Four Pages, Three Authors, One Regulator: Why Was Fiji's Finance Minister Biman Prasad Writing Energy Policy Papers With FCCC?
 |  |
Four Pages, Three Authors, One Regulator: Why Was Fiji's Finance Minister Writing Energy Policy Papers With FCCC?
Another academic paper carrying the name of former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad has emerged, adding fresh questions to the growing debate surrounding the relationship between government, academia, the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC), and publicly funded research.
The paper, Understanding Price Leadership in Fiji's Energy Market, was published in 2023 in the journal Energy Research Letters. It bears the names of Biman Chand Prasad, his former student and Monash University economist Paresh Kumar Narayan, and then FCCC Chief Executive Joel Abraham.
At only four pages long, the paper is not a major scholarly treatise. It is a short research note examining fuel-price movements in Fiji using data obtained from FCCC.
Yet its brevity may be precisely what makes its authorship so intriguing.
For unlike most academic publications, this was not a paper written solely by university researchers.
One author was NFP leader and the then Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad.
Another was the chief executive of Fiji's price regulator.
The third was a university economist whose work has increasingly become associated with FCCC-sponsored research projects.
That combination raises questions that extend far beyond the paper's technical conclusions.
The Minister and the Regulator
At the time the paper was submitted in June 2023, Biman Prasad was not simply an academic economist.
He was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The paper itself prominently identifies him in that capacity before listing his adjunct academic affiliations.
Joel Abraham was likewise not acting merely as a private researcher.
He was Chief Executive of the FCCC, the statutory body responsible for regulating prices, promoting competition, and protecting consumers.
The paper discusses FCCC's role in regulating prices and concludes that regulatory attention should focus on premix fuel because it appears to be the dominant driver of energy-price movements in Fiji.
In other words, the paper was not merely about abstract economic theory.
It addressed an area of direct regulatory responsibility.
The obvious question therefore arises: Why was the Finance Minister co-authoring a paper with the chief executive of an independent regulator on matters that fell squarely within the regulator's jurisdiction?
Independent regulators exist precisely to maintain a degree of separation from political office holders.
That separation protects public confidence in regulatory decision-making.
When the head of the regulator and the Minister responsible for economic policy appear together as co-authors on a paper discussing regulatory priorities, questions naturally arise about where academic collaboration ends and policy advocacy begins.
What Exactly Was Biman Prasad's Contribution?
The paper contains sophisticated econometric terminology and relies heavily on statistical methodologies developed in earlier academic work by Paresh Narayan and other researchers.
It cites established models of price discovery and applies those methods to fuel-price data supplied by FCCC.
That raises another legitimate question.
Academic publishing normally requires each author to make a meaningful intellectual contribution to the work.
Readers are entitled to understand what those contributions were.
FCCC Data and Public Accountability
The paper states that all data were obtained from FCCC. That statement raises a separate and equally important issue.
Public agencies do not own public data. They hold it in trust for the public. Whenever public data are used in academic projects involving public officials and regulators, transparency becomes essential. Questions therefore arise regarding the extent of FCCC's involvement.
The Question That Refuses to Go Away: Was Anybody Paid?
The most persistent question surrounding FCCC-related research projects concerns money. Not because payment automatically implies wrongdoing. It does not. Researchers are frequently paid for consultancy work, commissioned studies, data analysis, policy reports, and academic collaborations. The issue is transparency.
These questions have become increasingly relevant given continuing public debate surrounding FCCC-funded research projects and reported payments associated with academic collaborations involving FCCC data. The public deserves clarity.
Why Was the Finance Minister Prasad Interested?
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the paper is not its methodology, data, or conclusions. It is the simple question of why Fiji's Finance Minister wanted to be a co-author. Finance Ministers are not ordinarily short of responsibilities.
They oversee national budgets. They formulate fiscal policy. They manage public finances. Yet in 2023, Biman Prasad found time to co-author a research note examining energy-price leadership and the implications for FCCC price regulation.
That fact alone invites scrutiny.
Was this simply a continuation of his long-standing academic interests?
Or was the paper intended to support broader government policy positions on regulation and price control? The distinction matters because independent regulators are expected to evaluate policy objectively rather than collaborate with politicians in promoting it.
Four Pages, Many Questions
Supporters of the paper may argue that critics are making too much of a modest four-page publication. Perhaps. Yet public accountability is not measured by page count.
A four-page paper can raise as many questions as a four-hundred-page report.
Indeed, the brevity of the paper makes some questions even harder to ignore.
And why did Fiji's Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad become a named author on a paper discussing regulatory policy alongside the chief executive of the regulator responsible for implementing that policy?
The paper may have concluded that premix fuel is Fiji's dominant energy-price leader.
What it has not answered is the growing list of questions surrounding the relationship between academic research, political office, regulatory independence, and public accountability.
Those questions remain very much alive.
Another academic paper carrying the name of former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad has emerged, adding fresh questions to the growing debate surrounding the relationship between government, academia, the Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission (FCCC), and publicly funded research.
The paper, Understanding Price Leadership in Fiji's Energy Market, was published in 2023 in the journal Energy Research Letters. It bears the names of Biman Chand Prasad, his former student and Monash University economist Paresh Kumar Narayan, and then FCCC Chief Executive Joel Abraham.
At only four pages long, the paper is not a major scholarly treatise. It is a short research note examining fuel-price movements in Fiji using data obtained from FCCC.
Yet its brevity may be precisely what makes its authorship so intriguing.
For unlike most academic publications, this was not a paper written solely by university researchers.
One author was NFP leader and the then Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad.
Another was the chief executive of Fiji's price regulator.
The third was a university economist whose work has increasingly become associated with FCCC-sponsored research projects.
That combination raises questions that extend far beyond the paper's technical conclusions.
The Minister and the Regulator
At the time the paper was submitted in June 2023, Biman Prasad was not simply an academic economist.
He was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
The paper itself prominently identifies him in that capacity before listing his adjunct academic affiliations.
Joel Abraham was likewise not acting merely as a private researcher.
He was Chief Executive of the FCCC, the statutory body responsible for regulating prices, promoting competition, and protecting consumers.
The paper discusses FCCC's role in regulating prices and concludes that regulatory attention should focus on premix fuel because it appears to be the dominant driver of energy-price movements in Fiji.
In other words, the paper was not merely about abstract economic theory.
It addressed an area of direct regulatory responsibility.
The obvious question therefore arises: Why was the Finance Minister co-authoring a paper with the chief executive of an independent regulator on matters that fell squarely within the regulator's jurisdiction?
Independent regulators exist precisely to maintain a degree of separation from political office holders.
That separation protects public confidence in regulatory decision-making.
When the head of the regulator and the Minister responsible for economic policy appear together as co-authors on a paper discussing regulatory priorities, questions naturally arise about where academic collaboration ends and policy advocacy begins.
What Exactly Was Biman Prasad's Contribution?
The paper contains sophisticated econometric terminology and relies heavily on statistical methodologies developed in earlier academic work by Paresh Narayan and other researchers.
It cites established models of price discovery and applies those methods to fuel-price data supplied by FCCC.
That raises another legitimate question.
- What precisely was Biman Prasad's contribution to the research?
- Did he participate in the econometric modelling?
- Did he conduct statistical analysis?
- Did he write significant portions of the paper?
- Did he provide policy input?
- Or was his name included because of his position as Finance Minister and economist?
- What was his role beyond providing access to FCCC data?
- Did he participate in drafting the analysis?
- Did he shape the policy conclusions?
- Or was his involvement primarily institutional?
Academic publishing normally requires each author to make a meaningful intellectual contribution to the work.
Readers are entitled to understand what those contributions were.
FCCC Data and Public Accountability
The paper states that all data were obtained from FCCC. That statement raises a separate and equally important issue.
- How was access to the data approved?
- Was there a formal agreement?
- Were the datasets made available to other researchers on similar terms?
- Could an independent economist, journalist, or academic have requested the same information?
- Or was access limited to selected collaborators?
Public agencies do not own public data. They hold it in trust for the public. Whenever public data are used in academic projects involving public officials and regulators, transparency becomes essential. Questions therefore arise regarding the extent of FCCC's involvement.
- How much staff time was devoted to the project?
- Were FCCC resources used to support the research?
- Were any internal FCCC analysts involved?
- Did FCCC formally authorise participation by its chief executive?
- If so, where is that approval recorded?
The Question That Refuses to Go Away: Was Anybody Paid?
The most persistent question surrounding FCCC-related research projects concerns money. Not because payment automatically implies wrongdoing. It does not. Researchers are frequently paid for consultancy work, commissioned studies, data analysis, policy reports, and academic collaborations. The issue is transparency.
- Were any payments made in connection with this paper or the broader FCCC research programme?
- Was Paresh Kumar Narayan paid?
- Did Monash University receive funding?
- Did James Cook University receive funding?
- Was Biman Prasad compensated in any way?
- Was Joel Abraham compensated beyond his normal remuneration?
- Were public funds used?
- If public funds were used, how much was spent?
- Who approved the expenditure?
- What procurement process was followed?
These questions have become increasingly relevant given continuing public debate surrounding FCCC-funded research projects and reported payments associated with academic collaborations involving FCCC data. The public deserves clarity.
Why Was the Finance Minister Prasad Interested?
Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the paper is not its methodology, data, or conclusions. It is the simple question of why Fiji's Finance Minister wanted to be a co-author. Finance Ministers are not ordinarily short of responsibilities.
They oversee national budgets. They formulate fiscal policy. They manage public finances. Yet in 2023, Biman Prasad found time to co-author a research note examining energy-price leadership and the implications for FCCC price regulation.
That fact alone invites scrutiny.
Was this simply a continuation of his long-standing academic interests?
Or was the paper intended to support broader government policy positions on regulation and price control? The distinction matters because independent regulators are expected to evaluate policy objectively rather than collaborate with politicians in promoting it.
Four Pages, Many Questions
Supporters of the paper may argue that critics are making too much of a modest four-page publication. Perhaps. Yet public accountability is not measured by page count.
A four-page paper can raise as many questions as a four-hundred-page report.
Indeed, the brevity of the paper makes some questions even harder to ignore.
- Who conceived the project?
- Who funded it?
- Who supplied the data?
- Who approved participation by FCCC?
- What role did each author actually play?
- Was anybody paid?
- How much public money was involved?
And why did Fiji's Finance Minister Biman Chand Prasad become a named author on a paper discussing regulatory policy alongside the chief executive of the regulator responsible for implementing that policy?
The paper may have concluded that premix fuel is Fiji's dominant energy-price leader.
What it has not answered is the growing list of questions surrounding the relationship between academic research, political office, regulatory independence, and public accountability.
Those questions remain very much alive.
From Fijileaks Archive, 3 May 2025
Richard Naidu to FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali
5 September 2024
Dear Barbara Malimali
"Prof Prasad was interviewed at FICAC on 12 August 2024 and 22 August 2024 in connection with alleged offences under s24 of the Political Parties Act 2013.
On 24 August I sent a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr Kuliniasi Saumi in connection with the investigations....On Tuesday 3 September 2024 (Fijileaks: a day before Malimali was appointed FICAC Commissioner) FICAC executed a search warrant at NFP's head office in Tamavua, Suva, and took possession of a number of documents.
Yesterday (4 September), at 6.53pm, Mr Saumi called me on my mobile phone. Mr Saumi advised that FICAC wished for Prof Prasad to attend at FICAC this afternoon for completion of his (Prasad's) caution interview. He indicated that FICAC's intention was to CHARGE (our emphasis) Prof Prasad.
I indicated to Mr Saumi that Prof Prasad would not resist any reasonable process but it was NOT reasonable for him to be required to attend at FICAC on less that 24 hours notice given his responsibilities.
First, this is a Parliament sitting week. Second, Mr Ajay Banga is making an official visit to Fiji this week. This is the first ever visit to Fiji, the World Bank is one of Fiji's largest development partner, and self-evidently the official who is his key contact in Fiji is the Minister of Finance (Biman Prasad).
Whatever is FICAC's view of Prof Prasad's conduct, it is NOT in anyone's interest, least of all Fiji's, for the Minister of Finance to be CHARGED with an offence in the middle of the visit."
5 September 2024
Dear Barbara Malimali
"Prof Prasad was interviewed at FICAC on 12 August 2024 and 22 August 2024 in connection with alleged offences under s24 of the Political Parties Act 2013.
On 24 August I sent a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr Kuliniasi Saumi in connection with the investigations....On Tuesday 3 September 2024 (Fijileaks: a day before Malimali was appointed FICAC Commissioner) FICAC executed a search warrant at NFP's head office in Tamavua, Suva, and took possession of a number of documents.
Yesterday (4 September), at 6.53pm, Mr Saumi called me on my mobile phone. Mr Saumi advised that FICAC wished for Prof Prasad to attend at FICAC this afternoon for completion of his (Prasad's) caution interview. He indicated that FICAC's intention was to CHARGE (our emphasis) Prof Prasad.
I indicated to Mr Saumi that Prof Prasad would not resist any reasonable process but it was NOT reasonable for him to be required to attend at FICAC on less that 24 hours notice given his responsibilities.
First, this is a Parliament sitting week. Second, Mr Ajay Banga is making an official visit to Fiji this week. This is the first ever visit to Fiji, the World Bank is one of Fiji's largest development partner, and self-evidently the official who is his key contact in Fiji is the Minister of Finance (Biman Prasad).
Whatever is FICAC's view of Prof Prasad's conduct, it is NOT in anyone's interest, least of all Fiji's, for the Minister of Finance to be CHARGED with an offence in the middle of the visit."
