Peters views damaging to migrants: Professor Shameem

Massey University's new migrants director Professor Shaista Shameem says  New Zealand First leader Winston Peters risks serious harm to new migrant communities in New Zealand with his speech on immigration yesterday.

"Mr Peters does not realise just how much distress he is causing the new migrant communities in New Zealand when he takes to the podium to make the kinds of remarks he made in his state of the nation address in Auckland," Professor Shameem says.

"Such speeches have the effect of encouraging and facilitating outright racism against new migrants in New Zealand and cause serious harm to the safety and security of minority groups who have made their home here.

"Before launching his anti-immigration missiles, Mr Peters should take a moment to consider how his words can make migrant children suffer as targets of racial violence in the playground and classrooms. He should also consider how his speeches have the effect of causing direct and indirect discrimination in the workplace. Many employers, fuelled by the words of an accomplished politician such as Mr Peters, make life very difficult for their new migrant workers through exploitation, humiliation and abuse.

"Immigration to New Zealand does not benefit only migrants, as Mr Peters alleges. While many of them face tough challenges at first, most end up making a better life for themselves and their families and, in the process, help make New Zealand more cosmopolitan and vibrant. We all know that new migrants contribute to expanding the cultural capital of New Zealand.

"Mr Peters should also realise that his speeches against immigration have the inevitable effect of causing harm to the already vulnerable members of migrant groups. Women and children of minority populations in particular are not in a position to protect themselves from being targets of racial hatred caused by the thoughtless and dangerous comments that Mr Peters often lets loose on the general public.

"Mr Peters may well have a point or two to make about past and present governments' migration policies; however, he should try to make those points without encouraging entrenchment of existing ethnic prejudices in our society."

Source:
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=62A9E325-EC47-9243-3F9B-84AA17C2D5B1

Senior New Migrant leader appointed: Professor Shaista Shameem

Massey University has appointed Professor Shaista Shameem to the newly created role of Director – New Migrants. Assistant Vice-Chancellor Māori and Pasifika, Dr Selwyn Katene says the new role is essential to meet the needs of the changing demographics of Aotearoa New Zealand.

“People from a number of different ethnicities now make up our country, and as a university of the new New Zealand, we need to ensure we consider the needs of these communities. This position will be integral to ensuring how Massey works effectively with new migrant constituents — especially in the Auckland region. Professor Shameem has strong academic law background both in New Zealand and internationally. She has worked with the United Nations on international human rights issues so she is fully equipped to lead," says Dr Katene.

Describing the position as both progressive and exciting, Professor Shameem says it shows Massey is looking to acquire new ways of thinking from new migrants. “New Zealand attracts new migrants all the time, making the country more vibrant and cosmopolitan. New migrants often bring with them a wealth of knowledge and experiences. Massey University - especially because of the work that Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley has completed - is streets ahead of any other institution in New Zealand to understand and address new migrant issues in a comprehensive way,” she says.

“I look forward to working with Massey colleagues to support and enhance the work the university has started, and to build on that excellent foundation.” A key focus for the incoming director will be to connect with and investigate how Massey can help ease issues for new migrants to New Zealand,

“New migrants face enormous challenges when they go to any country to study, and New Zealand is no exception. Having been a new migrant myself, I know from first-hand experience the issues that are encountered.”

According to Statistics New Zealand, in June 2013 Auckland’s population grew by over 21,000 people, with 32 per cent of this growth coming from net migration into the region.

Peters on Immigration:

"With immigration, few of the former objectives are present today. Previously, immigration filled skills gaps in employment, education, science, medicine and industry.

We bought in young men and women, young families who would reinvigorate our population and make a lifetime of contribution to our economy. They never embarked from offshore without first having a job and a house to live in.This policy resulted in a second generation proud to call themselves Kiwis.

For the past three decades New Zealand governments have adopted policies of open door immigration. Over the past five years the New Zealand population has had a turnover of twelve per cent.

In total half a million people have moved into and out of New Zealand. That is a staggering figure for a small country. New Zealand has gone from a nation of united people to an urban collection of communities, many clinging to where they were, rather than where they are now. We have the Chinese community, the Pacific Islands community, the Sri Lankans, the Indians - the list is endless. All hyphenated New Zealanders.

Now let’s be clear. A great number of these people have been enormous contributors to New Zealand’s economic and social life, but there has been a huge cost in infrastructural, educational, health and governmental demands.

All of these costs are being overlooked in an attempt to tell you that if only we increase our population, economic boom times will come. Well we’ve done that for the last 30 years, so where is the boom?

We are all proud of our heritage – we all come from somewhere else, even the Māori, but when we are here we should be New Zealanders. It’s as simple as this.

Our last census had boxes for virtually every race on earth. Except one. There was no box for you to tick that you are a New Zealander. There are more than 75 languages catered for by the Auckland health board.

Now, there are three official languages for New Zealand – English, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language. When people come to New Zealand, New Zealand First says they should fit in and contribute to our laws, our values, our culture, language and traditions.

That doesn’t mean abandoning identity. The Irish, Scots, Welsh, Dalmatians never did, nor did the Dutch, but if you look at our successful immigration programmes in the past, they were based on the critical things that people need – a house, health, education and skills, jobs and first world wages.

Sadly, New Zealand is losing many of its young, trained workers and replacing them often with untrained, unskilled immigrants. The very people who say today that we’ve got a population aging problem, by some intellectual gymnastics defend the policy that allows more than forty per cent of immigrants to New Zealand from one country to be over 50 years of age.

This policy is economic lunacy. Which New Zealand prime minister in the hundred years prior to 1984 would have tolerated this?

One of the disastrous consequences from this policy now sees hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in Australia being treated as second class citizens.

And when you hear politicians and commentators complaining about it, please ask them – what did you do, before or after 2001, to prevent this happening? No doubt they will cough and splutter and move on to a different subject.

And whilst we are at it, why is the Government issuing tens of thousands of work permits to foreigners when New Zealanders can’t get jobs?

Last year, just one example, endlessly repeated, the Government issued 49 essential work visas to foreigners to be checkout operators!

There is the old Greek saying – ‘those the gods would destroy, they first make mad’.

These unfocussed immigration policies and handing out of work visas like an eight-armed octopus happen because it means a flow of cheap labour that drags down wages and conditions.

Ladies and gentlemen, the next government must make serious changes to immigration.

The next government must focus on people we need, not people who need us.

Economics, like charity, begins at home."

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has been hailed by thousands of opposition supporters in Independence Square in the heart of Kiev after being freed from prison. She addressed the crowds there from her wheelchair.

"You are heroes, you are the best of Ukraine," she told the vast crowd before breaking down in tears. She was speaking after President Viktor Yanukovych had left the capital Kiev and MPs voted to impeach him.

But she warned that the protesters should not think their job was done. "Until you finish this job and until we travel all the way, nobody has the right to leave," she said. "Because nobody could do it - not other countries, nobody - could do what you have done. We've eliminated this cancer, this tumour.": BBC World News

"Hi everyone ... this will be the one and only statement regarding my reasons for resigning. As I'm sure you are aware, this was not an easy decision for me. I have always said the most important people at university are the students, and they will remain so but a series of decisions by various USP staff over the past month indicate to me that I was no longer in charge of the journalism department and therefore the duty of care to my students.

The main cause of my concern emerged when the former head of the department Shailendra Singh decided just 2 weeks before semester to apply (and be granted) 6 months more leave to complete his PhD. I have no issues with that application, but he had stated that he would return and all planning for the department for the semester was based on that. Without any consultation with the department as to how we would cope with this sudden about face, he was granted leave under the direction of HR.

This was not the first time that no consultation was undertaken with the specialist broadcasting lecturing position in the department taken out the budget for 2014 without discussing the implications of how we would teach radio or television this year ... the expectation was that I would cover those courses (this is not my area of expertise) including mine - teaching 5 courses again, as I had done for the past year.

I refused to do this given the lack of consultation regarding this issue. I set about finding someone but had to then go home to Australia to look after my sick mother. In the meantime, SLAM HoS had hired a person out of Australia without any consultation with me or Semi Francis ... The hire is a creative writer with no journalism degrees or media studies degrees but write on long-form journalism, which we do not teach in the department ... I complained and was told the decision had been made.

How will this help our students who need a radio lecturer this semester? The student simply did not want to complete the course and his mother, who is a USP Senior Lecturer, set about pressuring me to approve the waiver ... I refused and challenged her ethics on this matter - how can you be objective as a mother and a lecturer.

This is an example of favouritism that was prevalent under Shailendra Singh's watch as the programme's head. I have received numerous requests over the past year from students who have not completed any first year courses, but were waived through by Shailendra, to undertake second year courses.

This comes at a time when the industry is demanding why USP students are not well trained. The Senior Lecturer then applied directly to Yeates for the waiver which was approved on the grounds he was a third year graduating student, but he is not because he had not completed second year.

So in overturning my decision without any consultation, once again, USP has placed the programme and the university in a difficult situation because now all students will apply for waivers for courses they don't want to complete ... setting a dangerous precedent for the quality of journalism training in the Pacific Islands.

I based my decision on the integrity of a professional educator who had made this decision consistently and to policy over the past year ... no matter what decision I made from now on would have been overturned without consultation or due consideration to other students who have to complete their degree programme set down by the university.

Is this fair or ethical? Well make what you will of it. I simply could no longer live with others making decisions on a programme that we rebuilt and was working towards its goals.

I believe I leave USP with my integrity and professionalism still intact ... but questions need to be asked of a number of people who have contributed to this situation without any consideration for the programme, its staff and especially its students. Yes there is much more to this ... questions I cannot answer because when I challenged these decisions I was told ...decision has been done, you have to live with it It's a shame ... We have brilliant first years come through and sensational second years  Imagine what we could have done with no one interfering and undermining what we had achieved" "

Fijileaks Editor: We are waiting for a comment from Singh.

Fiji High Court judge Justice Kamal Kumar has refused the Fiji Rugby Union’s attempt to have Digicel’s court action dismissed from the High Court. The FRU had claimed that a dispute between Digicel and the FRU over the matching last right of refusal should have been covered by the compulsory arbitration clause in Digicel’s expired sponsorship contract.

FRU board members will now have to explain in court and under oath the exact timing, legal advice received, board deliberations and minutes taken, during the sponsorship discussions and why the FRU ignored Digicel’s offer to match Vodafone’s $16.5-17m cash offer and signed with Frank’s favourite phone company anyway.

The Digicel action continues on February 25. The FRU’s High Performance Gym was officially closed down, a victim of the FRU’s decision to brush aside the International Rugby Board’s concerns about financial competence, government interference and transparency. The HPU Gym was paid for directly from the IRB’s £1m ($3,3m) annual development grant, which was suspended in the New Year

By Professor Wadan Narsey

The Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF), is the largest financial institution in Fiji in terms of assets, bigger than the commercial banks combined, and the largest lender to the Fiji Government.

The members of the FNPF (current contributors and pensioners) number around two hundred thousands, or roughly 40% of all the voters for the coming elections in Fiji. They represent an extremely powerful “voting block”.

The Bainimarama Government recently defended their extra-legal policy changes at FNPF. They claimed that previous governments had used the FNPF as their  “piggy bank” (Fiji Sun, 7 Feb. 2014).

This last statement is certainly correct, but that criticism can equally be leveled at the Bainimarama Government itself, with more serious criticisms, including their massive reduction of pension rates from 15% to 9%.

Further, despite being in control for seven years, this Bainimarama Government has done nothing to ensure that future governments will not be able to control and use the FNPF as their “piggy bank”.

Mismanagement of FNPF

This Bainimarama Government is an unelected government which seized power through a military coup in 2006. Marginalizing both unions and employers who used to nominate their representatives to the FNPF Board, the Bainimarama Government appointed all the FNPF board members, some of whom have been non-citizens, and some who have Permanent Residency in other countries.

By military decree the Bainimarama Government and the FNPF Board, forced through a massive decrease in pension rates of all pensioners.

The FNPF propaganda has focused only on those who used to enjoy admittedly over-generous rates above 15% (to as much as 25%)- but even these were voluntarily offered by FNPF as legal contracts and accepted by those pensioners.

But the official propaganda ignores the more significant reduction of future pension rates from 15% to 9%, with grave public doubts about the fairness of the 9% rate.

Existing pensioners who chose not to accept the 9% pension rates were forced to withdraw their original sums, despite a clear legal contract being in place between them and FNPF.

These reductions were forced through, despite the fact that the pensioners’ had mounted legal challenge, which had been accepted for hearing by Fiji’s High Court.

The FNPF  management, against all rules of good corporate practice, have arrogantly assumed the right to state and justify major changes in FNPF policies, which should properly be the domain of a lawfully appointed Board.

Even private expatriate consultants from Australia and NZ, have justified the policy changes through the media, implicitly supporting the unlawful military decrees.

The FNPF Board has mismanaged a number of major investments, in particular those at Natadola, Momi and the GPH, resulting in the writing down of hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. Undesirable loans have also been made, such as to Fiji Sugar Corporation.

The FNPF Board and Management have refused to release any of the reports of inquiries into the mismanagement of the investments, making a mockery of the frequent claims of transparency and accountability made by the FNPF Board and the Bainimarama Government.

What voters should ask political parties:

Voters in the coming elections must make the governance of FNPF an important election issue.

Voters must ask all political parties, including any party that Commodore Bainimarama might set up, what their policies will be on a thorough reform of the management of FNPF, including the following:

(a) Two thirds of the  Board of the FNPF (and the Chairman) must be elected for five year terms by the members of the FNPF.

(b) The legal case that pensioners had in the courts must be reactivated, with the judiciary requested to hand down a lawful solution to the case, which could include (c) below.

(c) The FNPF Board commission a thorough independent review that recommends a fair pension rate that is consistent with the long-term sustainability of FNPF.

(d) To strengthen accountability and transparency of the FNPF Board, all reports into the mismanagement of FNPF funds as well as the reports that have justified the recent changes in pensions, be made public.

Readers may wish to refer to some of my previous posts on FNPF and its activities in the Fiji economy here:
https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/?s=FNPF
and in particular
https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/fnpf-transition-decree-last-nail-in-the-fnpf-coffin-2011-blog/
or the full Report for the Burness/Shameem case:
Narsey Report for Burness-Shameem case 13 August 2011.

The Ministry of Education's Iranian-style "Religious Police Unit" has been warning principals of Government owned schools not to carry out Christian devotion and prayers in their schools.  WHY?

According to the MoE these devotional prayers are in breach of Section 4(3) (b) & ( c ) of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2013 foisted upon the pupils and parents of Fiji. Khaiyum's law states: religion and the state are separate, which means : 

(b)“The state and  all person holding public office  must not  dictate any religious belief ",  and ( c) “the state and all person holding public office must  not prefer or advance , by any means any particular religion  , religious  denomination, religious belief  or religious practice over others, or over any non-religious belief "

The Ministry of Education also argues that employees of Government owned schools are officers of the State or public office holders.

Public office holders must not advance  by any means any particular religion over others, meaning that Government-owned schools can not promote or seen to be promoting, advocating, a particular religious denomination or belief.

But it is perfectly legal for Bainimarama to be seen bowing his head in Christian prayers with the soldiers or Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum to be praying with his Muslim brethren.

WHY? For under their draconian decree they have exempted themselves as "public officers" in Fiji. BIGOTRY and double standard in play in post-coup Fiji.

Oh, pity, ye our Christian children in Bainimarama-Khaiyum government owned schools.

We say with Francis of Assisi to the Principals: "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

By RAJENDRA CHAUDHRY

Background:

General George S Patton Jr once said: “It is a proud privilege to be a soldier – a good soldier … [with] discipline, self-respect, pride in his unit and his country, a high sense of duty and obligation to comrades and to his superiors, and a self confidence born of demonstrated ability.”

The Fiji military force is established under the RFMF Act. It is thus a creature of statute. Its function is stated under section 3 of the RFMF Act as:

3. (1) There shall be established in Fiji forces to be known as the Royal Fiji Military Forces (hereinafter called the Forces).

(2) The Forces shall be charged with the defence of Fiji, with the maintenance of order and with such other duties as may from time to time be defined by the Minister.

It has a command structure where the President is Commander in Chief and the ministerial direction comes from the Minister of Home Affairs, although Frank Bainimarama openly flouted this reporting requirement post 2001.

History

The RFMF has been a Fijian (indigenous Fijian) institution from the outset, although certain non Fijian persons have held commissions and senior posts (Major V V Singh and Mohammed Aziz).

The RFMF has produced fine soldiers such as Talaiasi Labalaba, Safanaia Sukanaivalu and Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna. Its commanders included persons of high stature such as Ratu Edward Cakobau and Ratu Epeli Ganilau.

The first and perhaps indelible blemish on the RFMF was the extra constitutional act on 14 May 1987. The second was on 19 May 2000 and the third was on 5 December 2006. In all these acts of treason, the military command was directly involved. In State v Seniloli [2004] FJHC 48; HAC0028.2003S (5 August 2004), Shameem J said this of treason:

“What is treason? Treason is any act or acts done, for some public or general cause, to overthrow or remove the established Government, unlawfully and by force. Treason includes any act of forcible resistance to the authority of the government of the day in some public way. A takeover of Parliament, and the taking of the Government as hostages, in order to prevent the Government from lawfully exercising its powers, or of the Head of State from doing so, is treason. The forming of an illegal or rebel government to replace the lawful government is treason if accompanied by an intent to so replace the lawful government by illegal means.”

The 1987 and 2000 coups were carried out with military direction and support under the belief and justification that Fijian interests were under threat under an FLP led government. It was also supported to a large extent by the business community which has long opposed the idea of greater accountability in the conduct of its business as it relates to revenue and taxation and labour laws.

The 2006 coup and the hoodwinking of the military by Bainimarama

The 2006 coup however defied the ‘threat to Fijian interests’ tag. It was carried out by Bainimarama under the pretext of a clean up campaign to eradicate corruption and racism. The real motive for the act of treason by Bainimarama was to avoid being charged for the murders of the CRW soldiers in November 2000.

Bainimarama, used the military machinery to put into effect his extra constitutional act – which was subsequently confirmed as unlawful by the Court of Appeal on or around 9 April 2009.

The High Court (Coram Gates, Byrne and Pathik) held that Bainimarama’s takeover was lawful on the doctrine of necessity. It appears that the members of the Court were obviously blind to the profound words of Gates J in Prasad v Republic of Fiji & Attorney-General (No 4) [2000] FJHC 269, where he said:

”It is obvious that an usurpation of the power of Parliament, that is the Parliament consisting of the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives by subverting or abrogating the Constitution does not amount to an amendment within the supreme law. A challenge made in this way is an unlawful act.”

In a damning judgment, which overturned the High Court decision of legitimizing the coup on grounds of necessity, the FCA made the following declarations and orders:

[171] The court hereby:

'(1) Declares that:

(a) the assumption of executive authority and the declaration of a state of emergency by the first respondent;

(b) the dismissal of the first appellant from the office of Prime Minister and the appointment of Dr Jona Baravilala Senilagakali as caretaker Prime Minister;

(c) the advice that Parliament be dissolved by Dr Senilagakali;

(d) the order by the first respondent that the Parliament be dissolved;

(e) the appointment on 5 January 2007 of the first respondent as interim Prime Minister and of other persons as his ministers by President Uluivuda;

(f) the purported Ratification and Validation of the Declaration and Decrees of the Fiji Military Government Decree of 16 January 2007, subsequently renamed as a promulgation of the Interim Government of the Republic of Fiji, by which decree President Uluivuda purported to validate and confirm the dismissal of the first appellant as Prime Minister of Fiji, the appointment of Dr Senilagakali as caretaker Prime Minister and the dissolution of Parliament; were unlawful acts under the Fiji Constitution.

(2) Declares that in the events that have occurred it would be lawful for the President acting pursuant to s109(2) of the Fiji Constitution, or as a matter of necessity, to appoint a caretaker Prime Minister to advise a dissolution of the Parliament and the issuance of writs for the election of members of the House of Representatives.'

President Josefa Iloilo then abrogated the 1997 Constitution on 10th April 2009 and imposed emergency rule till January 2012. The emergency rule was facilitated by the use of military officers to quell any opposition to the illegal administration of Bainimarama. It was characterized by an open contempt for the rule of law.

Human rights abuses, by the military and police under Bainimarama’s orders, were rife and the role of courts became subservient and pliant to the dictates of an illegal regime.

The courts, headed by the once esteemed and respected Anthony Gates, was controlled, manipulated and directed by the illegal attorney general Aiyaz Khaiyum and former High Court judge and one of the principal beneficiaries of the abrogation of the constitution, Nazhat Shameem. Gates, seems only to appear at the obligatory court ceremonies and the occasional cocktail and is said to be contemplating retirement in August 2014.

The use of the military to mount an assault on indigenous rights

Native land

Post abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, Bainimarama has, using military muscle to bully the chiefs and church leaders. This has been by way of intimidation and/or the laying of trumped up charges.

The GCC, which under section (3) (1), nominated 5 members of the Board, has had this statutory right removed.  Instead, the GCC quota is now nominated by the Government. This has serious implications for native landowners given that their trustees (the GCC) have been removed from nominating persons who would represent their interests on the Board.

Further, the list of 3 more names of Board members as drawn up from nominations by the respective provincial councils has also been removed with the outlawing of provincial councils. The duty of the FAB is stated in the Fijian Affairs Act (s 4(4)) and reads:

(4) It shall be the duty of the Board, in addition to any powers or duties especially conferred upon it, to submit to the Minister such recommendations and proposals as it may deem to be for the benefit of the Fijian people, to consider such questions relating to the good government and well being of the Fijian people as the Minister may from time to time submit to the Board and to refer such questions to the Council or to take decisions or submit recommendations thereon.

Clearly, the FAB had a duty under the Fijian Affairs Act to act in the interest of the Fijian people as it related to good governance and benefit of the Fijian people.

With the changes to the NLTA, by the illegal regime, means that of the maximum of 12 Board members, the illegal regime controls 10, and which includes the President and the Prime Minister. The architect of such changes is Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and is advised by Sharvada Sharma, the Solicitor General.

The unilateral changes to the NLTA effectively means that the trustees of native land, that is the GCC, does not have any say in how native land matters are addressed. This is simply preposterous and an affront to every indigenous Fijian, who no longer has any say on how his/ her land is to be used. In effect, by the changes to section 3 (1), the illegal regime has effectively usurped all rights and interests in native land from the landowners onto themselves. This change was a corollary to the establishment of the Land Bank.

The arbitrary changes to the Native Land Trust Act (re lease money distribution, and changes to the appointment of the Board from the President to the Prime Minister) is clearly a direct assault on the rights the Fijian people to determine how they want their land to be utilized. It is trite that to an indigenous race, the land is the most important asset and which forms a connection with their culture, tradition and matters alike.

What it means in simple terms is that the indigenous Fijian no longer has a say in how native land will be used. The illegal regime, by controlling and manipulating all appointments to the NLTB will effectively control all transactions relating to native land. All other interested parties will simply be left out. This is an alarming prospect and which exposes the indigenous peoples to great insecurity as an illegal regime has effectively taken away their right to determine the usage of native land. It is time to wake up and act against this threat.

GCC

The outlawing of the GCC, ironically by Nailatikau, himself a chief, on 14 March 2012, is a further assault on indigenous rights. The GCC was accorded statutory recognition pursuant to section 3 of the Fijian Affairs Act, which reads:

Great Council of Chiefs

3.-(1) There shall be in respect of the Fijian people a council called the Great Council of Chiefs which shall consist of such number of appointed, elected and nominated persons as the Governor-General may by regulation prescribe.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Council, in addition to any powers or duties especially conferred upon it, to submit to the Governor-General such recommendations and proposals as it may deem to be for the benefit of the Fijian people, and to consider such questions relating to the good government and well being of the Fijian people as the Governor-General or the Board may from time to time submit to the Council, and to take decisions or make recommendations thereon.

The role of the GCC has been codified as stated above and in all of Fiji’s three previous constitutions, as publicly mandated, it has played an important role in ensuring the indigenous rights are adequately addressed by nominating members to the Senate [s64 (1) (a) in the 1997 Constitution] and also having an important role in the appointment of the President [s90 of the 1997 Constitution]. The GCC’s role, however, extends beyond the statutory functions prescribed in various legislations. It is also an important body in the daily affairs and unity of the indigenous peoples.

Rupeni Nayacakalou in his book, Leadership in Fiji (1975), said this of the GCC:

Councils of chiefs had long been important in Fijian political life, and the chiefs who assembled to discuss ceding their islands to the British Crown formed, perhaps, the greatest of such assemblies. Although in pre-colonial times there had been no enduring council of representatives from all chiefdoms, the GCC can be said to have roots in Fijian tradition – as well as in the ideas of British colonial officials. It is the classic ‘neo-traditional’ institution, established through a blending of traditional forms of rank and political procedure with colonial law and its administrative and consultative requirements.

Discussion

History has shown us that the GCC has always been a consultative body. It has been consulted and has been responsible for many very important decisions affecting Fiji. The GCC, unlike the individual chiefs, is an institution. This organisation was specifically set up to protect the interests of the Fijian people. Its role is perhaps best summed up by one of Fiji’s greatest sons, Ratu Sukuna, who said:

"We are the High Chiefs of these islands. We are the leaders of the people. On us is the duty of pointing out to them the right course. Bear this in mind. We have to lead on two points- hold back those who advocate radical changes (for which we are not sufficiently educated) and enliven the laggards before their ignorance destroys us."

Bainimarama’s attack thus on native land and the GCC, through the use of direct or threatened force or other methods of coercion, involving the military is totally unacceptable and un Fijian. It is actually an act of treachery.

The military, whose duty it is to defend Fiji, as enshrined in the RFMF Act, is actually being used by Bainimarama to destroy Fiji in every manner shape or form to fulfill his agenda of being an absolute ruler or more appropriately a tin pot tyrant.

• It (RFMF) is being used to give effect to a regime which was declared as unlawful by a court of law. That decision was not stayed (on account of Khaiyum’s misguided decision to abrogate the 1997 Constitution) and as such is good law.

• It is being used to ensure that that the illegal and anti Fijian changes to the NLTA is effected and which will create instability and socio economic malaise for the Fijian and general population.

• It is being used to decimate the chiefly system that has been the guide of the Fijian people for over 140 years.

• It is used to remove provincial councils and other instruments of Fijian administration.

• It is being used to emasculate the Church, which has stood as a beacon of hope and faith for the Fijian and other peoples since Fiji embraced Christianity after Fiji was ceded to Britain circa 1874.

• It is used to carry out the corrupt and thieving agenda of a treasonous regime which has refused to publicise the Auditor General’s reports from 2006.

• It is used to shield the illegal regime from declaring its annual salaries, allowances and other benefits an.

• It has been used by the illegal regime to ensure that any objection to matters of good governance is thwarted by actual or threats of force and allowing family members of Bainimarama and Khaiyum to occupy positions in the civil service and statutory organizations.

• It has been used by the illegal regime as a buffer, from the people who seek to have a say in how they will be governed, by trashing the Ghai constitution and replacing it with the BaiYum con-stitution.

• Used by the illegal regime to campaign for Bainimarama when he is prohibited by law to be doing such a thing.

• Used by the illegal regime to settle hundreds of Chinese of valuable State and native land, without following proper immigration and land use laws.

• Used by the illegal regime to strip workers rights (ENI), political rights (PPRD), reduce pensions (FNPF), purchase aircrafts without due diligence (Air Pacific), facilitate mining without the consent of the landowners or an EIA (Namosi/ Bua) and offering for sale, to businesses, crown land in Lautoka belonging to the Lautoka City Council and as used by the rate payers of Lautoka.

It is about time the military woke up to the charade that Bainimarama is playing and the fact that they are being used in the oppression of the Fijian people and also those of other races. I ask the RFMF officers to heed the words in Ecclesiastes 5:8 , which reads:

“If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for [he that is] higher than the highest regardeth; and [there be] higher than they.”

What needs to be done

The RFMF must not condone oppression. It must stand up to it. If Bainimarama issues orders that break the law and stifle the will of the people, then the RFMF has a duty to disobey such an order.  This was established in the Nuremburg trials and also in Fiji in State v Nayacalagilagi [2009] FJHC 73, where Goundar J said:

"While I consider your motive to arrest the deceased and the complainants were to maintain law and order in the country, I cannot ignore that you breached

your legal duty to protect them from any harm whatsoever whilst they were in your custody. Instead of being the custodian of law, you took the law into your own hands and became both the jury of guilt and executor of punishment. Every detainee in this country is entitled to the constitutional guarantees such due process of law and protection from degrading and inhumane treatment. By your conduct you denied the deceased and the complainants the due process of law that you enjoyed in this trial."

The Pita Driti trial has further demonstrated that Bainimarama will sacrifice anybody to secure his position as the head of an illegal regime. He has and will continue to use the military to further his agenda. Military officers who support him in the discharge of their orders, which sees them committing acts of unlawfulness must realize that they will be held to account under a democratically elected and duly constituted Parliament. The RFMF must thus immediately remove itself from lending any support in any manner shape of form where they are in breach of the laws of Fiji. They must remember that the Driti case has effectively rendered the immunity provisions in the BaiYum con-stitution to be without effect.

Most importantly for the RFMF, it is an institution of Fijian solidarity, culture and tradition. It has been an institution of importance and its officers have done Fiji proud in the service of their country in duty and in sports over the years. It is also an institution steeped in religious tradition.

The officers, generally are deeply religious and persons of good values. All these values are connected intrinsically to the chiefly system and the Church – the very things Bainimarama has sought to destroy since 2006. His comments on the military continuing what it started in 2000 are a red herring. It is to deflect attention and to have him submit to the rule of law.

Since 2000, there have been 2 elections, the military officers have voted in each of these elections and no issues were raised about anything on matters of corruption. The court system was operational, the media was free to report on matters as it saw fit and Parliament was listening to the people.

As with any Parliament there were opposing views, grandstanding and political banter but at the end of the day the majority decision under a multi party system (in 2006) showed that political difficulties could be overcome through tough negotiations and goodwill.

It is time the RFMF woke up to reality and did what needs to be done and that is to get Bainimarama to submit to the rule of law.

They must work within the confines of the RFMF Act and in the defence of Fiji from Bainimarama’s onslaught on national interests. Anything less is simply unacceptable. Not doing anything now will invite the curse from their future generations of having sold off their identity, land, tradition and freedom for money.

It will be a befitting indictment if the RFMF continue to be fiddling their thumbs while Fiji drowns in the throes of lawlessness, recession and extreme poverty. The time to act is now.

The end of the current board of the Fiji Rugby Union may soon be in sight, after Fiji Leaks was able to confirm that the value assigned to the 10-team Vodafone Cup is only $350,000 for this season – as compared to $420,000 when it was the Digicel Cup last year.

It shows how little real cash is being generated by Frank’s favourite mobile company which had promised a $40m sponsorship deal but is actually offering only 40 percent of that – just under $17m in cash and player bonuses. The other $23m is corporate padding, including Vodafone corporate promotional spend of $2.5m per year, and similar padding from other regime-friendly companies like CJ Patel, Fijian Holdings, who have joined in this ill-advised consortium.

The $70,000 decrease in cash paid out to the ten major provincial unions has lit a touch paper, after the provincial unions were bamboozled by the FRU at this month’s special general meeting with talk of a 10-storey redevelopment of Rugby House and net rental incomes of $400,000 a month.

Such big talk has fuelled expectations and major unions were all united around their demands for a substantial rise with Bainimarama brother-in-law Francis ‘Killer’ Kean, who chairs the Suva Rugby Union, saying he was expecting nothing less than a ten-fold increase - $280,000 per union.

The financial terms of the 2014 Vodafone Cup have still not been relayed to the provincial unions.

Hanging over the heads of the FRU board is the prospect of the annual general meeting in April when this board – chaired by Frank’s nominee and PS Finance – have to explain how a) they blew £1m in grant money from the IRB, b) accepted a deal with Vodafone that provided for less cash for the major provincial competition than Digicel provided, c) how the FRU managed to get itself in such a legal mess with a relatively straightforward sponsorship renewal.

It is believed that a Suva – Nadroga axis is getting ready to ‘coup’ the current board.

And still not noticed or debated in the Fiji media is how the new Vodafone deal has slashed the bonuses to the 7s players – on whose back the frenzied bidding war between Digicel and Vodafone has been carried. Under the Digicel agreement, more than $66,000 was split between the winning squad. Now that has been cut to $25,000.

Those who were at Nadi Airport and saw the 7s team return from the Wellington 7s into the grinning bearhugs of Vodafone CEO Aslam Khan could not have failed to notice that they looked less than impressed at a share of $10,000 – almost half what they would have got under Digicel last year, when beaten semifinalists got $19,000.

February,17th 2014
The Editor
Fiji Sun
SUVA

Dear Sir

Embracing the Usurpers Of our democracy

I note with much sadness that Australia and New Zealand, the once unwavering ANZAC team, have finally bowed to the usurpers of our democracy and have opted to ‘Embrace’ rather than ‘Engage’ with the Bainimarama Regime.

In doing so they are sending a very clear and dangerous signal to all Pacific Island nations that military coups can eventually win the support of the ANZAC team as a viable alternative means of changing a government then via the ballot box.

In the end, what Foreign Ministers Bishop and McCully have signaled to Fiji citizens is that the national interests of Australia and New Zealand come ahead of the plight of the oppressed and disenfranchised people of Fiji.

A keen and clearly excited Mrs Bishop announced that Commodore Bainimarama was laughing in the meeting she had with him. Well of course he would be laughing. 

Mrs Bishop had been to see him personally and had then presented him with a signed Rugby jersey!  This was shortly after Commodore Bainimarama's Attorney General, Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, had described Australia's policy towards Fiji as an abomination.

There can be no doubt that the Commodore would have regarded Mrs Bishop's visit to him as an act of appeasement, on Australia’s part and a diplomatic victory for him. The signed Rugby jersey being the icing on his cake.

It appears to me that both Australia and New Zealand are making all the concessions, with nothing in return. They know full well that many of the required steps for transparent, free and fair elections are still unfulfilled. We still live in a dictatorship, repressive decrees are still in place and the Attorney-General remains in effective control of the election process and there is no way he will concede power to the Electoral Commission.

So on face of it, Australia and New Zealand unlike some of the smaller but principally stronger Pacific Island nations have thrown the towel in and surrendered to coups and illegal take over’s in the Pacific.

They appear to be nervously unwilling to firmly hold the regime accountable to the norms of democratic principles and values that Australians and New Zealanders expect of their governments.

The decisions of Foreign Ministers Bishop and McCully over the weekend make the words of Gordon Livingston MD seem appropriate - ’Ignorance can be remedied, but stupidity has no cure' 

Mick Beddoes
Sabeto