Chand: "I’m not riding on the roof, I’m not standing on the rooftop and making comments...it took him 56 days to free the hostages. And then he’s going around the nation telling that he is the saviour of the nation? What kind of a saviour? What kind of a leader is he? Why couldn’t he get rid of 7 CRW soldiers with an outsider and some people in the Parliament House, in a few days? Why does it take him 56 days? That’s a big question mark." RFMF expresses deep concern over Chand's concern and aspersions |
FROM HOSTAGE TO DOUBLE DIGIT MILLIONAIRE: |
During the 2000 crisis Aiyaz Khaiyum was away from Fiji, studying at the University of Hong Kong under the supervision of Professor Yash Ghai. I, however, had the privilege of reading in advance his 2002 Master in Laws thesis, “Cultural Autonomy: Its Implications for the Nation-State, the Fiji Experience” (he was not aware) and found nothing wrong with the so-called "Sunset Clause" where he had rightly argued academically that native Fijian culture had to evolve and adept to 20th Century realities; whether native Fijian autonomy helps or hinders their full participation in Fiji, and at what point autonomy could threaten the integrity of the country: “As seen from the Fijian experience, cultural autonomy has a place within a nation-state to provide protection to a group at a particular point in time or for a period of time….To maintain one’s self-worth culture needs to be dynamic and vibrant. Capturing it in institutions makes culture parochial, irrelevant, prone to manipulation and serves only the interest of a few….As seen from the Fijian experience the continuation of separate indigenous Fijian administration has restricted the growth of a coherent national narrative, in politics, myth or ritual...” :
In my own 1990 book 'Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention', I had argued the following: '...But with the chiefs determined to imprison themselves in the racist garb of supremacy and tradition, and their antagonists, the Fijian Indians (Indo-Fijians), threatening violence and vengeance, both sides must be urged to re-examine the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that investigated Fiji's electoral system in 1975. This Commission had strongly advocated extending national seats in order to defeat the politics of communalism. The chiefs, prejudiced by lack of vision, must, on the other hand, in the months and years to come, realize that 'tradition is a guide, not a jailer' in order to save their country from the calamity that confronts them; the Fijian Indians with a history of rebellion on the sugar plantations and burning political ambitions in their hearts are repeating the lines of Richard Lovelace: Stone walls do not a prison make - Nor iron bars a cage.'- Victor Lal
http://www.fijileaks.com/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/copy_of_aiyaz_sayed_khaiyum_thesis.pdf
[Indo-Fijian] Woman to ABC, 4 February 2001- Fiji: Encore for a Coup:
"It was 10 o'clock in the night. The kids were watching TV and I was with them, just lying on my bed. Then all of a sudden there was a very big sound, the sound of a gun. By then they were inside the house. We were really scared, really frightened, we all started to scream, we all were crying for help. They were bashing us up, kicking us. They told us to keep quiet. I didn't know what to do so I decided to grab my daughter's hand. I grabbed her and I ran, opened the front door and we ran out. And I told my daughter that she had to run to the neighbour, and then I realised my son was still inside the house, so I was trying to run towards my son, and I could not get to him. I heard he was crying for help. Then these two men came and got hold of me, and they started to pull me, started hitting me, started to tear my clothes. And then they took me to the back of the house, and that's where they raped me. I was crying to help. I asked them to leave me because I had two kids, but they wouldn't listen to me. I begged them, they would not let me go. They did swear at me the day they raped me. They swore in Fijian. They told us 'You're Indian motherfuckers'. My daughter still can't sleep in the night, still having the nightmares. She'll wake up in the night, 2 o'clock in the morning, and she will cry because they've seen these Fijians raping the mother. Especially my son, because they tore my clothes into pieces and I was lying naked there, and my son was the one who brought me clothes and put clothes on for me."
LAISENIA QARASE to UN, 16 September 2000:
"The crux of our political crisis in Fiji is that indigenous Fijian and Rotuman communities felt threatened by certain policies which the non-indigenous leadership of the People's Coalition Government had implemented following their decisive victory in our National Elections in May 1999. It was this fear and anxiety about their future as the world's only indigenous Fijian and Rotuman community of just over 420,000 people that led to mass demonstrations and ultimately the Coup d'etat on May 19th this year. It manifested itself also in the mass looting of shops, destruction of property, and threats to people and their families, and unfortunately and tragically, the victims were mainly members of our Indian community. It was in this serious and deteriorating law and order situation that the Fiji Military Forces responded to a request from our Police to take over direct control of law and order and the protection of citizens. To facilitate this role, the Fiji Military Forces abrogated our 1997 Constitution on 29th May. However, as the civilian Interim Administration, we have ourselves taken over from the Army and, as I have said, we are firmly committed to returning Fiji to constitutional parliamentary democracy. We intend to promulgate the new constitution in August next year. General elections will then follow within twelve months."
Address to the Fifty-Fifth Session of the UN General Assembly by Qarase, Bainimarama's then Interim PM, 16 September 2000
"The crux of our political crisis in Fiji is that indigenous Fijian and Rotuman communities felt threatened by certain policies which the non-indigenous leadership of the People's Coalition Government had implemented following their decisive victory in our National Elections in May 1999. It was this fear and anxiety about their future as the world's only indigenous Fijian and Rotuman community of just over 420,000 people that led to mass demonstrations and ultimately the Coup d'etat on May 19th this year. It manifested itself also in the mass looting of shops, destruction of property, and threats to people and their families, and unfortunately and tragically, the victims were mainly members of our Indian community. It was in this serious and deteriorating law and order situation that the Fiji Military Forces responded to a request from our Police to take over direct control of law and order and the protection of citizens. To facilitate this role, the Fiji Military Forces abrogated our 1997 Constitution on 29th May. However, as the civilian Interim Administration, we have ourselves taken over from the Army and, as I have said, we are firmly committed to returning Fiji to constitutional parliamentary democracy. We intend to promulgate the new constitution in August next year. General elections will then follow within twelve months."
Address to the Fifty-Fifth Session of the UN General Assembly by Qarase, Bainimarama's then Interim PM, 16 September 2000
From Fiji's Daily Post, Letters to the Editor, 13 July 2001:
"I hear from recording on Fijivillage about Parmod Chand blaming me for the event of 2000. The little coward. Where was he during the event of 2000? Probably hiding under his bus in Labasa. We never heard a squeak from him when the parliament group under Ratu Naiqama took over the camp and ransacked Labasa town. Now he has the guts and the courage and is yelling from the rooftops. In 2000-2006, never a squeak from him when the SDL Government came up with those racist policies. No words of encouragement for the Indo-Fijians. Now all of a sudden he's screaming from the top of his bus. But seriously who gave him the courage to do all this screaming? Its very simple. It's the security environment I and the military and the constitution he's now attacking, we gave him that courage, what little he lacks, and of course the confidence to now talk and harp. And he is not to forget that. Never! He's now acting like the big brave boy to the Indo-Fijian community because he wants their vote. The Indo-Fijians should not believe him. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians in the event of 2000. I did with the military. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians when those racist decrees were going to be implemented by the Qarase Government. I and the military did. So really, he should shut up!"
Where were you during the horrific events of 2000 and in 2006 when a number of racist policies were being pushed through?
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has raised the question to NFP parliamentarian Parmod Chand after Chand blamed Bainimarama for the 2000 coup.
Chand had said in parliament that it was Bainimarama’s fault.
[Transcription] - "May I remind this house that in 2000, the honorable Prime Minister was the leader of the military forces. He could not control his guns. He is to be blamed for the 2000 coup, not the people."
Speaking to Fijivillage from Montreal late last night, Bainimarama said that Parmod Chand did nothing when Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and others took over the military barracks in 2000 and also victimised a number of Indo Fijian families.
Ratu Naiqama was handed a 8 month prison sentence for illegal assembly relating to the takeover of the military barracks in Labasa in 2000.
He was released after only 11 days of his 8‑month sentence as there was an approval that he could serve his sentence outside.
The Prime Minister who was out of the country when George Speight and others took over parliament on May 19th, 2000, said nothing was done by the NFP parliamentarian again when the racist policies were being brought up in 2006.
[Transcription] - "I hear from recording on Fijivillage about Parmod Chand blaming me for the event of 2000. The little coward. Where was he during the event of 2000? Probably hiding under his bus in Labasa. We never heard a squeak from him when the parliament group under Ratu Naiqama took over the camp and ransacked Labasa town. Now he has the guts and the courage and is yelling from the rooftops. In 2000-2006, never a squeak from him when the SDL Government came up with those racist policies. No words of encouragement for the Indo-Fijians. Now all of a sudden he's screaming from the top of his bus."
Bainimarama said that it was him as Army Commander and then as Prime Minister with the military and now with the constitution, that brought back stability to Fiji.
He said that Chand had no part to play in this.
[Transcription] - "But seriously who gave him the courage to do all this screaming? Its very simple. It's the security environment I and the military and the constitution he's now attacking, we gave him that courage, what little he lacks, and of course the confidence to now talk and harp. And he is not to forget that. Never! He's now acting like the big brave boy to the Indo-Fijian community because he wants their vote. The Indo-Fijians should not believe him. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians in the event of 2000. I did with the military. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians when those racist decrees were going to be implemented by the Qarase Government. I and the military did. So really, he should shut up!". Source: Fijivillage News, 15 September 2017
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has raised the question to NFP parliamentarian Parmod Chand after Chand blamed Bainimarama for the 2000 coup.
Chand had said in parliament that it was Bainimarama’s fault.
[Transcription] - "May I remind this house that in 2000, the honorable Prime Minister was the leader of the military forces. He could not control his guns. He is to be blamed for the 2000 coup, not the people."
Speaking to Fijivillage from Montreal late last night, Bainimarama said that Parmod Chand did nothing when Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and others took over the military barracks in 2000 and also victimised a number of Indo Fijian families.
Ratu Naiqama was handed a 8 month prison sentence for illegal assembly relating to the takeover of the military barracks in Labasa in 2000.
He was released after only 11 days of his 8‑month sentence as there was an approval that he could serve his sentence outside.
The Prime Minister who was out of the country when George Speight and others took over parliament on May 19th, 2000, said nothing was done by the NFP parliamentarian again when the racist policies were being brought up in 2006.
[Transcription] - "I hear from recording on Fijivillage about Parmod Chand blaming me for the event of 2000. The little coward. Where was he during the event of 2000? Probably hiding under his bus in Labasa. We never heard a squeak from him when the parliament group under Ratu Naiqama took over the camp and ransacked Labasa town. Now he has the guts and the courage and is yelling from the rooftops. In 2000-2006, never a squeak from him when the SDL Government came up with those racist policies. No words of encouragement for the Indo-Fijians. Now all of a sudden he's screaming from the top of his bus."
Bainimarama said that it was him as Army Commander and then as Prime Minister with the military and now with the constitution, that brought back stability to Fiji.
He said that Chand had no part to play in this.
[Transcription] - "But seriously who gave him the courage to do all this screaming? Its very simple. It's the security environment I and the military and the constitution he's now attacking, we gave him that courage, what little he lacks, and of course the confidence to now talk and harp. And he is not to forget that. Never! He's now acting like the big brave boy to the Indo-Fijian community because he wants their vote. The Indo-Fijians should not believe him. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians in the event of 2000. I did with the military. He didn't protect the Indo-Fijians when those racist decrees were going to be implemented by the Qarase Government. I and the military did. So really, he should shut up!". Source: Fijivillage News, 15 September 2017
Aiyaz Khaiyum on the horrors of George Speight's failed coup in 2000 born out of obsession with ethnicity:
“But, Madam Speaker, look what happened in 2000 and again I am saying this, and I caution everybody…because it did happen and people don’t want to talk about it. When the Government was held captive for 56 days or 54 days…, in Veiuto, people in Muaniweni were attacked, people in Vanua Levu were attacked, women were raped and they had cassava shoved up their vaginas. That’s the kind of issues that were taking place. We had women in Vanua Levu and you know what ethnic group they were, they were asked to strip naked and parade in front of people and go and cook over the fire. That’s what happened Madam Speaker."
"Madam Speaker, for this week we have heard time and time again from Government Members that the Opposition which is critical of the Constitution are hypocrites and should not contest the elections under this Constitution. Madam Speaker, it will be interesting if the same analogy is applied to the Prime Minister’s right-hand man who will be by hi[s] side for the elections. The honourable Attorney General himself clarified in Parliament yesterday in response to my colleague Hon Chand that he protested against the 1987 coup and the then interim government. We know that he was one of a group of 18 activists who was arrested and charged by Police for holding a meeting without a permit. We know that this charge was wrong. Together with the 18 activists, he was exercising his right to protest. But to my wonderment, the Attorney General having protested against a coup and an interim government, became an integral member of the regime after the 2006 coup and was re-appointed to the regime’s Cabinet that governed after abrogation of the 1997 Constitution. And yes, Madam Speaker, as the Attorney General he was the chief legal officer under whose watch the Public Emergency Regulations were imposed making it illegal for more than three people to gather in a public place, thereby effectively prohibiting political parties and NGOs from protesting. As for opposing a constitution and fighting elections under its provisions, this is not a crime Madam Speaker."
RESPONSE BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION PARTY WHIP TO THE MOTION TO THANK HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH PARLIAMENT OF FIJI
THURSDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2017
BY HON PREM SINGH
Madam Speaker before I start speak on the Motion to thank His Excellency the President for his most gracious address, allow me to thank the honourable Attorney General for acknowledging that one of our former Leaders Siddiq Moidin Koya achieved a political compromise with the then Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara that resulted in the 1970 Constitution.
Madam Speaker, that political compromise was the beginning of many compromises that resolved political conflicts in the national interest and resulted in monumental achievements through negotiated settlements.
Indeed the 1997 Constitution that he is now critical of and supported its abrogation was a product of such political compromise.
If I remember correctly Madam Speaker, the Honourable Attorney General was highlighting its salient provisions on Fiji Broadcasting Commission in a weekly program in the years before the 2006 coup.
And Madam Speaker I wonder who was the legal advisor of the Alliance Party or the National Alliance Party of Fiji that the honourable Attorney General referred to while talking about the 2006 elections?
One should not criticise political compromises achieved through legal and legislative framework. The 2013 Constitution, like the 1990 Constitution are not products of political compromises but were born out of a coup and imposed documents.
Madam Speaker, I also join other honourable Members in thanking the President for his most gracious speech. However, I am disappointed but not surprised that the message of unity, togetherness and inclusivity has been ignored by the ruling party.
The message I get from them is loud and clear – it is “My Way or the Highway” – they are the patriots and only they have the ability and right to govern after the 2018 general elections and that the Opposition is incapable of governing our nation.
Most importantly I feel that the other side is not a team but a collection of individuals who are vociferously campaigning for votes individually because they know that their Leader will be promoted as the single candidate during the elections.
I don’t blame them because the electoral system is such. If the system was to elect the top 50 vote getters in Parliament, then Fiji First would not have been in government. So the tone of their speeches is unsurprising.
And no prizes for guessing their praise of the Constitution and their Leader – they are trying to make an impression in order to be once again endorsed as candidates. Essentially, their political future hangs in the balance because for many of them life after politics will be extremely difficult.
Also, Madam Speaker, Government thinks it has a monopoly on ideas that it thinks are best for Fiji. No one political party, Leader, person or organisation has a monopoly on policies. In a democracy, no one single point of view must prevail.
Madam Speaker, for this week we have heard time and time again from Government Members that the Opposition which is critical of the Constitution are hypocrites and should not contest the elections under this Constitution.
Madam Speaker, it will be interesting if the same analogy is applied to the Prime Minister’s right-hand man who will be by hi[s] side for the elections. The honourable Attorney General himself clarified in Parliament yesterday in response to my colleague Hon Chand that he protested against the 1987 coup and the then interim government.
We know that he was one of a group of 18 activists who was arrested and charged by Police for holding a meeting without a permit. We know that this charge was wrong. Together with the 18 activists, he was exercising his right to protest.
But to my wonderment, the Attorney General having protested against a coup and an interim government, became an integral member of the regime after the 2006 coup and was re-appointed to the regime’s Cabinet that governed after abrogation of the 1997 Constitution.
And yes, Madam Speaker, as the Attorney General he was the chief legal officer under whose watch the Public Emergency Regulations were imposed making it illegal for more than three people to gather in a public place, thereby effectively prohibiting political parties and NGOs from protesting.
As for opposing a constitution and fighting elections under its provisions, this is not a crime Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, much has been said about the Constitution and how it has supposedly ended all evil that had beset our nation since Independence. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution have severe limitations not seen in the 1997 Constitution or even the Ghai draft Constitution that was confined to the dustbin.
The independence of the Constitutional Offices Commission is highly questionable as its membership is political.
It is chaired by the Prime Minister and its membership also includes the Attorney General, Leader of the Opposition and nominees of the office holders. Out of a total of 6 Members including the Chair, 4 are from Government.
This Constitution also empowers a Permanent Secretary and a Minister to recruit and terminate staff in their respective Ministries. Ideally this should be the job of the Public Service Commission.
Madam Speaker, two years ago during my address on the motion to thank His Excellency the President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, which was the last time he addressed Parliament, I said and I quote;
“Economic growth to generate employment; Meritocracy in the civil service and appointments being made at least in proportionate to the population of our ethnic groups; As a start having a quota for recruitment of personnel from other ethnic groups in the military, again on meritocracy to give it a semblance of multiracialism; Having bipartisan committees to collectively look at serious challenges facing sectors like the sugar industry, health and medical services”
“My point here is that it is all very well to finger-wag on what should be acceptable parliamentary conduct and what it is not, but reciprocity, humanity and national interest should be our guiding values if are to succeed at bipartisanship, and not arrogance and condescension. We on this side of Parliament continue to offer our hands for bipartisanship. it is now up to the other side to reciprocate with sincerity and respect in the national interest”.- Unquote
Madam Speaker, unfortunately my hope has been in vain.
The Open Merit Recruitment System, as alluded to by our Party Leader, is a farce. This has been proven recently during the Attorney General’s roadshows and our own citation of contracts of civil servants and teachers.
Madam Speaker, just last week, we were informed of a case where the Open Merit Recruitment System was abused.
An acting Principal in a prominent Lautoka school was told that she would be shifted elsewhere because another principal was coming to replace her.
The person relacing her wasn’t a principal but an officer from the Curriculum Development Unit or an Education Officer.
And the directive came from a Cabinet Minister that the person be posted as principal to the school because it is obvious that the person went directly to the Minister to intervene and get him the position in order to enjoy increased salaries of principals.
Again, this is a case of the Minister flouting authority and taking advantage of the Constitution that gives ministers and permanent secretaries powers to hire, terminate and replace staff in the civil service.
The Minister for Civil Service who vociferously promotes and defends the Open Merit Recruitment System should immediately look into this issue. I can provide him the details of this case or put him into touch with the aggrieved qualified acting principal.
Madam Speaker, the contracts render meaningless the teachers’ employment security and make them totally subservient to Government.
Some of its regressive provisions are: -
This discriminatory and exploitative contractual employment that is being forced upon our teachers will not result in a harmonious, unified and productive civil service.
Such draconian contracts are subjugating our teachers and have no place in a genuine democracy.
Madam Speaker, during the roadshow, we were surprised that the Director of the Reform Unit made a racist comment against the staff of Ministry of Education, obviously blaming them for her own failures.
Fiji One News of 23rd August carried this comment from the Reform Director and I quote, “It was a bit of I thought I was speaking English but I wasn’t evidently. When I asked the question and on their defence, they thought they were answering my question...”
This comment basically meant that the Ministry of Education Staff were inferior in intellect.
What an insult and what nonsense Madam Speaker? And why was this condoned?
Furthermore Madam Speaker we seek clarification from Government as to the role the Current Civil Service Reform Director played in the Fijian Elections Office before her present role. According to the Joint Electoral Commission/Fijian Elections Office Report of 2014, she was a technical advisor. The question that arises is, did her previous role have any influence in her most recent appointment?
Madam Speaker, the 2013 Constitution and its provisions like common and equal citizenry and policies formulated by Government are supposed to have eradicated or reduced racism, removed discrimination and upheld meritocracy.
Here we point out that in December last year a UN Special Rapporteur came to Fiji on a fact-finding mission on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. His Report to the 35th session of the Human Rights Council in June this year has received little or no publicity at all. Again, no prizes for guessing why this discriminatory treatment to the Report by the local media that operate under restrictive measures contained in the Media Industry Development Authority Decree.
Madam Speaker, the UN Special Rapporteur’s Report pointed out the lack of Desegregated Data. I repeat the Rapporteur pointed out the lack of Desegregated Data. This is something we have been asking for and you will recall Madam Speaker that in early 2015 my question seeking similar data on recruitments and appointments in the civil service was disallowed on the grounds it would create racial ill-will and hostility. But the Report quite clearly states that this Data is necessary to determine whether or not Government’s so-called non-discriminatory policies are working.
This is very important and Report on this issue is self-explanatory. The Report states and I quote; -
“In order to measure progress made on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies of inclusiveness set up by the current Government, there needs to be an objective evaluation which can only be undertaken if statistics and in particular desegregated data are collected and made available”.
“This does not mean only data on race and ethnicity, but a whole range of different factors such as gender, age, sexual orientation, geography, income, access to social and economic services and rights.
Without desegregated data, it will be difficult to assess the effectiveness of the merit-based measures that the Government has adopted in recruitment and in awarding scholarships as well as in the other areas”.
“Such data is also valuable as it provides the baselines upon which new policies and programmes can be designed”.-Unquote
Madam Speaker, The Special Rapporteur recalled that the Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination or the CERD Committee highlighted in its recommendations to Fiji in 2012, that if progress is to be monitored, such desegregated data is needed to measure whether the policies are effective and are reaching those most in need.
Madam Speaker, both CERD and the Special Rapporteur noted Government’s directive that collection of data that typifies ethnicity is no longer to be conducted.
But CERD noted that while this directive was aimed at eliminating racial profiling, the CERD Committee regretted “the lack of desegregated data on the socioeconomic situation of members of ethnic groups as well as the lack of gender analysis of data provided.”
“This concern was based on the premise that “if progress in eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is to be monitored, some indication of the number of persons who might be treated less favourably on the basis of these characteristics”
Madam Speaker, in the absence of this critically important information, Government’s claim that this Constitution has ended racism and discrimination is hollow. So is the claim that every single appointment to our civil service and other Government controlled organisations is done on meritocracy.
The UN Rapporteur has also recommended that Government should promptly sign and ratify key international instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Madam Speaker, these are important International Instruments.
How Government is going to get itself to signing for example the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is another matter given that the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree disallows trade unionists and trade union staff from becoming members of political parties, compelling them to resign their positions if they do join the political party or contest the general elections.
Madam Speaker, as we enter the final phase of the first term of parliament since resumption of parliamentary democracy after seven and half years of military rule, it is time to seriously consider the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to permanently seal the chapter of our past 30 years since 1987.
Such a Commission Madam Speaker, will allow perpetrators and victims of the four coups that have plagued our nation for the last 30 years since May 14, 1987, to openly and freely engage in truth telling and confront their fears in view of conflicting statements and utterances regarding motives behind coups, so that closure and healing for Fiji is achieved and permanently put to rest this unfortunate and turbulent chapter of our independent history.
Madam Speaker the blame game, name calling and accusations have become the hallmark of our nation in the last 30 years. This parliament has been no exception.
Truth telling and openly confronting one’s fears has worked elsewhere Madam Speaker, most notably in South Africa under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
We should not be fearful and hesitant to embrace this noble objective as we are all honourable men and women of integrity. No general election, no government and no constitution will cure our nation from this traumatic past.
This is the only way forward Madam Speaker. We in the NFP who have never supported and participated in a coup, having been toppled after only five weeks in a coalition government of the late Dr Timoci Bavadra, stand ready to work with all honourable Members to facilitate this Commission.
Finally Madam Speaker, We have nothing to fear. We only fear the Lord Almighty. The NFP has survived four military coups without succumbing to the trappings of power obtained illegally.
And we will march forward in unison, guided by our unshakable principles and our fearless and selfless service to the nation for the last 54 years.
God bless Fiji
THURSDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2017
BY HON PREM SINGH
Madam Speaker before I start speak on the Motion to thank His Excellency the President for his most gracious address, allow me to thank the honourable Attorney General for acknowledging that one of our former Leaders Siddiq Moidin Koya achieved a political compromise with the then Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara that resulted in the 1970 Constitution.
Madam Speaker, that political compromise was the beginning of many compromises that resolved political conflicts in the national interest and resulted in monumental achievements through negotiated settlements.
Indeed the 1997 Constitution that he is now critical of and supported its abrogation was a product of such political compromise.
If I remember correctly Madam Speaker, the Honourable Attorney General was highlighting its salient provisions on Fiji Broadcasting Commission in a weekly program in the years before the 2006 coup.
And Madam Speaker I wonder who was the legal advisor of the Alliance Party or the National Alliance Party of Fiji that the honourable Attorney General referred to while talking about the 2006 elections?
One should not criticise political compromises achieved through legal and legislative framework. The 2013 Constitution, like the 1990 Constitution are not products of political compromises but were born out of a coup and imposed documents.
Madam Speaker, I also join other honourable Members in thanking the President for his most gracious speech. However, I am disappointed but not surprised that the message of unity, togetherness and inclusivity has been ignored by the ruling party.
The message I get from them is loud and clear – it is “My Way or the Highway” – they are the patriots and only they have the ability and right to govern after the 2018 general elections and that the Opposition is incapable of governing our nation.
Most importantly I feel that the other side is not a team but a collection of individuals who are vociferously campaigning for votes individually because they know that their Leader will be promoted as the single candidate during the elections.
I don’t blame them because the electoral system is such. If the system was to elect the top 50 vote getters in Parliament, then Fiji First would not have been in government. So the tone of their speeches is unsurprising.
And no prizes for guessing their praise of the Constitution and their Leader – they are trying to make an impression in order to be once again endorsed as candidates. Essentially, their political future hangs in the balance because for many of them life after politics will be extremely difficult.
Also, Madam Speaker, Government thinks it has a monopoly on ideas that it thinks are best for Fiji. No one political party, Leader, person or organisation has a monopoly on policies. In a democracy, no one single point of view must prevail.
Madam Speaker, for this week we have heard time and time again from Government Members that the Opposition which is critical of the Constitution are hypocrites and should not contest the elections under this Constitution.
Madam Speaker, it will be interesting if the same analogy is applied to the Prime Minister’s right-hand man who will be by hi[s] side for the elections. The honourable Attorney General himself clarified in Parliament yesterday in response to my colleague Hon Chand that he protested against the 1987 coup and the then interim government.
We know that he was one of a group of 18 activists who was arrested and charged by Police for holding a meeting without a permit. We know that this charge was wrong. Together with the 18 activists, he was exercising his right to protest.
But to my wonderment, the Attorney General having protested against a coup and an interim government, became an integral member of the regime after the 2006 coup and was re-appointed to the regime’s Cabinet that governed after abrogation of the 1997 Constitution.
And yes, Madam Speaker, as the Attorney General he was the chief legal officer under whose watch the Public Emergency Regulations were imposed making it illegal for more than three people to gather in a public place, thereby effectively prohibiting political parties and NGOs from protesting.
As for opposing a constitution and fighting elections under its provisions, this is not a crime Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, much has been said about the Constitution and how it has supposedly ended all evil that had beset our nation since Independence. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution have severe limitations not seen in the 1997 Constitution or even the Ghai draft Constitution that was confined to the dustbin.
The independence of the Constitutional Offices Commission is highly questionable as its membership is political.
It is chaired by the Prime Minister and its membership also includes the Attorney General, Leader of the Opposition and nominees of the office holders. Out of a total of 6 Members including the Chair, 4 are from Government.
This Constitution also empowers a Permanent Secretary and a Minister to recruit and terminate staff in their respective Ministries. Ideally this should be the job of the Public Service Commission.
Madam Speaker, two years ago during my address on the motion to thank His Excellency the President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, which was the last time he addressed Parliament, I said and I quote;
“Economic growth to generate employment; Meritocracy in the civil service and appointments being made at least in proportionate to the population of our ethnic groups; As a start having a quota for recruitment of personnel from other ethnic groups in the military, again on meritocracy to give it a semblance of multiracialism; Having bipartisan committees to collectively look at serious challenges facing sectors like the sugar industry, health and medical services”
“My point here is that it is all very well to finger-wag on what should be acceptable parliamentary conduct and what it is not, but reciprocity, humanity and national interest should be our guiding values if are to succeed at bipartisanship, and not arrogance and condescension. We on this side of Parliament continue to offer our hands for bipartisanship. it is now up to the other side to reciprocate with sincerity and respect in the national interest”.- Unquote
Madam Speaker, unfortunately my hope has been in vain.
The Open Merit Recruitment System, as alluded to by our Party Leader, is a farce. This has been proven recently during the Attorney General’s roadshows and our own citation of contracts of civil servants and teachers.
Madam Speaker, just last week, we were informed of a case where the Open Merit Recruitment System was abused.
An acting Principal in a prominent Lautoka school was told that she would be shifted elsewhere because another principal was coming to replace her.
The person relacing her wasn’t a principal but an officer from the Curriculum Development Unit or an Education Officer.
And the directive came from a Cabinet Minister that the person be posted as principal to the school because it is obvious that the person went directly to the Minister to intervene and get him the position in order to enjoy increased salaries of principals.
Again, this is a case of the Minister flouting authority and taking advantage of the Constitution that gives ministers and permanent secretaries powers to hire, terminate and replace staff in the civil service.
The Minister for Civil Service who vociferously promotes and defends the Open Merit Recruitment System should immediately look into this issue. I can provide him the details of this case or put him into touch with the aggrieved qualified acting principal.
Madam Speaker, the contracts render meaningless the teachers’ employment security and make them totally subservient to Government.
Some of its regressive provisions are: -
- Renewal of the contract is at the absolute discretion of Government
- The Civil Servant irrevocably agrees that non-renewal of the Contract will not give rise to any course of action whatsoever against the Government
- The duration of the Contract expires immediately upon a civil servant reaching the retirement age of 55
- Renewal of the Contract is subject to Government requiring the services of the civil servant and that too if he or she agrees to enter into another contract on mutually agreed terms
- The decision of Government to transfer a civil servant on the existing terms of the Contract to anywhere in Fiji is final
- Government has the right to change or vary the Contract anytime
This discriminatory and exploitative contractual employment that is being forced upon our teachers will not result in a harmonious, unified and productive civil service.
Such draconian contracts are subjugating our teachers and have no place in a genuine democracy.
Madam Speaker, during the roadshow, we were surprised that the Director of the Reform Unit made a racist comment against the staff of Ministry of Education, obviously blaming them for her own failures.
Fiji One News of 23rd August carried this comment from the Reform Director and I quote, “It was a bit of I thought I was speaking English but I wasn’t evidently. When I asked the question and on their defence, they thought they were answering my question...”
This comment basically meant that the Ministry of Education Staff were inferior in intellect.
What an insult and what nonsense Madam Speaker? And why was this condoned?
Furthermore Madam Speaker we seek clarification from Government as to the role the Current Civil Service Reform Director played in the Fijian Elections Office before her present role. According to the Joint Electoral Commission/Fijian Elections Office Report of 2014, she was a technical advisor. The question that arises is, did her previous role have any influence in her most recent appointment?
Madam Speaker, the 2013 Constitution and its provisions like common and equal citizenry and policies formulated by Government are supposed to have eradicated or reduced racism, removed discrimination and upheld meritocracy.
Here we point out that in December last year a UN Special Rapporteur came to Fiji on a fact-finding mission on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. His Report to the 35th session of the Human Rights Council in June this year has received little or no publicity at all. Again, no prizes for guessing why this discriminatory treatment to the Report by the local media that operate under restrictive measures contained in the Media Industry Development Authority Decree.
Madam Speaker, the UN Special Rapporteur’s Report pointed out the lack of Desegregated Data. I repeat the Rapporteur pointed out the lack of Desegregated Data. This is something we have been asking for and you will recall Madam Speaker that in early 2015 my question seeking similar data on recruitments and appointments in the civil service was disallowed on the grounds it would create racial ill-will and hostility. But the Report quite clearly states that this Data is necessary to determine whether or not Government’s so-called non-discriminatory policies are working.
This is very important and Report on this issue is self-explanatory. The Report states and I quote; -
“In order to measure progress made on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies of inclusiveness set up by the current Government, there needs to be an objective evaluation which can only be undertaken if statistics and in particular desegregated data are collected and made available”.
“This does not mean only data on race and ethnicity, but a whole range of different factors such as gender, age, sexual orientation, geography, income, access to social and economic services and rights.
Without desegregated data, it will be difficult to assess the effectiveness of the merit-based measures that the Government has adopted in recruitment and in awarding scholarships as well as in the other areas”.
“Such data is also valuable as it provides the baselines upon which new policies and programmes can be designed”.-Unquote
Madam Speaker, The Special Rapporteur recalled that the Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination or the CERD Committee highlighted in its recommendations to Fiji in 2012, that if progress is to be monitored, such desegregated data is needed to measure whether the policies are effective and are reaching those most in need.
Madam Speaker, both CERD and the Special Rapporteur noted Government’s directive that collection of data that typifies ethnicity is no longer to be conducted.
But CERD noted that while this directive was aimed at eliminating racial profiling, the CERD Committee regretted “the lack of desegregated data on the socioeconomic situation of members of ethnic groups as well as the lack of gender analysis of data provided.”
“This concern was based on the premise that “if progress in eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is to be monitored, some indication of the number of persons who might be treated less favourably on the basis of these characteristics”
Madam Speaker, in the absence of this critically important information, Government’s claim that this Constitution has ended racism and discrimination is hollow. So is the claim that every single appointment to our civil service and other Government controlled organisations is done on meritocracy.
The UN Rapporteur has also recommended that Government should promptly sign and ratify key international instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Madam Speaker, these are important International Instruments.
How Government is going to get itself to signing for example the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is another matter given that the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree disallows trade unionists and trade union staff from becoming members of political parties, compelling them to resign their positions if they do join the political party or contest the general elections.
Madam Speaker, as we enter the final phase of the first term of parliament since resumption of parliamentary democracy after seven and half years of military rule, it is time to seriously consider the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to permanently seal the chapter of our past 30 years since 1987.
Such a Commission Madam Speaker, will allow perpetrators and victims of the four coups that have plagued our nation for the last 30 years since May 14, 1987, to openly and freely engage in truth telling and confront their fears in view of conflicting statements and utterances regarding motives behind coups, so that closure and healing for Fiji is achieved and permanently put to rest this unfortunate and turbulent chapter of our independent history.
Madam Speaker the blame game, name calling and accusations have become the hallmark of our nation in the last 30 years. This parliament has been no exception.
Truth telling and openly confronting one’s fears has worked elsewhere Madam Speaker, most notably in South Africa under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
We should not be fearful and hesitant to embrace this noble objective as we are all honourable men and women of integrity. No general election, no government and no constitution will cure our nation from this traumatic past.
This is the only way forward Madam Speaker. We in the NFP who have never supported and participated in a coup, having been toppled after only five weeks in a coalition government of the late Dr Timoci Bavadra, stand ready to work with all honourable Members to facilitate this Commission.
Finally Madam Speaker, We have nothing to fear. We only fear the Lord Almighty. The NFP has survived four military coups without succumbing to the trappings of power obtained illegally.
And we will march forward in unison, guided by our unshakable principles and our fearless and selfless service to the nation for the last 54 years.
God bless Fiji
"We in the NFP have never supported and participated in a coup"
Fijileaks: It might be true but the former NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy shook hands with the racist coupster Sitiveni Rabuka and was willing to become his Deputy Prime Minister had the SVT-NFP Coalition won the 1999 general election. The party did not support the 1987 COUPS but it definitely tried to help the COUPSTER to become Prime Minister!
COUP = COUPSTER
And, we must not forget the former NFP icon, Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, who after the 1987 coups was one of the few Indo-Fijians who agreed to serve as Minister of Indian Affairs in the transitional government of 1987-92, a government that was widely condemned by many of her fellow Indo-Fijians for promulgating the racist 1990 Constitution of Fiji
Fijileaks: If SODELPA couldn't explain itself in Parliament (with Naiqama claiming land swap deal was confidential), please NO press release later. Two major electoral blunders from SODELPA in two consecutive days - first, lease money furore, and now land swap deal. That is what happens when a party resorts to making base appeal while ignoring vote winning issues like unemployment, retirement age, economy, corruption etc, etc!!
"Ratu Naiqama rose on a point of order, saying that the Cabinet decision on the conversion of the land was confidential. Sayed-Khaiyum raised the issue to highlight that some within SODELPA including Ratu Naiqama who are calling for a change in the [2013] Constitution were actually involved in permanently alienating iTaukei land in Momi. He said the same was done in Denarau. He says the law was profoundly flawed at the time as it meant that the then government converted iTaukei land to freehold land and permanently alienated it from the landowning units. Sayed-Khaiyum says under the 2013 constitution, no iTaukei land can be permanently alienated. He says there was no constitutional provision in the 1970, 1990 and 1997 constitutions that iTaukei land can never be permanently alienated.";
Fijileaks: Momi villagers were give $25,000 as a goodwill gesture (and other benefits) to part with their land to Matapo Holdings Limited under Naiqama's watch after the land was broken up from Native to FREEHOLD land
"Land is the Fijian people. You break up the land, you break up the Fijian people" - The late Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau
In 2011, when I founded Fijileaks (to counter the draconian media decree) and after the Fiji Sun had decided under its new management to drop me as the paper's political and opinion commentator (the most widely read section of the paper for several years with school teachers besieging Fiji Sun for back issues of my writings for their history lessons, and USP professors reading the columns while gouging on cheap lamb chops), among many revelations I published in Fijileaks was the SECRET "Fiji cabinet paper 4 july 2006 land exchange proposal momi bay". The matter has been raised in Parliament by Aiyaz Khaiyum with Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu wanting to scupper any reminder of it
Fijivillage News (14 September 2017) SODELPA parliamentarian Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu failed in his attempt in parliament today to try to get Acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to stop talking about the SDL government converting the iTaukei land in Momi to freehold land during Ratu Naiqama’s term as Lands Minister. Ratu Naiqama rose on a point of order, saying that the cabinet decision on the conversion of the land was confidential. Sayed-Khaiyum raised the issue to highlight that some within SODELPA including Ratu Naiqama who are calling for a change in the constitution were actually involved in permanently alienating iTaukei land in Momi. He said the same was done in Denarau. Speaker Doctor Jiko Luveni said that the parliamentarians enjoy freedom of speech and Sayed-Khaiyum has the right to speak on the issue. | He says the law was profoundly flawed at the time as it meant that the then government converted iTaukei land to freehold land and permanently alienated it from the landowning units. Sayed-Khaiyum says under the 2013 constitution, no iTaukei land can be permanently alienated. He says there was no constitutional provision in the 1970, 1990 and 1997 constitutions that iTaukei land can never be permanently alienated. Source: Fijivillage News, 14 September 2017 |
Fijileaks (2011) reproduces "Momi Land Swap" Cabinet Document below:
Fijileaks: Was financial kick-backs received over Momi land conversion?
From Fijileaks archive:
The Land Swap Agreement
In 2007, the landowners promised world came tumbling down when Bridgecorp, Matapo's original investor owners, went bust, forcing the interim Bainimarama government to step in. Finally, in 2017, the sun smiled on them with completion of the Momi Bay development project
BEST FOR THE PEOPLE, from The Fiji Times, 13 April 2017:
WHEN Ratu Kini Vosailagi took on the role of turaga na Tui Nalolo in 2014, he vowed to always do what was best for his people.
For about a decade there were divisions among the people of Nalolo, much of this conflict arising from the issues emerging out of a failed development project that started in 2004.
It was a project the six villages in the tikina had banked their future on, one that held the promise of employment for a lot of its people.
The project was a resort development at Momi Bay, Nadi, where the country's superannuation body, the Fiji National Provident Fund, was a major partner.
Ratu Kini said it wasn't easy winning the trust of landowning units — the Yavusa of Nalolo of Tau Village and neighbouring villages of Lomawai and Bavu — when the FNPF returned to re-engage and hold discussions on the project that had been abandoned a decade ago.
"People were conflicted because they didn't know where to stand," he said.
"Some were all for the development while others were reluctant because promises made long ago were never fulfilled.
"And their faith that such a project would ever be completed had waned, it felt like a pipedream."
He said there were also recollections of past failures, largely dealing with a failed business set up by villagers when the project began in 2004.
The Vanua o Nalolo had started a company that operated as a subcontractor to the initial Momi Bay Development Project.
"The company was set up to generate income but this failed when the development failed.
"They had dump trucks and diggers (excavators) and they were working at the construction site."
Matapo was the locally registered company linked to original investors Bridgecorp and the Fiji National Provident Fund.
FNPF and the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) had provided $80 million through a syndicated loan to Matapo while Bridgecorp provided an investment of $NZ106m ($F154m).
All plans and investments fell over in July 2007 when the project ceased. A large number of local creditors and suppliers suffered substantial losses, including the company set up by the vanua.
"There were a lot of hardships when the project stopped.
"You could tell there weren't a lot of sound decisions made because the vanua company was in debt when the project was halted. They had a $600,000 debt."
He added that in inheriting the role of chief in January 27, 2014, he also inherited a problem.
Other than having to work with a divided people, he also had to deal with a 107 hectare foreshore waterfront site which was a mixture of native land lease and freehold titles.
Sitting on this piece of land was 350 residential units. The site was also home to an incomplete golf course, hotel and resort.
The villagers were helpless because there was nothing they could do about it.
Even when the FNPF approached the vanua for redevelopment talks in 2014, villagers were unfazed.
They had lost all hope in the project and never believed it would be resurrected and redeveloped.
"Shortly after I was conferred the role, FNPF brought a tabua requesting to resume the project.
"It wasn't easy getting people to agree on it because there were still mixed feelings about the original project."
On November 13, 2014, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama officially launched the Momi Redevelopment Project.
He outlined in his speech that rehabilitation plans on the project began in 2010 with Government announcing a $150m investment into the redevelopment of Momi Bay.
Prior to this move by Government, the incomplete project was to have been auctioned off in 2009. But the highest bid for it was $41m, not enough to cover FNPF's investment of $80m.
The FNPF board then made a decision in 2014 to pursue completion of the resort project. In that same year they selected Fletcher Construction Ltd as the primary contractor.
Fast forward two years, to Saturday April 8, 2017, and the Fiji Marriot Resort Momi Bay was officially opened by Prime Miniser Voreqe Bainimarama.
Ratu Kini said the event signalled renewed hope for the people of Nalolo District. At the time the resort opened its doors to the public, 47 people from the district were already employed at the resort.
He said the resort held a lot of promise for his people.
"There was a lot of trust lost among our own people.
"The success of today and this completed resort should not just be something to celebrate but should also serve as a reminder to the people of what happens when you decide to make your own decisions with a blatant disregard for others.
"There were those who pushed their own agenda in the original development and refused to work with the then Government.
"That was the result, a halted project and a significant amount of debt.
"We have come a long way since then and I believe this end product will help boost the confidence of our people and continue to show a united front in development projects in and around the tikina."
He added they had already started to see benefits with the completion of village halls and the promise of continued employment.
FNPF board chairman Ajith Kodagoda in delivering his speech at the opening of the resort on April 8 reaffirmed that their dealings with the landowning units was a challenge.
"Taking physical possession of this property was also not an easy task as the landowner communities were also short-changed by the previous developer," he said.
"In fact we had to overcome resistance and roadblocks as we went through a painful and frustration process of winning the confidence of landowners.
"We now have a cordial relationship with the landowner communities."
FNPF built four village halls in the villages of Tau, Navutu, Bavu and Lomawai.
They successfully negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the tokatoka Nahau, the landowners of the Golf course.
They engaged Fiji National University to train 47 youths from the six villages at the cost of $100,000.
The fund also paid $1m in goodwill to the landowners to make good and complete the process of land swap.
Ratu Kini said the fund's initiatives to make good on promises made previously was a sign of good things to come.
"Our villages didn't have a village hall to begin with and when the plans fell through with the original project nothing was ever really done about it until now.
"I'm grateful for the assistance.
"We faced a tumultuous start but this is a promise of a better future not just for the people of Nalolo but for the whole of Fiji, particularly those who contribute to FNPF because they are the real owners of the Marriott."
WHEN Ratu Kini Vosailagi took on the role of turaga na Tui Nalolo in 2014, he vowed to always do what was best for his people.
For about a decade there were divisions among the people of Nalolo, much of this conflict arising from the issues emerging out of a failed development project that started in 2004.
It was a project the six villages in the tikina had banked their future on, one that held the promise of employment for a lot of its people.
The project was a resort development at Momi Bay, Nadi, where the country's superannuation body, the Fiji National Provident Fund, was a major partner.
Ratu Kini said it wasn't easy winning the trust of landowning units — the Yavusa of Nalolo of Tau Village and neighbouring villages of Lomawai and Bavu — when the FNPF returned to re-engage and hold discussions on the project that had been abandoned a decade ago.
"People were conflicted because they didn't know where to stand," he said.
"Some were all for the development while others were reluctant because promises made long ago were never fulfilled.
"And their faith that such a project would ever be completed had waned, it felt like a pipedream."
He said there were also recollections of past failures, largely dealing with a failed business set up by villagers when the project began in 2004.
The Vanua o Nalolo had started a company that operated as a subcontractor to the initial Momi Bay Development Project.
"The company was set up to generate income but this failed when the development failed.
"They had dump trucks and diggers (excavators) and they were working at the construction site."
Matapo was the locally registered company linked to original investors Bridgecorp and the Fiji National Provident Fund.
FNPF and the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) had provided $80 million through a syndicated loan to Matapo while Bridgecorp provided an investment of $NZ106m ($F154m).
All plans and investments fell over in July 2007 when the project ceased. A large number of local creditors and suppliers suffered substantial losses, including the company set up by the vanua.
"There were a lot of hardships when the project stopped.
"You could tell there weren't a lot of sound decisions made because the vanua company was in debt when the project was halted. They had a $600,000 debt."
He added that in inheriting the role of chief in January 27, 2014, he also inherited a problem.
Other than having to work with a divided people, he also had to deal with a 107 hectare foreshore waterfront site which was a mixture of native land lease and freehold titles.
Sitting on this piece of land was 350 residential units. The site was also home to an incomplete golf course, hotel and resort.
The villagers were helpless because there was nothing they could do about it.
Even when the FNPF approached the vanua for redevelopment talks in 2014, villagers were unfazed.
They had lost all hope in the project and never believed it would be resurrected and redeveloped.
"Shortly after I was conferred the role, FNPF brought a tabua requesting to resume the project.
"It wasn't easy getting people to agree on it because there were still mixed feelings about the original project."
On November 13, 2014, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama officially launched the Momi Redevelopment Project.
He outlined in his speech that rehabilitation plans on the project began in 2010 with Government announcing a $150m investment into the redevelopment of Momi Bay.
Prior to this move by Government, the incomplete project was to have been auctioned off in 2009. But the highest bid for it was $41m, not enough to cover FNPF's investment of $80m.
The FNPF board then made a decision in 2014 to pursue completion of the resort project. In that same year they selected Fletcher Construction Ltd as the primary contractor.
Fast forward two years, to Saturday April 8, 2017, and the Fiji Marriot Resort Momi Bay was officially opened by Prime Miniser Voreqe Bainimarama.
Ratu Kini said the event signalled renewed hope for the people of Nalolo District. At the time the resort opened its doors to the public, 47 people from the district were already employed at the resort.
He said the resort held a lot of promise for his people.
"There was a lot of trust lost among our own people.
"The success of today and this completed resort should not just be something to celebrate but should also serve as a reminder to the people of what happens when you decide to make your own decisions with a blatant disregard for others.
"There were those who pushed their own agenda in the original development and refused to work with the then Government.
"That was the result, a halted project and a significant amount of debt.
"We have come a long way since then and I believe this end product will help boost the confidence of our people and continue to show a united front in development projects in and around the tikina."
He added they had already started to see benefits with the completion of village halls and the promise of continued employment.
FNPF board chairman Ajith Kodagoda in delivering his speech at the opening of the resort on April 8 reaffirmed that their dealings with the landowning units was a challenge.
"Taking physical possession of this property was also not an easy task as the landowner communities were also short-changed by the previous developer," he said.
"In fact we had to overcome resistance and roadblocks as we went through a painful and frustration process of winning the confidence of landowners.
"We now have a cordial relationship with the landowner communities."
FNPF built four village halls in the villages of Tau, Navutu, Bavu and Lomawai.
They successfully negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the tokatoka Nahau, the landowners of the Golf course.
They engaged Fiji National University to train 47 youths from the six villages at the cost of $100,000.
The fund also paid $1m in goodwill to the landowners to make good and complete the process of land swap.
Ratu Kini said the fund's initiatives to make good on promises made previously was a sign of good things to come.
"Our villages didn't have a village hall to begin with and when the plans fell through with the original project nothing was ever really done about it until now.
"I'm grateful for the assistance.
"We faced a tumultuous start but this is a promise of a better future not just for the people of Nalolo but for the whole of Fiji, particularly those who contribute to FNPF because they are the real owners of the Marriott."
"I do not know whether I will be in this place short or long term, that is for others to decide, but I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of being here."; in April 2015 the FijiFirst parliamentarian, Dr Neil Sharma, resigned from Parliament
The following was sent to Fijileaks for consideration and we are happy to reproduce it:
By Dr Neil Sharma
Medical Director
Bakshi Street Medical Center, Suva, Fiji,
5 September 2017
By Dr Neil Sharma
Medical Director
Bakshi Street Medical Center, Suva, Fiji,
5 September 2017
Hon Speaker, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we live and work on. I acknowledge my own ancestry especially of my "Girmitya" grandfather Shiri Dayal Sharma who traveled the "Kalapani" Deep blue oceans arriving in 1904 and served his 10 year indenture and settled to cane farm on Freehold land in Nandhari, Ba.
It is a great honor and privilege that I am here today, much like my father the Late Hon. C.P Sharma, N.F.P. Parliamentarian 1977. C.P as he was known among his peers, stood tall on civil rights in Colonial times. As a medical student at Otago University, New Zealand without regular funds, he gravitated to economics and accountancy with part time manual work. He was deported for student socialism leadership when an expatriate police officer on vacation from Fiji, spotted the brown skinned lad on a University socialist platform. Indeed a threat to the evolving politics in colonial Fiji.
ln the early 40's he sailed as a cabin hand on a sugar boat bound for London, returning to work in the civil service to the great dismay of our colonial masters. Serving the Treasury as Chief Accountant, Unionist and President of Fiji Public Service Association in its hey days, First Local Manager of the National Bank of Fiji leaving his footprints in the Public Service Credit Union and forerunner of the Fiji National Provident Fund. Dad capped his short political career as a NFP Parliamentarian in 1977 as the choice candidate for Suva Rural and Navua, trouncing Sir Vijay R Singh and Hon Vijaya Parmanandam. Disheartened at the Dove-Flower divide he did not seek re-election.
I am a product of the multiracial Holy Trinity Primary School and Marist Brothers High School. My mother was a staunch school mistress and encouraged all her three children into the study of medicine however life had its own destiny. Armed with a degree in Medicine I returned home in January 1977 ,soon enough directly into the arena of reproductive health, in its evolving spheres over a 32 year period, both in the public and private sectors.
ln the Maternity ward at CWM hospital, I met my future bride, Nurse Nirmala. She has been a faithful pillar. She practically managed the domestic front, rearing three lovely children as I was riding the tide through to postgraduate certificate, diploma, membership and a fellowship. To her credit today we have an aviation Captain Navneet Sharma, Army Major/Lawyer Navneel Sharma with the Fiji Military Legal unit, currently in South Sudan with the UN forces. Our last born and only daughter, Nashika Sharma is a fourth year medical student. We have two grandchildren: Neil Jnr (3) and Nevahn (1).
I have been part of the Bainimarama Cabinet from January 2009.The last five years and nine months has been most challenging. The Healthcare reform process was set in motion with modernization of all relevant archaic laws and addition of necessary ones (now totaling 23). The need to develop a Health Policy, Planning and Budget Analysis unit with an inbuilt Monitoring and Evaluation Unit just did not take place without resistance. Establishing the recipe to right size Human Resource Health (HRH) was painstakingly slow but is work completed. The need to right size and adequately re-distribute pharmaceuticals and medical supplies has been largely complete.
"'The White paper document on proposed Fijian Health 2015-2030 outlines all those reform measures undertaken in the last six years and the need for oversight. This document provides alignment footprints to the global post development agenda 2015-2030 based on continuing strategic governance, leadership in health using evidence based approaches to decision making, planning, policy formulation for best outcomes for all Fijians. I trust the incoming ministers will carry the formulations on the current and possibly on an enhanced trajectory.
Unfortunately, clinical service delivery is adversely affected by politics in the civil service. People detest change and raise barriers, stall progress and effect reversals despite nods of approvals at face value. When "Root Cause Analyzed", patient-complaints originate from poor communication of service processes, lack of vision, planning and poor execution of policy by the executive arms in governance. With the 2013 Constitution enshrined Secular State; meritocracy where work and life values will supersede race, religion, class and creed will pave the way to a just society.
Medical personnel are trained in one to one communication and the election trail was a great leap into the depths, personally. Whilst on the podium even after serving as Vice Chair in Geneva (World Health Assembly-2014) addressing 194 National State Ministers of Health or for that matter becoming Inaugural and Interim Chairperson of Civil Registration,Vital Statistic (UNESCAP-2013) seem daunting to others but let me put on record that electioneering was a totally new ball game.
The micro picture of healthcare, the bread and butter issues of a place to stay and call home, water and electricity availability and road access had great commonality throughout the nation. New and innovative reform measures are essential if the citizenry is to be satisfied before the next election in 2018.
I acknowledge my campaign managers, Arun Sewak, Hasmat Ali, Phillip Arun Singh, Faiaz, Kasi Ram, Elizabeth Dass, Mahendra Singh, Kitione Tukana, Alifereti, Harendra Prasad, Pradeep Sewak and Vijendra Sharma for their commitment to a just cause. To my unnamed back office manager a big thanks: To the supporters who helped i will not forget and serve you faithfully.
My parliamentary contribution is largely geared in the social domain. Education, Health, Social Services and oversight will be areas my eyes remain focused on" Education and Health underpin Socio-Economic and National Development. Both remain tools for social justice and serve long term national development needs. Specifically, Health Reform needs momentum and direction. Much of the infrastructure, human resource, technology upgrade is just about in place. The executive arm of government needs to address the triple burden of disease nationally- that of Communicable, Non Communicable and Re-emergent Diseases.
The special needs of mental health care, cancer and diabetes cannot be treated as business as usual, needing international alignments. "Universal Health Coverage" needs the greatest injection of innovation in Fiji, as the Post Development Agenda 2015 replacement of the Millennium Development Goals concludes in 2015. As a sequel to the Social Health insurance (WHO-2013 Fiji study) Health Coverage and Health insurance are issues for public stakeholder discussion. I remain a silent admirer of President Obama who was elected in 2009 when I joined the Bainimarama Government. Obama-care provided the "Affordable Care Act -2010: implementation 2014-2022. Individual, Employer and Health insurance Providers have obligations to the provision of additional benefits, rights and protection to common citizenry.
Open enrollment providing essential minimal health coverage is not available in the public health system in USA. With a sizable, stable private health sector, an appropriate agency to control transactions like Fiji National Provident Fund establishment and Private Health Insurance Companies, all stakeholder's need to address this under a universal health coverage scheme if the government and other stakeholders want health to make positive head way and contain escalating costs.
I do not know whether I will be in this place short or long term, that is for others to decide, but I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of being here.
Together with my colleagues it is my intention ts make a difference.
Thank You Honorable Speaker.
Dr. Neil Sharma. MP.
It is a great honor and privilege that I am here today, much like my father the Late Hon. C.P Sharma, N.F.P. Parliamentarian 1977. C.P as he was known among his peers, stood tall on civil rights in Colonial times. As a medical student at Otago University, New Zealand without regular funds, he gravitated to economics and accountancy with part time manual work. He was deported for student socialism leadership when an expatriate police officer on vacation from Fiji, spotted the brown skinned lad on a University socialist platform. Indeed a threat to the evolving politics in colonial Fiji.
ln the early 40's he sailed as a cabin hand on a sugar boat bound for London, returning to work in the civil service to the great dismay of our colonial masters. Serving the Treasury as Chief Accountant, Unionist and President of Fiji Public Service Association in its hey days, First Local Manager of the National Bank of Fiji leaving his footprints in the Public Service Credit Union and forerunner of the Fiji National Provident Fund. Dad capped his short political career as a NFP Parliamentarian in 1977 as the choice candidate for Suva Rural and Navua, trouncing Sir Vijay R Singh and Hon Vijaya Parmanandam. Disheartened at the Dove-Flower divide he did not seek re-election.
I am a product of the multiracial Holy Trinity Primary School and Marist Brothers High School. My mother was a staunch school mistress and encouraged all her three children into the study of medicine however life had its own destiny. Armed with a degree in Medicine I returned home in January 1977 ,soon enough directly into the arena of reproductive health, in its evolving spheres over a 32 year period, both in the public and private sectors.
ln the Maternity ward at CWM hospital, I met my future bride, Nurse Nirmala. She has been a faithful pillar. She practically managed the domestic front, rearing three lovely children as I was riding the tide through to postgraduate certificate, diploma, membership and a fellowship. To her credit today we have an aviation Captain Navneet Sharma, Army Major/Lawyer Navneel Sharma with the Fiji Military Legal unit, currently in South Sudan with the UN forces. Our last born and only daughter, Nashika Sharma is a fourth year medical student. We have two grandchildren: Neil Jnr (3) and Nevahn (1).
I have been part of the Bainimarama Cabinet from January 2009.The last five years and nine months has been most challenging. The Healthcare reform process was set in motion with modernization of all relevant archaic laws and addition of necessary ones (now totaling 23). The need to develop a Health Policy, Planning and Budget Analysis unit with an inbuilt Monitoring and Evaluation Unit just did not take place without resistance. Establishing the recipe to right size Human Resource Health (HRH) was painstakingly slow but is work completed. The need to right size and adequately re-distribute pharmaceuticals and medical supplies has been largely complete.
"'The White paper document on proposed Fijian Health 2015-2030 outlines all those reform measures undertaken in the last six years and the need for oversight. This document provides alignment footprints to the global post development agenda 2015-2030 based on continuing strategic governance, leadership in health using evidence based approaches to decision making, planning, policy formulation for best outcomes for all Fijians. I trust the incoming ministers will carry the formulations on the current and possibly on an enhanced trajectory.
Unfortunately, clinical service delivery is adversely affected by politics in the civil service. People detest change and raise barriers, stall progress and effect reversals despite nods of approvals at face value. When "Root Cause Analyzed", patient-complaints originate from poor communication of service processes, lack of vision, planning and poor execution of policy by the executive arms in governance. With the 2013 Constitution enshrined Secular State; meritocracy where work and life values will supersede race, religion, class and creed will pave the way to a just society.
Medical personnel are trained in one to one communication and the election trail was a great leap into the depths, personally. Whilst on the podium even after serving as Vice Chair in Geneva (World Health Assembly-2014) addressing 194 National State Ministers of Health or for that matter becoming Inaugural and Interim Chairperson of Civil Registration,Vital Statistic (UNESCAP-2013) seem daunting to others but let me put on record that electioneering was a totally new ball game.
The micro picture of healthcare, the bread and butter issues of a place to stay and call home, water and electricity availability and road access had great commonality throughout the nation. New and innovative reform measures are essential if the citizenry is to be satisfied before the next election in 2018.
I acknowledge my campaign managers, Arun Sewak, Hasmat Ali, Phillip Arun Singh, Faiaz, Kasi Ram, Elizabeth Dass, Mahendra Singh, Kitione Tukana, Alifereti, Harendra Prasad, Pradeep Sewak and Vijendra Sharma for their commitment to a just cause. To my unnamed back office manager a big thanks: To the supporters who helped i will not forget and serve you faithfully.
My parliamentary contribution is largely geared in the social domain. Education, Health, Social Services and oversight will be areas my eyes remain focused on" Education and Health underpin Socio-Economic and National Development. Both remain tools for social justice and serve long term national development needs. Specifically, Health Reform needs momentum and direction. Much of the infrastructure, human resource, technology upgrade is just about in place. The executive arm of government needs to address the triple burden of disease nationally- that of Communicable, Non Communicable and Re-emergent Diseases.
The special needs of mental health care, cancer and diabetes cannot be treated as business as usual, needing international alignments. "Universal Health Coverage" needs the greatest injection of innovation in Fiji, as the Post Development Agenda 2015 replacement of the Millennium Development Goals concludes in 2015. As a sequel to the Social Health insurance (WHO-2013 Fiji study) Health Coverage and Health insurance are issues for public stakeholder discussion. I remain a silent admirer of President Obama who was elected in 2009 when I joined the Bainimarama Government. Obama-care provided the "Affordable Care Act -2010: implementation 2014-2022. Individual, Employer and Health insurance Providers have obligations to the provision of additional benefits, rights and protection to common citizenry.
Open enrollment providing essential minimal health coverage is not available in the public health system in USA. With a sizable, stable private health sector, an appropriate agency to control transactions like Fiji National Provident Fund establishment and Private Health Insurance Companies, all stakeholder's need to address this under a universal health coverage scheme if the government and other stakeholders want health to make positive head way and contain escalating costs.
I do not know whether I will be in this place short or long term, that is for others to decide, but I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of being here.
Together with my colleagues it is my intention ts make a difference.
Thank You Honorable Speaker.
Dr. Neil Sharma. MP.
The following comments below are extracted from the original posting:
Read also by Dr Neil Sharma on
Indentured Migration of Indians to Fiji- A Health Review: 2017
"Ro Teimumu says it is not right for iTaukei not living in the village or staying in another part of Fiji or overseas, not contributing to the village development but still being paid equal lease money distribution."
"...Ro Teimumu must be corrected. Land lease distribution is not about village development alone. As long as I am the owner of the land, I deserve to be paid my fair share of its proceeds according to the decision of my family. To stop payment of leases to those who live away from the village is to deprive some landowners from their rightful entitlements and benefits." Commentator, "Tomasi" to Fijileaks
“All Mataqali members must have equal access and benefit to the proceeds from the Mataqali land leases.” Bainimarama, May 2013
Heartache
13/9/2017 07:21:09 pm
Tomasi u seem to have an urban middle class view of Fijian land. I started to like yr explanations from points 1 - 3 but started to disagree with you from points 4 onwards. First point I wish to make is the Marama Roko Tui Dreketi has no business raising the issue of Fijian land in a public forum like parliament. It's far too contentious an issue and bound to be misinterpreted and manipulated by propagandists for political agendas like Victor Lal is now doing. Victor has learnt very well from his British masters who devised the principle of "Divide and rule" as a form of political control, They will look for any chinks in the armour of a people to inject their poisonous venom so as to create derision and hatred. He is doing to native Fijians what is being done to the Rohingyas in Myanmar.
From Fijivillage News:
Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa says she will continue to push to bring back the previous system of iTaukei land lease money distribution.
When questioned by Fijivillage on why she is pushing for the unequal distribution of land lease money where the chief and the heads of the landowning units got more than others, Ro Teimumu says that the Itaukei live in a communal set up and the money is needed for the development of the village.
Ro Teimumu says it is not right for iTaukei not living in the village or staying in another part of Fiji or overseas, not contributing to the village development but still being paid equal lease money distribution.
People have also raised the question on why the chiefs want to continue to remain superior compared to the others in the community when it come to Itaukei land lease distribution.
Ro Teimumu says she does not have any vested interest as she says that she is not a recipient of the land lease money.
She says that the Bainimarama government had implemented the equal lease distribution system without any consultation. Source: Fijivillage News
Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa says she will continue to push to bring back the previous system of iTaukei land lease money distribution.
When questioned by Fijivillage on why she is pushing for the unequal distribution of land lease money where the chief and the heads of the landowning units got more than others, Ro Teimumu says that the Itaukei live in a communal set up and the money is needed for the development of the village.
Ro Teimumu says it is not right for iTaukei not living in the village or staying in another part of Fiji or overseas, not contributing to the village development but still being paid equal lease money distribution.
People have also raised the question on why the chiefs want to continue to remain superior compared to the others in the community when it come to Itaukei land lease distribution.
Ro Teimumu says she does not have any vested interest as she says that she is not a recipient of the land lease money.
She says that the Bainimarama government had implemented the equal lease distribution system without any consultation. Source: Fijivillage News
Fijileaks: Many will be surprised to learn that native Fijians living overseas are collecting CHEQUES from FFP's equal distribution of lease money - whether one is a chief or commoner. If SODELPA "Makes Fiji Free Again", Ro Kepa will cut off lease money being collected by OVERSEAS native Fijians. In 2015, many villagers had raised objection to "Kai Vulagi Native Fijian" members of the land owning unit, who no longer participated in village project contributions, to receiving a share of lease monies in their
BANK ACCOUNTS in Australia, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Tonga, Samoa and wherever they have migrated to from Fiji. Why, many ask, native INFANTS should receive lease money from CRADLE into their bank accounts in CANADA?
Fijileaks: Politics of Land Lease Money has divided native Fijians since Fiji gained independence, and now Ro Kepa has taken it to another level, and is asking whether native Fijians living OVERSEAS (the most vocal SODELPA cheerleaders) should be entitled to share the lease money
In 1963, the firebrand Apisai Tora had told the voters about exploitation by eastern native Fijian chiefs of the wealth and resources of the western division of Fiji:
"You have been ruled by leaders from other areas who treated you with calculated contempt. Your division is the most important because from it comes the economic lifeblood of the colony. You deserve to be treated as first-class citizens. You must confess that deep inside you there was a longing to see the day when your kinsmen in western Fiji...would rise to become leaders in their own domain and perhaps of the whole Group. The party offers your kinsman who like you come from the humble surroundings of a village, who knows what it is to be ignored by officials, to be discouraged by Rokos and chiefs and strait-jacketed by the system under which you and I live."
In 1987, when one of Tora's kinsman from western Fiji, Dr Timoci Bavadra, became the Prime Minister of Fiji, Tora and others colluded with northerner Sitiveni Rabuka to overthrow the Bavarda government, and paraded placards reading "Bavadra gun, Reddy bullet". Now, the slogan has changed to: 'Bainimarama gun, Khaiyum bullet"
Now, the same regime stooge and former TLTB general manager Alipate Qetaki, who vigorously implemented the equal distribution of land lease money, is rumoured to have applied to stand as candidate for SODELPA. We have no doubt, come election, he will keep a straight face and lie to native Fijians that he was implementing "Khaiyum's land policy"!!!
From Fijileaks archive, 3 April 2015:
Hi Fijileaks, Rajend Naidu has just posted a comment on your blog post, Coup hanger-on Alipate Qetaki replaced at NLTB: What next for Rabuka-Bainimarama henchman - remember he became A-G in Rabuka's post 1987 coup, and resurfaced in same role after the George Speight coup!, and you need to approve it:
This man who was a prime mover and shaker in the racist, violent Rabuka coup of 1987 got me charged under the Official Secrets Act for publishing an article on Social Welfare in Fiji. That article did no citizen of Fiji any harm. In fact many professional people said they came to better understand what the Social Welfare Department was doing even though it was rather poorly resourced. By contrast Alipate Qetaki and his like minded racist colleagues in Rabuka's inner circle and the Taukei Movement did a great deal of harm to thousands of fellow Fiji citizens and to the country.
Has Qetaki been charged for anything? Has he faced justice for his role in the 1987 coup? No, he hasn't. Instead he continued to be rewarded with top posts in the government and other institutions like the NLTB.
The Politics of Land Lease Money: During the 1987 general election campaign the late Tui Nadi, Ratu Napolioni Dawai, a staunch Bavadra supporter, argued that a number of chiefly title disputes were linked to lease money since chiefs received a great deal more than other members of a mataqali. Dawai had himself received over $25,000 a year from the NLTB. Thirty years later, Ro Kepa argued in Parliament this week that the equal distribution of native Fijian land lease money is not conducive to the traditional livelihood of native Fijians:
Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa says the equal distribution of iTaukei land lease money is not conducive to the traditional livelihood of the iTaukei.
Ro Teimumu says the previous distribution system was used to fund the programs and policies of the villages. She says the equal distribution to individuals is taking away the system where the iTaukei used to work together in the past.The previous system saw the highest percentage of lease money going to the chief and the heads of the landowning units. She also says the qoliqoli returns should go to the iTaukei owners, not to the state. Source: Fijivillage News, 12 September 2017.
Ro Teimumu says the previous distribution system was used to fund the programs and policies of the villages. She says the equal distribution to individuals is taking away the system where the iTaukei used to work together in the past.The previous system saw the highest percentage of lease money going to the chief and the heads of the landowning units. She also says the qoliqoli returns should go to the iTaukei owners, not to the state. Source: Fijivillage News, 12 September 2017.
"In advocating the old distribution system, Ro Teimumu was condoning inequality among Taukei, using facile cultural justification. What the party overlooked was that many chiefs in Fiji did not receive lease money yet still fulfilled their obligations to the vanua successfully because communalism and reciprocity were crucial values of Taukei culture. The old distribution policy actually contributed to inequality and the marginalisation of ordinary Taukei in their traditional villages; and they never questioned it because of the belief that it was an essential part of Taukei culture. It must be noted that the chief’s lease allocation was a private entitlement and he [or she] was not obliged by law to spend or redistribute his share of lease monies on traditional obligations. Those chiefs in receipt of land monies had benefited from a land policy that had its origins in the colonial order, which contributed to some chiefs becoming individualistic and very wealthy while ordinary Taukei remained disadvantaged despite also being owners of an important communal resource." - Sefanaia Sakai, a teaching assistant in governance at the University of the South Pacific. His area of research is land and politics in Fiji
Fijileaks: The 2014 election result loss on same issue has cut no ice with SODELPA. Sefanaia Sakai, analyzing "Native land policy in the 2014 elections" in the book The People Have Spoken, edited by Steven Ratuva and Stephanie Lawson, 2016, argued the following: "Issues concerning land insecurity, which should have been SODELPA’s political trump card, appear to have failed to gain much appeal during the 2014 elections, even though the party got the great majority of its votes from among Taukei. For ordinary Taukei, acquiring basic needs and making progress were more important and many believed that their customary land was safe...Land issues may have had some impact on the results of the 2014 elections, but the concerns expressed by SODELPA in their campaign were not sufficiently persuasive among Taukei, let alone other communities, to give SODELPA victory in the elections. It seems that Taukei voters, who outnumber all other ethnic groups in terms of voting power, considered other basic matters such as education, water, electricity and other infrastructure as more important than land. In addition, the equal distribution policy gave FijiFirst an advantage, as many LOU members whose lands are leased received economic benefits denied under the old system."
With respect to land policy, SODELPA claimed that the equal distribution of lease monies was not conducive to the traditional livelihood of Taukei. SODELPA leader Ro Teimumu Kepa, a high chief and beneficiary of the previous system of distribution, explained that chiefs, as heads of the mataqali and yavusa, had responsibilities to the vanua and their larger shares would cater for major obligations.
Deposed SDL Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, while campaigning for SODELPA, invented his own version of redistribution when replying to a question that the author posed during the SODELPA campaign in Wainivula, Suva. He said that the party would let the provincial council decide on the fate of the equal distribution policy in consultation with the people. This was clearly different from Ro Teimumu’s position that SODELPA would revert to the old system.
These contradictory views became counterproductive to the party’s campaign before the elections. First, in advocating the old distribution system, Ro Teimumu was condoning inequality among Taukei, using facile cultural justification. What the party overlooked was that many chiefs in Fiji did not receive lease money yet still fulfilled their obligations to the vanua successfully because communalism and reciprocity were crucial values of Taukei culture.
The old distribution policy actually contributed to inequality and the marginalisation of ordinary Taukei in their traditional villages; and they never questioned it because of the belief that it was an essential part of Taukei culture. It must be noted that the chief’s lease allocation was a private entitlement and he was not obliged by law to spend or redistribute his share of lease monies on traditional obligations. Those chiefs in receipt of land monies had benefited from a land policy that had its origins in the colonial order, which contributed to some chiefs becoming individualistic and very wealthy while ordinary Taukei remained disadvantaged despite also being owners of an important communal resource.
In 2010, the Bainimarama Government amended the Leases and Licenses Regulations of the Native Land Act to ensure equal distribution of lease money to mataqali members. The amendment was introduced in line with a government policy of inclusiveness and designed to address inequality among Taukei landowners. Wealth from the use of Taukei land through leasing has been substantial, but had not been distributed on an equal basis.
According to the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB, formerly the Native Land Trust Board or NLTB), the total lease income distributed to LOUs has increased from FJD$24 million in 2000 to FJD$64 million in 2014 (TLTB 2014, p. 11). For the first time, under the new equal distribution policy, chiefs and commoners within a mataqali would share the economic gains from the use of their mataqali land equally (see hypothetical scenario Figure 1). Before the amendment, the TLTB usually deducted 25 per cent as an administration fee and also to assist the TLTB to generate development projects on Taukei land.
There were also three categories of chiefs who received the largest share of the lease money under the old distribution system: turaga ni vanua (village chief) received 5 per cent, turaga ni yavusa (tribal chief) received 10 per cent, and turaga ni mataqali (clan chief) received 15 per cent. Often a single chief would receive the full 30 per cent entitlement because he was holder of all three titles and belonged to the clan whose land was leased for development.
The remaining 45 per cent was shared by the rest of the mataqali members. In 2013, the Bainimarama regime also reduced the TLTB share from 25 per cent to 10 per cent, putting an emphasis on the TLTB self-funding its own operation rather than relying so heavily on deductions from lease money.
The equal distribution policy has also contributed to the reduction in the number of registered disputes over chiefly titles in the country in 2013 and 2014. For example, the Native Lands Commission received three chiefly titles dispute cases in 2014 compared to 13 recorded cases in 2013. The commissioner attributed this decline to the implementation of the equal distribution policy by the Bainimarama Government (FBC 2014). However, the validity of this analysis could be substantiated only after in-depth research on the issue of equal distribution and titles disputes. - Sefanaia Sakai
Deposed SDL Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, while campaigning for SODELPA, invented his own version of redistribution when replying to a question that the author posed during the SODELPA campaign in Wainivula, Suva. He said that the party would let the provincial council decide on the fate of the equal distribution policy in consultation with the people. This was clearly different from Ro Teimumu’s position that SODELPA would revert to the old system.
These contradictory views became counterproductive to the party’s campaign before the elections. First, in advocating the old distribution system, Ro Teimumu was condoning inequality among Taukei, using facile cultural justification. What the party overlooked was that many chiefs in Fiji did not receive lease money yet still fulfilled their obligations to the vanua successfully because communalism and reciprocity were crucial values of Taukei culture.
The old distribution policy actually contributed to inequality and the marginalisation of ordinary Taukei in their traditional villages; and they never questioned it because of the belief that it was an essential part of Taukei culture. It must be noted that the chief’s lease allocation was a private entitlement and he was not obliged by law to spend or redistribute his share of lease monies on traditional obligations. Those chiefs in receipt of land monies had benefited from a land policy that had its origins in the colonial order, which contributed to some chiefs becoming individualistic and very wealthy while ordinary Taukei remained disadvantaged despite also being owners of an important communal resource.
In 2010, the Bainimarama Government amended the Leases and Licenses Regulations of the Native Land Act to ensure equal distribution of lease money to mataqali members. The amendment was introduced in line with a government policy of inclusiveness and designed to address inequality among Taukei landowners. Wealth from the use of Taukei land through leasing has been substantial, but had not been distributed on an equal basis.
According to the iTaukei Land Trust Board (TLTB, formerly the Native Land Trust Board or NLTB), the total lease income distributed to LOUs has increased from FJD$24 million in 2000 to FJD$64 million in 2014 (TLTB 2014, p. 11). For the first time, under the new equal distribution policy, chiefs and commoners within a mataqali would share the economic gains from the use of their mataqali land equally (see hypothetical scenario Figure 1). Before the amendment, the TLTB usually deducted 25 per cent as an administration fee and also to assist the TLTB to generate development projects on Taukei land.
There were also three categories of chiefs who received the largest share of the lease money under the old distribution system: turaga ni vanua (village chief) received 5 per cent, turaga ni yavusa (tribal chief) received 10 per cent, and turaga ni mataqali (clan chief) received 15 per cent. Often a single chief would receive the full 30 per cent entitlement because he was holder of all three titles and belonged to the clan whose land was leased for development.
The remaining 45 per cent was shared by the rest of the mataqali members. In 2013, the Bainimarama regime also reduced the TLTB share from 25 per cent to 10 per cent, putting an emphasis on the TLTB self-funding its own operation rather than relying so heavily on deductions from lease money.
The equal distribution policy has also contributed to the reduction in the number of registered disputes over chiefly titles in the country in 2013 and 2014. For example, the Native Lands Commission received three chiefly titles dispute cases in 2014 compared to 13 recorded cases in 2013. The commissioner attributed this decline to the implementation of the equal distribution policy by the Bainimarama Government (FBC 2014). However, the validity of this analysis could be substantiated only after in-depth research on the issue of equal distribution and titles disputes. - Sefanaia Sakai
Meanwhile, it is clear Ratu Naiqama's suspension from Parliament served him no purpose, for he has returned to Parliament to sing same old tune. SODELPA is fast becoming a derelict imitation of Butadroka's Fijian Nationalist Party, and come 2018 general election will bite political dust. What about the 40 percent of native Fijians who VOTED for FFP?
SODELPA parliamentarian Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu stresses that politics in our country will continue to be race based for some time.
While speaking on the President’s opening speech in parliament, Ratu Naiqama says this is the reality on the ground.
Ratu Naiqama then accused the minority communities of block-voting during the elections.
He then went on to say that SODELPA reassures all the minority religious and ethnic communities in Fiji that the party is committed to assuring their security in the country.
While speaking about the 2018 elections, Ratu Naiqama said that they agree with the recommendation that the ballot papers must have the party name, symbol as well as the names of the candidates.
He also says that they are recommending that pre-polling be restricted to emergency workers and essential services and that the rest of the population vote on voting day, to make it truly a one day election.
Ratu Naiqama also says that as the apex of the Itaukei institutions, the good governance and wellbeing of the Itaukei firstly is the responsibility of the Great Council of Chiefs.
He says the unique role of the GCC is to make recommendations to the government of the day for the wellbeing of the Itaukei.
Ratu Naiqama says the only remedy for the country is to choose new leadership in 2018.
Fijileaks: Ratu Naiqama is accusing ethnic minorities of block voting in the elections; he is repeating his Cakuadrove subject and coupist and now SODELPA leader Sitiveni Rabuka who had accused Indo-Fijian of bloc voting in the 1999 general election which had resulted in the defeat of his SVT Party to Mahendra Chaudhry's People's Coalition.
While speaking on the President’s opening speech in parliament, Ratu Naiqama says this is the reality on the ground.
Ratu Naiqama then accused the minority communities of block-voting during the elections.
He then went on to say that SODELPA reassures all the minority religious and ethnic communities in Fiji that the party is committed to assuring their security in the country.
While speaking about the 2018 elections, Ratu Naiqama said that they agree with the recommendation that the ballot papers must have the party name, symbol as well as the names of the candidates.
He also says that they are recommending that pre-polling be restricted to emergency workers and essential services and that the rest of the population vote on voting day, to make it truly a one day election.
Ratu Naiqama also says that as the apex of the Itaukei institutions, the good governance and wellbeing of the Itaukei firstly is the responsibility of the Great Council of Chiefs.
He says the unique role of the GCC is to make recommendations to the government of the day for the wellbeing of the Itaukei.
Ratu Naiqama says the only remedy for the country is to choose new leadership in 2018.
Fijileaks: Ratu Naiqama is accusing ethnic minorities of block voting in the elections; he is repeating his Cakuadrove subject and coupist and now SODELPA leader Sitiveni Rabuka who had accused Indo-Fijian of bloc voting in the 1999 general election which had resulted in the defeat of his SVT Party to Mahendra Chaudhry's People's Coalition.
Rabuka: "The result of the election and especially the orchestrated bloc voting by the Indian community clearly shows how far apart we still are racially. Your vote is your democratic right but judging by the way you have bloc voted, turning inward to your own communal interests, I appeal to you all to show greater responsibility to our wider common interest as a nation."
Chaudhry had rejected Rabuka's charges.
"It is the leaders who are dividing the nation, it is the Labour party who will unite the people."
Fijileaks: SODELPA should read the coded message hidden in the above statement to Parliament. Fiji must brace itself for FIFTH COUP if SODELPA under Rabuka and his nationalist mouthpieces continue to vilify Indo-Fijians (especially Aiyaz Khaiyum and Indo-Fijian Muslims) leading up to the 2018 general election. It will give the military perfect excuse to intervene and deny SODELPA power (if it wins), and international community will buy into their reason. No one wants civil war. And Indo-Fijians must not allow themselves to become the new Rohingyas of the South Pacific, pariahs once again in Rabuka's 2018 Fiji! Sadly, so far no leader has emerged who is above race, chiefship, religion, and corruption - who is willing to put FIJI FIRST.
Even Bainimarama has fallen along the way. Cry the Beloved Country!
During the 1982 elections, one trade unionist by the name of Joveci Gavoka had likened Indo-Fijians to DOGS, "At least dogs wag their tail in appreciation, but Indians were worse than DOGS"
Fijileaks: The GCC must never be restored in its original form unless the chiefs agree to drastic reforms, and Qarase's Blueprint must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The GCC became a victim of its own FOLLY and BULLYING and the Blueprint was a charter for elite native Fijians to loot and enrich themselves.
We must put Fiji FIRST.
VICTOR LAL: 'In 2006, I was a Visiting Fellow in the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law in Sydney, to complete a project on Coups, Conflict and Constitutionalism in Fiji under Professor George Williams, the lawyer who argued the famous Chandrika Prasad case before the Fiji High Court. During the 2000 crisis, I had sided with Commodore Frank Bainimarama and the Interim Laisenia Qarase led administration on the Doctrine of Necessity and Effectiveness to resolve the hostage crisis. Meanwhile, one evening in 2006, another professor colleague phoned me in my office and asked me to come and meet a native Fijian who was in his office. In the course of our conversation, it turned about this particular person was a son of a chief, and his wife had arrived in Sydney to do a degree in_______on Fijian Affairs Scholarship. He wanted to be with her, so wanted to take time off from his job in Fiji, and do a post graduate degree at the UNSW. When I asked him how was he going to fund his study, he told us: "No problem. My father is a prominent chief so we will ring out a FAB scholarship without any competition". When he left the building the professor turned around and asked me what to suggest. I replied: Just because his father is a prominent chief, he has no right to arm-twist the FAB into giving him a scholarship so that he can spend time with his wife in Sydney. There are more deserving native commoner Fijians. I suggest he should be told to take a bloody running jump. Here is how affirmative action was being abused by certain Fijians close to the establishment - exploiting chieftaincy to indulge in life of luxury in Australia'
SODELPA parliamentarian Viliame Gavoka has today made it clear that SODELPA will bring back the Great Council of Chiefs if it wins the 2018 general elections.
While speaking on the President’s speech in parliament, Gavoka said SODELPA does not know why the GCC was scrapped.
SODELPA also wants the Chairman of Itaukei Land Trust Board to be nominated by the GCC.
Gavoka says although President Jioji Konrote has told them not to dwell on ethnicity, SODELPA stresses that it is not about ethnicity but equality.
He then went on to say that the Itaukei need to be empowered economically as done by Laisenia Qarase under the Blueprint for the Itaukei.
Gavoka stresses that the returns from the qoliqoli should go directly to the Itaukei owners.
He also says that SODELPA wants many aspects of the constitution repealed.
While speaking on the President’s speech in parliament, Gavoka said SODELPA does not know why the GCC was scrapped.
SODELPA also wants the Chairman of Itaukei Land Trust Board to be nominated by the GCC.
Gavoka says although President Jioji Konrote has told them not to dwell on ethnicity, SODELPA stresses that it is not about ethnicity but equality.
He then went on to say that the Itaukei need to be empowered economically as done by Laisenia Qarase under the Blueprint for the Itaukei.
Gavoka stresses that the returns from the qoliqoli should go directly to the Itaukei owners.
He also says that SODELPA wants many aspects of the constitution repealed.
"The affirmative action law, policies and programmes do not comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji" - Victor Lal, 2006
FHRC consulted Government on Affirmative Action Report
Friday, August 11, 2006
Fiji Sun
By VICTOR LAL
The consultant who reviewed the Affirmative Action programme for the Fiji Human Rights Commission provided ample opportunity to the Prime Minister's Office to respond to various queries. The consultant's recommendations titled 'Report on Government's Affirmative Programmes 2020 Plan for Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the Blueprint - June 2006', which the Commission is yet to officially release, notes that 'the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release'.
If it is true, than the Prime Minister is clearly wrong to raise the concern that FHR report on the Blueprint is definitely biased as the Commission consultant did not approach him or his CEO to get the government's side of the story on the setting up of the program. He also expressed concern that the report was only prepared by one consultant who never spoke to anyone at the PM's Office.
Mr Qarase said he is now analyzing the report following comments by the Commission that it would take the government to court if it does not make immediate changes to the Affirmative Action Program. According to the report, the Government was provided with a number of opportunities to be heard during the investigation.
It was advised of the intention to investigate and invited to provide information about all affirmative action programmes. In March 2005 the Office of the Prime Minister was advised that a number of government ministries, departments and agencies had not responded to requests for information, and the assistance of that office was sought in obtaining their cooperation - some departments subsequently responded, others did not; That same month the CEO of the Prime Ministers Department, the report claims, advised that at a discussion of departmental Chief Executive Officers on 18th March 2005 it had been agreed that the Prime Minister's Office would reply on behalf of Government through its Chief Executive Officer, though no response was received.
Over two months later, on 23rd May 2005, the CEO of Prime Ministers Office sent a copy of the publication For the Good of All, which had been tabled in Parliament in 2004. Later, on 24 November 2005, the same CEO sent copies of a second report on the implementation of the affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act that had been tabled as Parliamentary Paper No 108 of 2005. The CEO also supplied the Commission with a copy of the Preliminary Analysis by the ADB of the 2002/2003 Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (September 2005) together with comments.
Despite these opportunities already given, the Commission claims, it provided the Government with a final opportunity to comment on the investigators report and the draft report was sent to the government with the request that a response be received by 23 March 2006. The government subsequently sought an extension of time, and the date for final response was amended to 1 May 2006.
On 19 May 2006, according to the report, the CEO of the Prime Minister's Department wrote to the Commission to advise that the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release.
In 2004 the Commission had instigated an 'own motion' investigation into the Government's affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act 2001, aspects of the Blueprint initiated by the Interim Government in July 2000 and adopted and continued by the SDL Coalition Government, and the Social Justice Act itself. When notified of the Commission's intention to undertake the investigation, the SDL Coalition Government had offered its cooperation, says the report.
The Commission's decision to instigate the own motion investigation was triggered by the number of complaints it received from different sources about the Affirmative Action law and policy as well as by the Commission's own concerns about the proposals of two different Governments to enact Social Justice legislation for Fiji.
The investigation examined whether each affirmative action and blueprint programme, the policy, and the law complied with the requirements for affirmative action in Chapter 5 (section 44) of the Constitution. Based on the consultant's research, the report concludes that overall, but with some exceptions, the affirmative action programmes put in place by Government under the Social Justice Act 2001 do not comply with the Constitution.
The Social Justice Act 2001 does not comply with the Constitution. It continues as follows:
Affirmative action programmes based on ethnicity do not comply with the Social Justice provisions (Chapter 5, section 44) of the Constitution.The programme as a whole lacks a proportional balance between any disadvantage intended to be addressed and the measures being taken to alleviate the disadvantage. Minor or even presumed but non-existent disparities between ethnic groups have been used to justify the complete exclusion of groups other than indigenous Fijians and Rotumans from the bulk of the programmes
The programmes fail to make provision for all who are disadvantaged. This is particularly so in relation to women, who are far more disadvantaged than men. Individual programmes are weighed so disproportionately against Indians, women and other disadvantaged groups as to undermine the legality of all the programmes based on ethnicity.
No programme accurately links its goals to the disadvantage borne by the target group that it is intended to overcome.
Few programmes identify any performance indicators and those that do have no historical component. It is therefore not possible to monitor the effectiveness of the programmes without data that identifies trends before and after the programmes were initiated. There is no data that relates to whether alleged disparities between indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and Indians, for example, have reduced in the areas where affirmative action programmes have been introduced.
On the question whether Government has discharged its burden of establishing justification for the programmes, the report says that the Government's principal justification for its affirmative action programmes, that the rural sector is poorer than the urban sector and a majority of indigenous Fijians live in rural areas, is seriously flawed. In fact, the poorest households in rural areas are Indian.
The Government's other main justification (that the average income of indigenous Fijians is below that of Indians and Others and therefore all indigenous Fijians are disadvantaged and entitled to affirmative action) does not meet the legal standards imposed by the Constitution, the Human Rights Commission Act, and international law.
The programmes fail to justify the distinctions based on ethnicity on which most of the programmes are based. The Government has not established that 'the race-based affirmative action programmes meet the legal standards for these particular programmes'. According to the report,
* the programmes have not been established in response to a justifiable compelling Government interest;l the programmes are not narrowly tailored to remedy the past discrimination or present disadvantage that they purport to correct;
* the programmes are not narrowly tailored to exclude from the indigenous Fijian group preferred, any members who are not, or are no longer disadvantaged, through means testing, or class-based and other appropriate measures;
* the programmes are inflexible, without waiver provisions to narrow their scope;
* criteria in relation to targets make no reference to those qualified group members in the relevant sector or industry;l there is no evidence that the Government has considered race-neutral alternatives;l although the programmes are temporary, the periodic review mechanisms are inadequate;
* there is little or no consideration given to degree and type of burden, including on excluded groups, caused by the programme.The report goes on to ask whether affirmative action law and programmes are lawful, and answers in the following:
Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of the Social Justice Chapter in the Constitution, they are not protected by the exemption in section 44 (4). Accordingly, to the extent that certain disadvantaged groups are excluded from the Affirmative Action programmes, they are being unfairly discriminated against in contravention of their rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.l Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Human Rights Commission Act, they amount to unfair discrimination in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Since the Affirmative Action Programmes do not fulfil the 'special measures' requirements contained in international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), they amount to a contravention of the rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
Since the Affirmative Action programmes are based on the Social Justice Act 2001, and the Social Justice Act itself breaches Chapter 5 of the Constitution, the programmes cannot be justified on grounds that they comply with the Act.It concludes by noting that the 50/50 by 2020 Development Plan, the Blueprint and the Social Justice Act 2001 have the combined effect of imposing large-scale discrimination against the minority ethnic groups, specifically on the disadvantaged categories within these groups, and more generally on other disadvantaged groups who have not been provided with affirmative action programmes to improve their conditions of life.
The affirmative action law, policies and programmes do not comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji
Friday, August 11, 2006
Fiji Sun
By VICTOR LAL
The consultant who reviewed the Affirmative Action programme for the Fiji Human Rights Commission provided ample opportunity to the Prime Minister's Office to respond to various queries. The consultant's recommendations titled 'Report on Government's Affirmative Programmes 2020 Plan for Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the Blueprint - June 2006', which the Commission is yet to officially release, notes that 'the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release'.
If it is true, than the Prime Minister is clearly wrong to raise the concern that FHR report on the Blueprint is definitely biased as the Commission consultant did not approach him or his CEO to get the government's side of the story on the setting up of the program. He also expressed concern that the report was only prepared by one consultant who never spoke to anyone at the PM's Office.
Mr Qarase said he is now analyzing the report following comments by the Commission that it would take the government to court if it does not make immediate changes to the Affirmative Action Program. According to the report, the Government was provided with a number of opportunities to be heard during the investigation.
It was advised of the intention to investigate and invited to provide information about all affirmative action programmes. In March 2005 the Office of the Prime Minister was advised that a number of government ministries, departments and agencies had not responded to requests for information, and the assistance of that office was sought in obtaining their cooperation - some departments subsequently responded, others did not; That same month the CEO of the Prime Ministers Department, the report claims, advised that at a discussion of departmental Chief Executive Officers on 18th March 2005 it had been agreed that the Prime Minister's Office would reply on behalf of Government through its Chief Executive Officer, though no response was received.
Over two months later, on 23rd May 2005, the CEO of Prime Ministers Office sent a copy of the publication For the Good of All, which had been tabled in Parliament in 2004. Later, on 24 November 2005, the same CEO sent copies of a second report on the implementation of the affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act that had been tabled as Parliamentary Paper No 108 of 2005. The CEO also supplied the Commission with a copy of the Preliminary Analysis by the ADB of the 2002/2003 Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (September 2005) together with comments.
Despite these opportunities already given, the Commission claims, it provided the Government with a final opportunity to comment on the investigators report and the draft report was sent to the government with the request that a response be received by 23 March 2006. The government subsequently sought an extension of time, and the date for final response was amended to 1 May 2006.
On 19 May 2006, according to the report, the CEO of the Prime Minister's Department wrote to the Commission to advise that the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release.
In 2004 the Commission had instigated an 'own motion' investigation into the Government's affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act 2001, aspects of the Blueprint initiated by the Interim Government in July 2000 and adopted and continued by the SDL Coalition Government, and the Social Justice Act itself. When notified of the Commission's intention to undertake the investigation, the SDL Coalition Government had offered its cooperation, says the report.
The Commission's decision to instigate the own motion investigation was triggered by the number of complaints it received from different sources about the Affirmative Action law and policy as well as by the Commission's own concerns about the proposals of two different Governments to enact Social Justice legislation for Fiji.
The investigation examined whether each affirmative action and blueprint programme, the policy, and the law complied with the requirements for affirmative action in Chapter 5 (section 44) of the Constitution. Based on the consultant's research, the report concludes that overall, but with some exceptions, the affirmative action programmes put in place by Government under the Social Justice Act 2001 do not comply with the Constitution.
The Social Justice Act 2001 does not comply with the Constitution. It continues as follows:
Affirmative action programmes based on ethnicity do not comply with the Social Justice provisions (Chapter 5, section 44) of the Constitution.The programme as a whole lacks a proportional balance between any disadvantage intended to be addressed and the measures being taken to alleviate the disadvantage. Minor or even presumed but non-existent disparities between ethnic groups have been used to justify the complete exclusion of groups other than indigenous Fijians and Rotumans from the bulk of the programmes
The programmes fail to make provision for all who are disadvantaged. This is particularly so in relation to women, who are far more disadvantaged than men. Individual programmes are weighed so disproportionately against Indians, women and other disadvantaged groups as to undermine the legality of all the programmes based on ethnicity.
No programme accurately links its goals to the disadvantage borne by the target group that it is intended to overcome.
Few programmes identify any performance indicators and those that do have no historical component. It is therefore not possible to monitor the effectiveness of the programmes without data that identifies trends before and after the programmes were initiated. There is no data that relates to whether alleged disparities between indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and Indians, for example, have reduced in the areas where affirmative action programmes have been introduced.
On the question whether Government has discharged its burden of establishing justification for the programmes, the report says that the Government's principal justification for its affirmative action programmes, that the rural sector is poorer than the urban sector and a majority of indigenous Fijians live in rural areas, is seriously flawed. In fact, the poorest households in rural areas are Indian.
The Government's other main justification (that the average income of indigenous Fijians is below that of Indians and Others and therefore all indigenous Fijians are disadvantaged and entitled to affirmative action) does not meet the legal standards imposed by the Constitution, the Human Rights Commission Act, and international law.
The programmes fail to justify the distinctions based on ethnicity on which most of the programmes are based. The Government has not established that 'the race-based affirmative action programmes meet the legal standards for these particular programmes'. According to the report,
* the programmes have not been established in response to a justifiable compelling Government interest;l the programmes are not narrowly tailored to remedy the past discrimination or present disadvantage that they purport to correct;
* the programmes are not narrowly tailored to exclude from the indigenous Fijian group preferred, any members who are not, or are no longer disadvantaged, through means testing, or class-based and other appropriate measures;
* the programmes are inflexible, without waiver provisions to narrow their scope;
* criteria in relation to targets make no reference to those qualified group members in the relevant sector or industry;l there is no evidence that the Government has considered race-neutral alternatives;l although the programmes are temporary, the periodic review mechanisms are inadequate;
* there is little or no consideration given to degree and type of burden, including on excluded groups, caused by the programme.The report goes on to ask whether affirmative action law and programmes are lawful, and answers in the following:
Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of the Social Justice Chapter in the Constitution, they are not protected by the exemption in section 44 (4). Accordingly, to the extent that certain disadvantaged groups are excluded from the Affirmative Action programmes, they are being unfairly discriminated against in contravention of their rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.l Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Human Rights Commission Act, they amount to unfair discrimination in breach of section 17 of the Act.
Since the Affirmative Action Programmes do not fulfil the 'special measures' requirements contained in international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), they amount to a contravention of the rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
Since the Affirmative Action programmes are based on the Social Justice Act 2001, and the Social Justice Act itself breaches Chapter 5 of the Constitution, the programmes cannot be justified on grounds that they comply with the Act.It concludes by noting that the 50/50 by 2020 Development Plan, the Blueprint and the Social Justice Act 2001 have the combined effect of imposing large-scale discrimination against the minority ethnic groups, specifically on the disadvantaged categories within these groups, and more generally on other disadvantaged groups who have not been provided with affirmative action programmes to improve their conditions of life.
The affirmative action law, policies and programmes do not comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji
LAISENIA QARASE: "The crux of our political crisis in Fiji is that indigenous Fijian and Rotuman communities felt threatened by certain policies which the non-indigenous leadership of the People's Coalition Government had implemented following their decisive victory in our National Elections in May 1999. It was this fear and anxiety about their future as the world's only indigenous Fijian and Rotuman community of just over 420,000 people that led to mass demonstrations and ultimately the Coup d'etat on May 19th this year. It manifested itself also in the mass looting of shops, destruction of property, and threats to people and their families, and unfortunately and tragically, the victims were mainly members of our Indian community. It was in this serious and deteriorating law and order situation that the Fiji Military Forces responded to a request from our Police to take over direct control of law and order and the protection of citizens. To facilitate this role, the Fiji Military Forces abrogated our 1997 Constitution on 29th May. However, as the civilian Interim Administration, we have ourselves taken over from the Army and, as I have said, we are firmly committed to returning Fiji to constitutional parliamentary democracy. We intend to promulgate the new constitution in August next year. General elections will then follow within twelve months."
Address to the Fifty-Fifth Session of the UN General Assembly by Qarase, Bainimarama's then Interim PM, 16 September 2000
Fijileaks: We cannot allow Fiji to relapse into an orgy of violence and looting in the name of indigenous Fijian rights and affirmative action that was endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs. The burnt out remains of Govinda's Restaurant in Suva (below): over 100 shops and businesses were ransacked in Suva's central business district on 19 May 2000
Sean Cousins is a former friend and was lawyer to CONMAN Peter Foster. In 2009 Cousins was struck off over his association with Foster. The Australian Legal Practice Tribunal found Cousins was unfit to practise as a barrister and ordered his name be removed from the roll of practitioners. The Legal Services Commissioner had alleged Cousins was guilty of professional misconduct in directly knowing Chaste Corporation Pty Ltd was engaging in conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act between March 2000 and November 2001. Chaste Corporation was controlled by Foster and a man named Brad Webb and sold exclusive distributorships for a product called "TRIMit" weight-loss pills. In the tribunal Cousins conceded his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and at the time he was unfit to practise because of that conduct and his mental condition. Justice Margaret Wilson said Cousins was involved in the corporation making representations about TRIMit including the corporation's plans to promote it, its efficacy, its testing and it having regulatory approval. She said Cousins knew that the representations were misleading or deceptive. Justice Wilson noted that after breaking his ties with Foster in 2001 Cousins had returned to the bar where he had practised without any complaint. Cousins was admitted as a solicitor in 1990 and then as a barrister in 1998. Meanwhile, conman Foster had also claimed he had links with Jale Bala, now a vocal cheerleader for Rabuka and SODELPA;
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/confidence-trickster-or-the-real-one-jale-baba-allegedly-kick-starting-fund-raising-for-newly-formed-one-fiji-party-and-calls-for-donations
AUSTRALIANS are winding up in costly property disputes in Fiji after buying land from “fake chiefs” who are not the rightful owners.
Former Gold Coast lawyer Sean Cousins is warning holiday-makers not to fall for the “convincing” scams after discovering he had leased a 100m stretch of beachfront land from a vendor who was not the village chief as claimed.
“The warning is, watch out, because I’m not the only one who has been stung,” he said.
“Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Germans — be aware, there are a number of Fijian people who claim to own the land and sell it to you and they don’t own it.”
A regular visitor to Fiji, he had started looking for land three years ago when he was approached with an offer “too good to refuse” involving land in a popular tourist area.
“This man introduced himself as the chief and the landowner and he showed me his father’s graves and his two brothers’ graves,” he said.
“It was all very convincing. There were about five or six houses and it really did appear to be one little family village.”
Former Gold Coast lawyer Sean Cousins is warning holiday-makers not to fall for the “convincing” scams after discovering he had leased a 100m stretch of beachfront land from a vendor who was not the village chief as claimed.
“The warning is, watch out, because I’m not the only one who has been stung,” he said.
“Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Germans — be aware, there are a number of Fijian people who claim to own the land and sell it to you and they don’t own it.”
A regular visitor to Fiji, he had started looking for land three years ago when he was approached with an offer “too good to refuse” involving land in a popular tourist area.
“This man introduced himself as the chief and the landowner and he showed me his father’s graves and his two brothers’ graves,” he said.
“It was all very convincing. There were about five or six houses and it really did appear to be one little family village.”
They reached an agreement and he started paying a monthly fee to the “chief” to lease the land, then spent about $70,000 building a house on the block.
“My parents came to stay, family friends came to stay. Every time he would come over and say, ‘Hello, I’m the chief’,” Mr Cousins said.
Locals subsequently informed him the land belonged to a larger gazetted village and he discovered he had been paying the wrong person.
He went to court in conjunction with the “real chief”, Ratu Taniela Gonerara, and won a judgment against the vendor in June for repayment of FJD$24,400 ($14,980).
“The court is satisfied with the evidence (he) relied on the defendant’s initial false statement that he is the chief and he has the exclusive ownership to the said land which in actual fact he is not,” the judgment reads.
Mr Cousins subsequently obtained court orders bankrupting the vendor, and the real chief this week moved to evict the villagers involved. The Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia
“My parents came to stay, family friends came to stay. Every time he would come over and say, ‘Hello, I’m the chief’,” Mr Cousins said.
Locals subsequently informed him the land belonged to a larger gazetted village and he discovered he had been paying the wrong person.
He went to court in conjunction with the “real chief”, Ratu Taniela Gonerara, and won a judgment against the vendor in June for repayment of FJD$24,400 ($14,980).
“The court is satisfied with the evidence (he) relied on the defendant’s initial false statement that he is the chief and he has the exclusive ownership to the said land which in actual fact he is not,” the judgment reads.
Mr Cousins subsequently obtained court orders bankrupting the vendor, and the real chief this week moved to evict the villagers involved. The Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia
“I, Ratu Taniela Gonerara, Chief of the Yavusa Nasikawa, hereby order you to vacate the three houses (in the village) immediately,” a handwritten notice declared.
Other Queenslanders have been caught in similar disputes, Mr Cousins said.
“A couple from southeast Queensland bought some land about 20 minutes east of me and started to build a resort, only to discover the person they bought the land from does not own the land. Luckily, they were able to come to a negotiation with the real chief.”
Other Queenslanders have been caught in similar disputes, Mr Cousins said.
“A couple from southeast Queensland bought some land about 20 minutes east of me and started to build a resort, only to discover the person they bought the land from does not own the land. Luckily, they were able to come to a negotiation with the real chief.”
From Fiji Times, 11 September 2017
editor@fijileaks.com
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012