Oh, how #hypocritical,PM?

Prime Minister Bainimarama deserves to be crowned THE GREATEST HYPOCRITE OF ALL TIMES for his statement to COP 23 representatives in Bonn, Germany on Friday.

Bainimarama said he will promote the Pacific concept of talanoa which was “a process of inclusive participatory and transparent dialogue that built empathy and led to decision-making for the collective good mostly practised in Fiji”.

He must certainly be speaking of a mythical Fiji which does not exist except in his own confused mind.

The world knows that there is nothing even remotely resembling inclusiveness or participatory dialogue in so far as decision-making is concerned in Fiji.

The 2013 imposed constitution is a classic example of this fact – a constitution imposed on the people against their will.

Approaches by the Opposition parties for dialogue on important national issues are snubbed by him – a recent example was the call for setting up a bipartisan committee for the sugar industry.

As for finger pointing and laying blame, his Attorney General Aiyaz Khaiyum was doing exactly that as the PM was speaking in Bonn. Khaiyum was bluffing an organised gathering of students at the Montford Technical Institute in Savusavu blaming past politicians for not doing enough to develop good roads.

Bainimarama and Khaiyum have been playing the blame game for the past 10 years, blissfully ignoring the fact that the overall situation in the country has deteriorated significantly under their watch in 10 years – high cost of living, rising poverty and crime, falling health and education standards etc,etc.

Well, Bainimarama and Khaiyum have been conning people for a long time but their con game now stands exposed. They have failed to deliver and the people want truthful answers from them for the mess they have made of our beautiful country.

As we today observe the 17th anniversary of Fiji’s 3rd coup d’etat on 19 May 2000 which deposed Labour Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and his government, it seems an opportune time to ask whether Fiji has really put the coup culture behind it.

The question is particularly appropriate as we head towards the 2018 national polls considering that at every general election since 2000 the spectre of another coup, should Labour win, has been raised to intimidate voters and arouse fears. Laisenia Qarase did it in 2001 and 2006. Frank Bainimarama did it just days before the 2014 polls.

The issue becomes even more relevant when one concedes that the two major protagonists in the upcoming 2018 elections will both be former Army commanders and coup strongmen – Frank Bainimarama and Sitiveni Rabuka. No doubt they continue to enjoy support within the armed forces.

The RFMF has been the major destabilising force in Fiji’s recent history. It was the key perpetrator in the 1987 coups, the main force behind the 2000 coup and again, the perpetrator of the 2006 coup. How can we forget that in leaving the country post-2000 coup, the commander of the 3FIR battalion of the RFMF, LT-Col Viliame Seruvakula bemoaned the fact that the Army had lost its professionalism.

This is not to say that other elements were not involved. In both the 1987 and 2000 coups, the army was instigated by failed politicians, ultra nationalist elements who were bent on pushing through their supremacist agendas, greedy opportunists who saw their own advantage in destabilising the country and, of course, unscrupulous businessmen who can only thrive an in environment that fosters lawlessness and corruption. The latter have been the major financiers of the 1987 and 2000 coups.

Unfortunately, this oligarchy of anti-democratic forces is still at large and the majority of them have escaped justice. They are either too powerful or too wealthy to be touched in a country where justice remains shaky or enquiries can be silenced.

Fiji’s coups have been its major stumbling block in terms of social, economic and political progress Each coup has set the country back enormously. Jobs were lost, families were split as thousands fled to seek security and a stable future overseas, a lot of pain and suffering was inflicted on innocent people. The country itself lost thousands of skilled personnel and professionals – a loss which is still being felt.

The 2000 coup was without doubt the most vicious, violent and turbulent political crisis ever experienced in Fiji. Members of the elected government were held at gun point for 56 days. The rest of the country was plunged into months of lawlessness and anarchy as rebel supporters ran riot in the capital city burning and looting, hapless rural communities were terrorised, rebels played havoc with our power supply and other essential services, while those who had usurped power haggled among themselves as to who should govern the country. Not to mention the unnecessary loss of lives in the violence.

The situation appears to get worse with every coup. The past 11 years since the 2006 coup, for instance, have been another traumatic experience for Fiji. For 6 long years since 2009 our people were subjected to authoritarian rule under draconian decrees which took away our fundamental rights and imposed rigid press censorship. There were many horrific human rights violations.

Nothing has changed since the 2014 general elections and the seeming restoration of parliamentary democracy. The oppressive decrees are still in force and political parties and the media still operate under threat of huge fines and long prison terms.

The imposed 2013 constitution is seriously flawed. A number of our fundamental rights, although enshrined, are completely or substantially derogated by decrees and other subsidiary legislation. The Constitution has drawn condemnation from the United Nations Human Rights Council which called for its comprehensive review to ensure that it provides for separation of powers and that it reflects the “will and aspirations of the people of Fiji”.

The 2013 constitution carries in itself the seeds of instability and so there can be no guarantee that Fiji will not suffer further destabilisation and political turmoil. Free, fair and credible elections are just not possible under this Constitution and the accompanying laws and oppressive decrees.

The Bainimarama government appears averse to making the changes recommended by the Multinational Observer Group and the Fiji Electoral Commission in their 2014 reports to enhance the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. This renews fears of another rigged election with ensuing instability.

All these make it imperative that opposition parties unite to fight for a level playing field to defeat the reactionary forces now in control of the nation.
There is no other way to 2018.

By VICTOR LAL
The Fiji Sun
June 2007

The coup culture in Fiji, the Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry recently told India, was part of the political process, which he hopes will be eradicated when we return to democracy. Back home, the Interim Government has embarked on finding the causes of the coup culture, and how a stop could be made to it. Maybe, it should begin by interrogating the views of one its own – Mr Chaudhry who, in 2002, wrote up a detailed thesis on the coup culture in the country.

His views titled “The Aftermath of a Coup: Power grabs and destabilization in Fiji” are contained in The Parliamentarian, the journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, and the views were expressed after he was overthrown in part-Fijian George Speight’s 2000 coup.

Mr Chaudhry contended that the security forces posed the biggest threat to the stability to any democratically elected government in Fiji. The people of Fiji, he reminded his fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians, had been victims of three military coups to date. “The events of the past two years in particular have shown that neither the police nor the army can be trusted to uphold the constitution and maintain law and order. No elected government that is not of their choice will ever be safe in this country if this situation is allowed to go unchecked,” he wrote. Indeed, unless this situation is negated, he claimed, “Fiji will simply become another Indonesia where the military has formed an oligarchy with allegedly corrupt politicians and business interests”.

He claimed in his analysis that the Fijian army was split along provincial loyalties, was ethnically biased and some from among its ranks had allegedly become dangerous mercenaries. Mr Chaudhry maintained that the military had maintained a power bloc with corrupt politicians, unscrupulous businessmen and factional groups from the three Fijian confederates and the provinces to ensure that the held the reins of government, irrespective of who won the elections. He even claimed that the Fiji Police Force had been infiltrated by the army and could no longer be trusted to maintain law and order. The whole issue of security, he claimed, had racial overtones. Indo-Fijians and indeed Indo-Fijian politicians could no longer trust either the army or the police. “Racial parity both in the police force and in the army is, therefore, imperative,” he said.

What about the role of Commodore Frank Bainimarama in the 2000 crisis? In the same issue of The Parliamentarian the recently deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase had expressed his own views about the reasons for the coup culture in Fiji under the title “Rebuilding peace, stability and prosperity in Fiji”. Typically, he had defended the attempted coup in the now famous “Tagi ni Taukei” theory. According to him, on 19 May 2000 he was visiting one of the country’s outer islands as chairman of a select committee of the Senate when “suddenly someone came rushing into the meeting room to relay a radio report about an attempted coup in the capital Suva”. The news, according to him, stunned the committee members, and they were all filled with apprehension about the consequences for the country. In a set of circumstances Mr Qarase could never have imagined, he was asked to take a leadership role in steering Fiji back from the brink.

According to Mr Qarase, the military took action to protect the safety and security of citizens and the integrity of the state. It was never, he claimed, their intention to form a permanent military government. They were committed, especially, to ensuring Mr Chaudhry and other hostages were freed unharmed. They succeeded in that after very complex negotiations. He pointed out that the army returned to the barracks at the end of 2001, when the National Security Council judged that law and order had improved to the point when the police could again resume their normal role.

Reflecting on the first days after 19 May 2000, Mr Qarase told his fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians: “I followed the drama of the insurrection closely, as a citizen very much concerned for his country. Fiji was experiencing an unprecedented ordeal and when the army moved I felt it had an opportunity to bring back order and help people to feel safe in their homes again. But at no stage did I think I would be called on to play a part in the saving of the country.” As we know, Mr Qarase’s whole career had been in the civil service, development banking and commercial finance.

According to him, in early June, Commodore Bainimarama asked him if he could give financial advice to the military administration. “I did not hesitate. In my view-and that of many others-the army was motivated out of concern for the country. It gave hope when all was darkness. It was not long after this that I was asked by Commodore Bainimarama to head an interim civilian cabinet with freedom to appoint Ministers of my choice. There was a more difficult decision to make here. Acceptance meant giving up a well-paying and secure post as Managing Director of Merchant Bank. I would be moving into an extremely volatile and possibly dangerous political environment. I had my wife, children, and grandchildren to think about. They were central to my life,” Mr Qarase wrote.

But the love of Fiji and her hour of need made Mr Qarase accept Commodore Bainimarama’s offer to become interim Prime Minister. The interim military administration soon gave way to an interim civilian government. Commodore Bainimarama invited the Great Council of Chiefs to appoint a civilian President. They duly appointed Ratu Josefa Iloilo, who had served as Vice-President to the ousted President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.

Looking on his appointment, Mr Qarase wrote: “Of course, there were some loud protests about the fact that we were unelected. The protestors found it difficult to accept that in the Fijian environment at that time, it was simply not feasible for the ousted government to return to office. That would have led us into even greater difficulties. Emphasis on legal and constitutional niceties might have played well in certain overseas forums, but in 2000 they had little relevance to the reality of our position. The constitution had become just a piece of paper. We need pragmatism and common sense to help us move forward.”

Mr Qarase also pointed out that the civil service had stayed solidly intact as a neutral and independent body, the Reserve Bank was vigilant in maintaining financial stability, and the judiciary dispensed justice; the court remained open. There was, however, division among the judges, he conceded, over the actions of Chief Justice Sir Timoci Tuivaqa, who later spoke of fundamentally differing perceptions of the rule of law, separation of powers and judicial independence at a time of dangerous and confusing crisis.

According to Mr Qarase, the former CJ “acted to preserve the judiciary because without it, Fiji would have moved closer to total collapse”. “My Interim Administration fully supported the actions he took. Pragmatism and common sense in safeguarding the well-being of the state and all its citizens clearly constituted the right approach to take in the circumstances. Those who favoured a strictly legalistic approach were out of touch with reality. Sir Timoci, in my view, has been vindicated,” Mr Qarase asserted.

Someone asked Mr Qarase whether the response of the international community had been helpful in Fiji’s endeavours to put our situation right. He answered as follows: “I have said that we always felt we had the ability to solve our own problems, in our own way. We appreciated those countries which understood this, who gave us space and did not try to pressure us.”

Ironically, the alchemy of exile, and the loss of political power have forced the deposed Prime Minister Qarase to sing to a totally different tune from his native Mavana Island in Lau. He is not in a mood to listen to Commodore Bainimarama’s plea for pragmatism as the army chief tries to search for solutions to move the country forward from the debris of a fourth coup.

Mr Qarase is, however, following in Mr Chaudhry’s footsteps. In his article in the Parliamentarian, Mr Chaudhry recalled Justice Anthony Gates now famous 15 November 2000 judgment that the interim administration then led by Mr Qarase had “no constitutional foundation of legality”. Mr Chaudhry told his fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians that faced with the intransigence of those who grabbed power, his deposed Peoples Coalition government had no other recourse but to seek redress through the courts.

Meanwhile, the army, the President and the interim administration gave an assurance to the Commonwealth and the rest of the international community that they would abide by the Appeals Court ruling. On 1 March 2001, the Fiji Court of Appeal, Mr Chaudhry noted, upheld the Gates ruling and the validity of the constitution. It went further and ruled that the actions of the army commander in abrogating the constitution and assuming executive authority could not be justified under the doctrine of necessity.

The ruling paved the way for Parliament to be reconvened and the elected government restored to office. This, however, was hardly what the post-coup authorities had in mind. “What took place in Fiji next was a blatant and wilful distortion and manipulation of the constitutional and legal system to allow the army-backed regime to continue in office,” Mr Chaudhry claimed.

On 14 March 2001, President Ratu Josefa dismissed Mr Chaudhry and proceeded to appoint Ratu Tevita Momedonu, a member of Chaudhry’s ousted government, as Prime Minister for 24 hours to legalize his next move. He then dissolved Parliament on Ratu Tevita’s advice and reappointed Mr Qarase as caretaker Prime Minister. In his analysis of the events, Mr Chaudhry described Ratu Tevita as “a puppet Prime Minister” and the whole appointment for a day was farcical and it made a mockery of the constitution.

Mr Chaudhry also went on to berate the President himself: “The constitution requires the President to be appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs in consultation with the Prime Minister. In the next questionable move Ratu Josefa Iloilo, placed in office after the coup and who the Appeals Court declared to be in an acting capacity only, convened a meeting of the Great Council of Chiefs, and got himself appointed President.”

What all these events clearly meant, he claimed, was that Fiji’s post-coup authorities had no respect for the rule of law.

Mr Chaudhry once again also cast doubt on the subsequent 2001 general elections, claiming that the elections were not free and fair. He also attacked the suspended Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki, who had replaces Sir Timoci.

“The Chief Justice has, in my view, continued to frustrate legal challenges to some of the developments since the terrorist attack of 19 May 2000 by interfering with the judicial process, and indulging in judge-shopping. Such antics have brought disrepute to the judiciary, and puts its integrity and credibility on the line. Much of what has transpired in the last couple of years has, I contend, been done with the connivance or complicity of some members of the judiciary,” Mr Chaudhry claimed.

He also condemned the Commonwealth for hastily and injudiciously lifting sanctions etc on Fiji. While condemning the forces of destabilization, he said the Commonwealth was effectively giving tacit encouragement to these elements.

Reflecting on the tragic and bloody 2 November 2000 mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks when the rebels made a last ditch attempt to seize the army headquarters and remove Commodore Bainimarama, Mr Chaudhry told his fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians: “It is important to note hear that the army’s decisive move to restore law and order was driven more by its determination to purge its own ranks of rebellious elements and their supporters who posed a threat to the commander’s life, than from a desire to restore democracy. Furthermore, having achieved the objectives of the coup and established a government of its choice, it was ready to provide the stability that was a prerequisite for that administration to function effectively.”

Thereafter, it quickly became clear, Mr Chaudhry continued, that the army-backed interim administration had no intention of relinquishing power and restoring the elected government to office. “Today there is convincing evidence that senior army officers and several senior members of the post-coup administration had been party to the conspiracy to overthrow the People’s Coalition government,” Mr Chaudhry claimed. He contended that the security forces posed the biggest threat to stability to any democratically elected government in Fiji.

And yet Mr Chaudhry had no hesitation to become Interim Finance Minister in a military-led government? Why? A coup is a coup? Who are the senior army officers who pose a threat to Fiji?

From Fiji Sun Archives, 2008

Race politics road to “millionairehood” in Fiji

Chaudhry greatest beneficiary of political racism

By VICTOR LAL
May 2008
The Fiji Sun

The esteemed and learned academic, Professor Satendra Nandan, an old and dear “comrade” of mine in our long and relentless fight for the last two decade, against the cancer of racism and coups in the country, says Fiji is a racist state, and that some people have benefited a lot by transforming racial thinking into a political art.

He forgot to add that racism could also be a silky road to richness in Fiji, especially for those Indo-Fijian leaders whom “Mother India” considers as one of her own.

The case in point is that of Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, who lost power in a racist coup but who became an overnight secret double-digit millionaire from the debris of racism.

Who says racism does not pay in Fiji?

The Fiji Labour Party leader was able to acquire the $2million dollar status because “Mother India” continued to regard him as one of her own, and he allowed himself to be treated as her own, despite his family being rooted in Fiji since 1912. But, it must be pointed out, that in Mr Chaudhry’s case, he is also an exception; for a part of his family still live in Haryana, and he only recently visited his niece Madhu Chaudhry’s home, while leading a three-member delegation of the Fiji government to hold talks with Indian leaders including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

During the 2000 hostage crisis, it was Madhu Chaudhry who on behalf of the family, called on the then Hindu right-wing BJP Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to send Indian commandos to Fiji to free Mr Chaudhry from the clutches of George Speight, and restore the ousted Peoples Coalition government.

“These people are savages,” she said at the time. “These people should be killed”. No effort, it seems, had been made to educate her and other Indians that savagery and cannibalism was now a thing of the past in Fiji.
 
The 2000 coup, with overt racist tone, had put Mr Chaudhry’s ancestral Haryana village in the international spotlight. And he was adopted as “The Son of Haryana”. In August 2000, Mr Chaudhry arrived in New Delhi on a 10-day visit at the invitation of Prime Minister Vajpayee. He had gone to India to drum up support for the restoration of democracy and human rights in Fiji. His cause was greatly helped by the BJP government and its political allay in Haryana, Om Prakash Chautala.

In May 2000, when Mr Chaudhry was held hostage, Mr Chautala had written to Mr Vajpayee and the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, seeking their intervention for the restoration of democracy in Fiji and for the safety of Mr Chaudhry. In his letter to Mr Vajpayee, Mr Chautala had expressed his grave concern over the manner in which the Indo-Fijian community had been sidelined in Fiji.

He had impressed upon Mr Vajpayee to safeguard the interests of the Indo-Fijians as otherwise, it might send a wrong signal for the safety of Indians settled in other countries. As Mr Chaudhry hailed from Haryana, the people were particularly concerned about his safety, and he wanted Mr Vajpayee to convey the Haryana state and its peoples’ sentiments about Mr Chaudhry’s safety to Mr Anan.

Mr Chaudhry, according to Indian news reports, was given a hero’s welcome at Rothak in Haryana, where welcome arches and flag-waving school children greeted Mr Chaudhry. He was feted at a public reception by Mr Chautala’s Haryana state government. His struggle in Fiji was likened to the then South African President Nelson Mandela’s crusade against apartheid in old racist South Africa.

In his speech, according to Indian newspaper reports, Mr Chaudhry told a cross-section of politicians and a gathering of up to 8,000 people who had turned up to cheer him, that his struggle to restore democracy in Fiji would be fraught with danger because the guns were still in the hands of rebels who had overthrown his Peoples Coalition Government. “I have not received such a reception at home,” Mr Chaudhry told the crowd. “For a moment it appeared as if I was in my own political constituency.”

On 28 August 2000, two days after Mr Chaudhry’s planned departure from India, Mr Chautala announced the formation of an Indo-Fijian Friendship Society, to be constituted under the patronage of Mr Chaudhry. Mr Chautala said the society would make efforts to restore democracy in Fiji. He asked all Haryana residents to donate one Indian rupee each as a token of respect for Mr Chaudhry, whose ancestors hailed from Rohtak district in the Haryana state. Mr Chautala had fixed a target of Rs.16 million for the Indo-Fijian Fund, which is equal to the state’s population. He said the money would be collected by elected representatives of “panchayat” (village councils) and municipal committees and would be deposited in the society's bank account.

To cut the story short, Mr Chaudhry claimed in Parliament on 2 December 2005 that he never received a cent from Mr Chautala, but neither did he disclose that he had secretly received $2million from one Harbhajan Lal, a part of the money transferred through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney? In Parliament, Mr Chaudhry claimed to have discovered only during his 2005 visit to India that Mr Chautala’s record with money was not transparent.

“My anger about the whole episode is that Shri Chautala should exploit the feelings of the ordinary and poor folks of Haryana who are emotionally tied to me and to the people of Indian origin in Fiji and play on them a game of deceit for self enrichment,” Mr Chaudhry said.

What link did Mr Chaudhry employ to get the $2million?

It was sixty years ago when, in 1948, the first Prime Minister of independent India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, raised the issue of citizenship, including that of Indo-Fijians, in the Indian parliament. He had repeatedly stressed that “integration” was the key to the survival of “Overseas Indians” in the foreign lands. He told them bluntly to identify themselves with the colonies in which they had settled.

On 8 March 1948, Mr Nehru told the Indian Parliament: “Now these Indians abroad…Are they Indian citizens…or not? If not, then our interest in them becomes cultural and humanitarian, not political. Take the Indians of Fiji or Mauritius: are they going to retain their nationality, or will they become Fiji nationals or Mauritians? The same question arises in regard to Burma and Ceylon. This House wants to treat them as Indians, and with the same breath it wants a complete franchise for them in the countries where they are living. Of course, the two things do not go together. Either they get the franchise as nationals of the other country, or treat them as Indians minus the franchise and ask for them the most favourable treatment given to an alien.”

One of the basic barriers to successful race relations in Fiji has been the wrong signal successive Indian governments’ and its high commissioners to Fiji (the exception being Bhagwan Singh) have conveyed to the Indo-Fijians and their leaders that India will stand or fall with them because they are India’s “overseas children”.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in having divided loyalties but as I have consistently maintained, India must be only allowed to involve herself culturally and religiously with the Indo-Fijians, and not politically (some would even argue, economically). The official Indian position has always been “Its Fiji’s internal matter”, but privately, historically, and from personal experience, it has always been a secretive meddlesome country in the affairs of Fiji.

Whenever an Indo-Fijian sneezes from the South Pacific chill, Mother India catches fever.

Professor Nandan, who was a victim of the 1987 coups, has described the 2006 coup as a necessary evil and one that is lesser of the two evils. This coup, he reckoned, is the coup that will wipe off all coups. He claimed that although the coup maybe illegal or unconstitutional, it is ethical and moral. We should not be surprised by his comments, for after all, he has described the Qarase government, comprising of SDL-FLP Cabinet ministers, as “racial terrorism”.

It seems there is a twisted logic rife among certain sections of the Indo-Fijian community and their leaders, and it is as follows: the 1987 coups ushered in untold suffering and racism against the Indo-Fijian community, so if they are to correct or prevent further racism against the community, another coup is a “necessary evil”. In other words, only an anti-taukei Fijian coup is the only guarantor of their survival in Fiji.

I thought the great inspirational Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi is on record as saying that “an eye for an eye, makes the world go blind”.

But, maybe, certain sections of the Indo-Fijian community and their leaders have now contracted the coup culture virus, and are totally blind and immune to the havoc the coup is inflicting on the nation and to race relations in the country.

On the other hand, surely, some would be tempted to become double-digit millionaires from the cancer of racism, especially when “Mother India” might be willing to stuff $2million in their pockets, because she refuses to treat the Indo-Fijians as Nehru’s “foreign aliens” in Fiji.

And some Indo-Fijian leaders want to continue to cling to the “saree” of “Mother India”, despite their ancestors having permanently left behind their “dhotis” in their ancestral homeland when they signed up as indentured labourers for Fiji, beginning in 1879.

As for those holding onto power through the barrel of the gun, it is worth reminding them of Professor Nandan’s own message to them, although he was writing against the 1987 coups, in his Requiem for a Rainbow: A Fijian Indian Story:

“The only hope is that they who sit on the bayonets cannot be comfortable for too long. “The curse, the curse”, Kurtz could have cried.”

In another book, Fiji: Paradise in Pieces, Professor Nandan wrote of Mr Chaudhry during his (Mr Chaudhry’s) incarceration at the hands of George Speight:

“Because Chaudhry is an extraordinary organiser and campaigner, almost in the Gandhian tradition, the greatest asset he knows are a country’s people. As soon as he’s out of the clutches of the brutal, gun-toting clowns, he’ll be rebuilding his political base with a steely passion and renewed hope.”

Professor Nandan could not have forecast that Mr Chaudhry would be also $2million richer from the actions of the same “brutal, gun-toting clowns” holding Mr Chaudhry in the name of their taukei Fijian race.

Racism, certainly, could be an economic windfall for some Indo-Fijian leaders.

It is time the Indian government, the Indian High Commission here, and the Indo-Fijian leaders, took heed of Mr Nehru’s advice: the Indo-Fijians must choose to be Indians in Fiji or Fiji Indians.

The Indo-Fijian leaders and their followers, including India, cannot have it both ways. 

 What Mr Nehru said in 1948 is still relevant, sixty years later, in 2008.
 
The views expressed are those of Victor Lal and not that of the Fiji Sun.

From Fijivillage News
18 May 2017

The Director of the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission, Ashwin Raj says giving clear definitions of words like demean, defame and undermine in clause 24 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Bill will build confidence in people and strengthen the legislation.

Section 24 of the proposed law says that any person whose words or actions defame, demean or undermine the sanctity of parliament, the Speaker or a committee commits an offence and is liable upon conviction in the case of a natural person, to a fine not exceeding $30,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.

If a body corporate is found guilty of doing the same, they can be fined up to $100,000 or face prison terms for each director and manager not exceeding 5 years, or face both penalties.

While making the commission’s submission on the bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights, Raj said that the definitions and the thresholds will assist people.

He says people will then know that they can criticise policies and raise issues that affect them.

Raj also says that the enforcement and adjudicating authority in clause 24 needs to be defined to avoid any conflict of interest.

He says the adjudicating authority needs to develop a legal reasoning that is clear, consistent and transparent with thresholds in establishing the limits of acceptable criticism.

Raj also says that a clear distinction also needs to be made between statements made in relation to an individuals dignity and those that might harm the nation at large.

Meanwhile the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement Executive Director Nalini Singh says they are concerned with section 24 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Bill as she says that it is inconsistent with section 17 of the constitution.

Section 17 of the constitution clearly states that every person has the right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication however it does not protect propaganda for war, incitement to violence or insurrection against the constitution, advocacy or hatred that is based on any prohibited ground of discrimination and constitutes incitement to cause harm.

The section further states that a law may limit, or may authorise the limitation of, the rights and freedoms in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, the protection or maintenance of the reputation, privacy, dignity, rights or freedoms of other persons including the right to be free from hate speech, whether directed against individuals or groups.

FWRM’s Nalini Singh says the words defame, demean or undermine in section 24 are not defined in the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Bill.

She adds by not having these terms clearly defined within the bill suggests potential misuse and a subjective application or interpretation by MPs that take offence to any public utterance.

Singh highlighted that previous submissions show that not only are the terms wide and vague, but it fails to acknowledge that there is an existing Defamation Act.

She says in the interest of the public and in recognition of the substantive efforts that Fiji has made to return to democracy, the FWRM strongly suggests the removal of section 24.

Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights Ashneel Sudhakar says there is no special protection to Members of Parliament in the section.

Sudhakar has stressed that people can still question and criticise the government and parliamentarians.
He has also stated that all cases will be heard in the High Court.

Headman seeks answers
Fiji Times
16 May 2017

THE Ministry of iTaukei Affairs has not clarified whether it would pay or officially recognise re-elected Somosomo Village headman, Semi Cagilaba, as the holder of the title.

Questions sent to the ministry's permanent secretary Naipote Katonitabua and iTaukei Affairs Board's deputy chief executive officer Apakuki Kurusiga regarding this issue has not received any response.

Mr Cagilaba was re-elected village headman of Somosomo on Taveuni three weeks ago during a village meeting.

However, it is still not known whether he would be re-registered on the pay roll after Government crossed his name off the list for "non-performance".

In earlier reports, iTaukei Affairs Board's deputy CEO Apakuki Kurusiga stated that they were not aware of Mr Cagilaba's re-election.

When contacted for a comment on April 27, a day after the village of Somosomo re-elected Mr Cagilaba as headman, Mr Kurusiga said they were not aware of the village meeting.

Mr Kurusiga said they had to be informed of the meeting and its outcome in order for the election to be officially recognised.

In response Mr Cagilaba said they had informed the Cakaudrove Provincial Office in Taveuni and the roko tui Cakaudrove's office was well aware of the meeting.

He said as per the procedures they had approached the two offices informing them of the meeting that was to be held in the village to discuss his fate.

"The minutes of the meeting was later given to the two offices again and they are well aware of the decision by the village of Somosomo to re-elect me as village headman," he said.

"Their decision to terminate me on the grounds of non-performance is baseless as the people I serve have re-elected me because of my good services."

Mr Cagilaba said the iTaukei Affairs Board needed to come out clear with the grounds they used to stop his pay.

Cane farmers do not want charity from the government. They want a fair cane price of $100 and this is what the National Farmers Union and the Fiji Labour Party have been fighting for. If this is politicising the issue, so be it, said NFU general secretary Mahendra Chaudhry.

“We have also been calling for a $10 a tonne top up on the 4th cane payment to take it to $20 per tonne. The NFU has a march organised in Labasa for 26 May to protest against the government’s failure to meet this demand,” Mr Chaudhry said.

Commenting on the $10.5m grant announced by Attorney General Aiyaz Khaiyum yesterday, Mr Chaudhry said it was nothing new and would assist less than one-third of the growers.

“At least 65% of them will not receive any benefits from this grant. These are the farmers in Labasa, Lautoka, Nadi and Sigatoka.

In fact, the grant is something that was promised by the FF government to cane growers affected by Cyclone Winston. Some 3000 of them, victims of the cyclone, had borrowed from the Sugar Fund. Government had promised then to pay for this loan and that is what it is doing. These are farmers from Rakiraki to Lovu in Lautoka.

“As for taking up growers’ debt repayments due from the 4th cane payment, most of these had already been recovered from the first three cane payments. So there’s no real assistance there,” Mr Chaudhry said.

“It would have been much better if government had heeded the call from growers for it to top up their 4th cane payment to $20 a tonne. They are desperate for assistance to meet the high costs of preparations for harvest this season.

“Such assistance would have benefited all farmers including those affected by Cyclone Winston,” he said.
Mr. Chaudhry described Mr. Khaiyum’s claim that FLP and NFP were politicising the sugar industry as “nonsense”.

It is the Bainimarama government that has disenfranchised the growers and taken away their voice and participation in the decision making process of the industry.

“We are fighting to restore the voice and dignity of the cane farmer who will not tolerate any more bullying from the Bainimarama government. Even this limited assistance to cane farmers today is coming through pressure we have mounted.”

“The National Farmers Union has been the voice of the cane farmers for the past 40 years and we have very effectively and successfully fulfilled this role in that time,” Mr Chaudhry said.

May 16, 2017
 
MEDIA RELEASE
 
POLITICS OF PANIC
 
The $10 million assistance package announced by the Fiji First Government’s Minister for Economy to help cane farmers is not a new initiative but part of Government’s rehabilitation programme after the devastating effects of Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston.
 
Minister for Economy Honourable Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s announcement can be likened to politics of panic following the overwhelming rejection for the third time of the Reform of the Sugarcane Industry and Sugar Cane Growers Fund (Amendment) Bills (Bills 19 & 20).
 
Had Government not picked up the deductions as promised earlier, farmers would have ended up with only $4.586 million dollars from the total of $14.586 million paid out to them as 4th cane payment of $10.57 per tonne. This confirms our long held view that majority of our farmers are in debt in perpetuity.
 
Most importantly, 70% of farmers’ income has already been deducted as debt, fertilizer, harvesting expenses and land rent in the previous three payments for the 2016 season. So for most farmers this help, which should have been implemented when announced last year as part of Government’s post-Winston rehabilitation package, has come too late. 
 
The announcement also vindicates the National Federation Party’s call for the implementation of a minimum guaranteed cane price of $100 a tonne to ensure all our cane farmers, especially 70 percept who produce an average of 150 tonnes of cane, earn decent income.
 
On Saturday a Fiji Times opinion poll showed that the Fiji First Party’s popularity has fallen by 10 percentage points in two months. By Monday, the Economy Minister has suddenly found $10 million for cane farmers.
 
This announcement has come from nowhere. No thought has gone into it. It offers no long-term solutions for farmers. It is not budgeted for in the national Budget. It is driven by the politics of panic. 
 
Honourable Sayed-Khaiyum is the man who, at the same time as he spends public money for blatantly political purposes, attacks other political parties for “using” cane farmers.
 
Running around offering to pay their deductions for one cane payment, he must really think that the farmers are ignorant. There are at least four more cane payments before the election. Will he just throw more money at the farmers to save his political skin?
 
After 10 years in power, this Government has no vision and no plan for the sugar industry.  It refuses to listen to farmers and their representatives. It has taken away their democratic voice in the Cane Growers’ Council.  The Prime Minister is the Minister for Sugar, but he spends more time overseas than in the cane belt. Only now, because elections are coming, has the government started to panic.
 
NFP says to farmers – these payments are like the Prime Minister’s “small enterprise grants” and “Help for Homes”. So take the money Government is throwing at you. It comes from our taxes after all.
 
Nobody will be fooled by this vote-buying gimmick.
 
Authorised by: -
Professor Biman Prasad
NFP Leader

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

Fiji Hindi baat bolo, Indo-Fijian politicians!

You are not contesting election to Indian Parliament

By VICTOR LAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long live FIJI HINDI.