,000 into account no. 12258786 at ANZ?


h.      Was the Caucus consulted on the opening of account no. 12258786?

i.         Did the Management Board resolve that funds allocated for each Opposition Members of Parliament be brought to the Party Head Quarters?

j.        Did the General Secretary of the Party make enquiries with the Secretary General of Parliament on the purpose of the fund?

k.       Was any fund withdrawn from account no. 12258786 used for the flag campaign and other expenses without the knowledge of the Caucus?
 

II             Allegation on the ANZ Bank, SODELPA Opposition Account no. 12267701

l.         Was a sum of $150,000 transferred as a term deposit to Account no. 12267701 from the $225,000 government grant?

m.    Can public funds be term deposited and who gave the orders for this to be done?

III            Allegation that some Members of Parliament, Senior Party Officials and some members of the Management Board had knowledge of the Gaunavinaka Report before it was leaked.

n.      Is Hon. Bulitavu and other Members of Parliament who had signed the complaint lodged with the Management linked to the Gaunavinaka Report?

o.      When did Hon. Bulitavu and other Members of Parliament first find out about the Gaunavinaka Report?

p.      Why were Hon. Bulitavu and other Members of Parliament concerned with the issues raised in the Gaunavinaka Report?

IV            Allegation that the Caucus was not consulted on certain appointments

q.      Did Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa consult the Caucus before announcing in the media that she is Opposition Leader?

r.         When did Hon. Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu move that Ro TeimumuKepa is to be Opposition Leader? Was it after it was already publically announced by Ro Teimumu in the media and before the first Caucus meeting that was held at the SODELPA HQ Conference Room?

s.       Did Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa comply with section 78(1) of the 2013 Constitution?


t.        Did Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa consult her caucus on the appointment of Hon. Biman Prasad to be Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee?

u.      Did Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa consult the Management Board before the National Federation Party was approached on the offer and what was the intention of the offer?

v.       Who all were part of the delegation that went to the National Federation Party to offer the position of Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee to Hon. Biman Prasad?

w.     Does Hon. Ro Teimumu Kepa as Opposition Leader consult the Caucus in appointing Members of Parliament for overseas trips?

V             Allegation on the appointment of Opposition staffs

x.       How were the current Opposition staffs recruited and what are their job descriptions? (Were the posts advertised?)

y.       How were their salaries determined and what is the current salary scale of each of the Opposition staff?

VI            Allegation on Laufitu Malani and Mick Beddoes

z.       What is Laufitu Malani’s job description at the Opposition Office and if she is paid a sum of $36,000 per annum?

aa.   What is Mick Beddoes job description at the Opposition Office and if he is paid a sum of $45,000 per annum?

bb.  Was Mick Beddoes responsible for the Opposition Statement on the RESIGNATION OF THE MILITARY COMMANDER AND APPOINTMENT OF VILIAME NAUPOTO TO ACT AS MILITARY COMMANDER was “in order”?

VII          Allegation on Retired Colonel Sakiusa Raivoce

cc.    How much was lent by Retired Colonel Sakiusa Raivoce to the Opposition Office?

dd.  How much was repaid to Retired Colonel Sakiusa Raivoce from the Opposition office Account No. 12258786 at ANZ and how much was paid as interest from the public fund?

ee.  Any other matters.

Mereoni (Oni) Kirwin's local contact in Fiji was Adi Litia Qionibaravi, who had organised meetings and accompanied her to those meetings.

According to highly reliable sources in the 'rebel group', Adi Litia is trying to avoid arrest, while those that blindly followed her and Oni have been arrested and charged for sedition and are currently remanded in custody in prisons.

Adi Litia should, they demand, be  flushed out from wherever she is hiding, and face the same consequences.

Adi Litia is also behind that SODELPA statement issued by Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu that asked for a symposium with Voreqe Bainimarama to discus  indigenous issues, and for the release of the 70 plus people that have been arrested and charged for sedition, the sources claim.

She is, the sources say,  cunningly using other people to try and save the people that she misled and are now facing serious charges and possible imprisonment for a very long time. Adi Qionibaravi hails from Ucunivanua in Verata, Tailevu Province.

"TODAY in a point of order, I called for the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance, Hon. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. While I delivered my Point of Order, my mic was turned off. I took my seat after finishing delivering my appeal for the Minister of Finance to vacate his office

This was following a order by the Speaker of the House on the 27/08/15 for the House to sit privately, strangers be ejected and Hansard not publish the secret discussions about the state of Fiji’s Economy.

In my point of order, made to parliamentarians today, I demanded an explanation into public utterances made in the media by the Minister and his Permanent Secretary on Global Bonds and Loans.

The fact is in the 2015 Budget estimate a deficit of $363.5 million was projected, but this relies on the sale of state assets of $507.3 million and there is no sign of that happening for the 2nd year in a row. So our deficit will increase to $870.8 million. That’s just $129 million short of a billion dollars. So add to that the $US250 million that the PS Finance spoke of in June that is due next year, then we are looking at a $1.4 billion debt for all of the Governments excesses over the past few years that our young people today will have to pay.

There is also the $150 million in un-presented cheques and the unaccounted for the $100 million expenditure.

Going into the 2016 Budget discussions, we cannot have the office of the Minister of Finance filled by a man who cannot give real solutions to our economic woes. A man who can’t face the Nation and openly talk about the reality of the Economy – and has instead ordered the representatives of the People to NOT INFORM the People of the facts."

Authorized By                                   
Hon. Ratu Isoa Tikoca

STATEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AIYAZ SAYED-KHAIYUM AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON FIJI GOVERNMENT GLOBAL BOND 2011  

The government has, today, priced a record-breaking US$250 million (F$500 million) 5 year at 9.00% international bond transaction via sole lead-manager and bookrunner, ANZ.

This is the second global bond issuance by the Fijian government. The first international bond was raised in September 2006 with a sum of US$150 million (F$300 million), which will mature in September this year.

Fiji's international investor profile was significantly broadened following a week long international roadshow across Hong Kong, Singapore and London in February that brought government officials in front of over 85 international fixed income investors via 1-on-1 meetings, group luncheons and an on-line investor presentation.

The road show presentation was led by the Attorney General, together with the Permanent Secretary for Finance, the Acting Governor Reserve Bank, and three senior officials from the Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank.   

The transaction was launched in Asia yesterday morning (Tuesday 08/03/2011), and was fully subscribed by midday with the orderbook closing almost 3 times oversubscribed within 12 hours of launch.

The final order book was substantially oversubscribed with over F$1.4 billion bids received (US$683 million) and compromised of 43 investors from 6 countries. “This is a clear indication of the level of confidence that investors in the international market have in Fiji’s economic development and progress, on-going reforms and future prospects”, said the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Asian investors bought 36% of the transaction with Europe and Offshore-US accounts contributing the remaining 64%.

A very high quality order book comprised of 69% asset managers, 24% hedge funds, 5% private banks and 2% bank portfolios.

The transaction was successfully executed in the face of challenging international market conditions in the wake of the European sovereign crisis as well as the recent unrest across the Middle East.

The Prime Minister added that the successful execution of this global bond reaffirms government’s commitment towards financing priority capital investments that are earmarked in the 2011 Budget to generate economic activity, macroeconomic stability and a prudent fiscal position in the medium term.

It also demonstrates Government’s willingness to enhance growth through partnership with the private sector in the domestic as well as international market.

The government wishes to acknowledge the support and contribution of the rating agencies, the ANZ Fiji office, state owned enterprises and Government Ministries that submitted information which formed the Fijian story that was marketed during the roadshow.

The overwhelming response is due to the teamwork demonstrated by all parties, who share in this historic achievement.

    -End-

From The Archives

The bond issue: when failure is called success, while they dig our hole deeper (2011)

By Professor Wadan Narsey

The Military Government has announced with great fanfare that their “roadshow” in Hong Kong, Singapore and London, had successfully raised F$500 millions in foreign bonds to pay off $300 millions on a foreign bond raised in 2006, with the remaining F$200 millions allegedly being set aside for capital projects (The Fiji Times, 10 March 2011).

Khaiyum claimed with joy “This is a clear indication of the level of confidence that investors in the international market have in Fiji’s economic development and progress, ongoing reforms and future prospects”. What rubbish!

The Permanent Secretary Finance (Waqabaca) said the Government was happy to “showcase” the ANZ bank internationally (really?) for supporting Government in difficult times (but what did ANZ put in, and what will ANZ get?). Waqabaca, also made many euphoric and supporting statements for the bond conversion (with dubious economic logic).

The Acting Governor of the Reserve Bank (Mr Barry Whiteside) safely noted that foreign reserves will be boosted by the new borrowings, and hopefully suggested that FNPF might even benefit (perhaps, but only for a short while). All in all, if the media are to be believed, the bond conversion appears to be a great successful WIN-WIN venture for the Khaiyum/Bainimarama Government and Fiji, doesn’t it? Yes, it is a success for Bainimarama and Khaiyum- because they have managed to pass the buck to the future generations.

And Bainimarama and Khaiyum are digging Fiji’s future generations deeper into the Public Debt hole, with a higher proportion now denoted in very scarce foreign exchange. While they turned down a less costly but more sensible loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Failure to pay the US$150 million bond

Why did we borrow this F$500 million in the first place?

Because the Military Government was unable to repay the US$150 million bond undertaken in 2006 (whose local value rose to F$300 million after the 2009 devaluation).

Why cannot they repay?

Because the Bainimarama Government refuses to cut recurrent expenditure (and especially the bloated military budget) in order to achieve the level of fiscal surpluses  needed to repay that US$150 million bond. So the magical Bainimarama/Khaiyum solution for the debt you cannot repay:  borrow again to repay that $300 millions! AND to make it worse, borrow even more (another US$100 million) so as to pass on an even bigger burden (US$250 million) to the future generations.

But why did this Military Government not borrow the US$150 million (or US$250 million) from IMF at a much lower interest rate? Because the IMF conditionality would also have required them to reduce their recurrent fiscal expenditure to manageable levels, and probably there were other conditions too difficult for this incompetent regime to implement.

Higher interest, higher public debt, now owed in foreign exchange

How can you call successful, the conversion of a bond which was originally costing us 6.875 percent interest, into a bond now costing us a higher 9% interest?

AND to borrow overseas another US$100 million ($F200 million) also to be repaid at a higher 9% in foreign exchange, when its domestic borrowings from FNPF was at a much lower 6% at the margin? The repayments on this F$500 million bond will also have to be in foreign exchange, which the Fiji economy has great difficulty in earning. We may have healthy reserves now, but that is largely a result of the total lack of domestic investment and stagnant domestic incomes and demand. Our export earnings can only rely on tourism, water, gold and fish exports.

The sugar industry’s net foreign exchange earnings are not only lower because of the destroyed industry, but also because FSC itself owes large amounts overseas, which have now also been shouldered by the Fiji taxpayers (courtesy of the Bainimarama Regime).

With the devalued Fiji dollar, the increase in foreign debt will increase the burdens on tax-payers who are already being squeezed by FIRCA struggling to increase revenues in a stagnant economy, while facing higher inflation.

Should we devalue even more in the future (God forbid), the burden on Fiji’s tax-payers of this US$250 million bond, will be even higher.

False capital investment justification

How misleading of Khaiyum to claim that the extra $200 millions borrowed will not be used for recurrent expenditure but for capital investment.

That statement would have been true, had recurrent expenditure been at the appropriate lower level. That statement would have been true, had the Military Government not already wasted hundreds of millions in all its badly managed projects such as at FSC and other contingent liabilities which are going to come home to roost, sooner or later. Make no mistake, the extra $200 million is being borrowed to maintain the bloated Bainimarama Regime’s recurrent budget. That capital expenditure Khaiyum talks about would have been incurred in normal times, any way.

ANZ and international confidence in Fiji?

Contrary to Khaiyum’s claim, the financing of this bond is not an indicator of broad investor confidence in Fiji.

As the data from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics and RBF clearly show, the Fiji economy has been badly failing the real test of confidence in the economy for the last four years:  private sector investment has been less than 7% of GDP and has dropped to around 3% currently, when it should have been around 15% to 20%.

These bond buyers are merely confident that Fiji has enough foreign reserves to repay the interest and principal when it becomes due.

And the bond buyers are confident that this military dictatorship has enough control of the economy to squeeze the tax-payers for the required amounts, or to simply borrow yet again in the future, should they not have the funds.

What about ANZ?  Of course ANZ has some excellent investment initiatives in Fiji with have much growth potential, such as its call and data-processing centres.

But, ANZ must have made their cut out of this deal? What percentage of the bonds did ANZ buy?

And if Wilson was so confident in the Bainimarama/Khayum management of the Fiji economy, why didn’t ANZ International lend Fiji the whole US$250 million?

Will ANZ now expect future tax and other benefits from a Military Government which was so grateful to have on its “road-show” a multinational bank whose representative “Wilson was able to give its side of the story” on the Fiji economy, and convince the other bond buyers?  What Fiji story did Wilson indeed give?

The Reserve Bank and FNPF

Of course, the Reserve Bank will now have some higher reserves, for a few years, until the debt become due again, when it will all go, and they might need even more.

Of course, FNPF might benefit if it is able to invest some of its funds off-shore.  But these funds can be forcibly brought back anytime the Reserve Bank wants.

And any benefits to us FNPF shareholders, will of course, be paid for by all the tax-payers of Fiji (of whom FNPF shareholders are only a part).

The PS  euphoria and justification

It is extraordinary that the PS Finance (Waqabaca) is reported to have said that his emotion at the bond sale was “one of elation, we were overjoyed, we were happy with the outcome”.

What?  Happy that after the Bainimarama Government failed to repay the old debt, happy that the public debt and burden on tax-payers was being further increased, happy at the significantly higher interest rate we taxpayers will be paying ?

Waqabaca claimed that they borrowed overseas because they wanted to “avoid a crowding out effect whereby Government does not restrict private sector demand for domestic finance”.

But “crowding out” only occurs if the available domestic finance was already being fully used by the private sector, which might indeed be “crowded out” if  government barged in offering higher interest rates.

The reality has been that domestic investment demand has been so low for five years that the financing institutions (private banks as well as FNPF, FDB and Home Finance) have been desperate to lend their cash to anyone credit-worthy.

As for not wanting to “increase domestic interest rates”- well, were interest rates to rise, the biggest beneficiary may well have been FNPF, which has for decades been a captive lender to Government at low interest rates (much to the private banks’ relief).

While higher domestic interest rates would provide the appropriate discipline on the uncontrolled borrowings by this reckless Military Government.

Civil Servant Coup Collaborators

If Khaiyum and Bainimarama tried to reduce recurrent government expenditure in order to repay the 2006 bond, they would have faced resistance from the civil service and especially the military officers and rank and file whose support has been bought by grossly inflated salaries, promotions, appointments to higher civil service positions, and other perks.

This damaging bond conversion into a bigger Public Debt allows Bainimarama and Khaiyum to avoid the flak that would come from painful fiscal discipline today, while thoroughly enjoying their party in the meantime.

One can therefore expect the public relations spin from Aiyaz Khaiyum who is on a personal fairy-tale roller coaster ride, playing around with hundreds of millions of dollars of Fiji tax-payers’ funds (not his own or his father’s, as Indians say), trotting around the globe at tax-payers’ expense, feted and supported by sycophant prominent members of the business community, who naturally also get the benefits they want.

But Fiji’s tax-payers should not be receiving an unnecessary PR exercise and faulty economics from civil servants like Waqabaca, who ought to know better.

One of the tragic consequences of the Bainimarama coup has been that inexperienced civil servants without any depth of knowledge or experience, have been rapidly pushed up the ladder into enormously powerful positions, where they are easily misused.

In their gratitude to their Masters for the rapid promotion, so many civil servants (mostly indigenous Fijian), have been prepared to enthusiastically spout all the rhetoric and public relations spin, justifying the decisions and policies of this illegal Military Government- whether it is the Pillars of the Charter, the supposed grand electoral reform, or this foreign bond conversion which is going to be so damaging to the future generations.

Assisted by a censored or pliant media, these civil servants also thereby irresponsibly encourage the public to swallow all the spin- hook, line and sinker, and be totally lulled into a false sense of complacency and well-being.

The Fiji “road-show” indeed, goes on, while our future slowly erodes.

https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-bond-issue-when-failure-is-called-success-while-they-dig-our-hole-deeper-2011blogs/