Blog Archives

BOOTED OUT OF FIJI SPORTS COUNCIL BOARD. SPORTS MINISTER to RAJESH SINGH, 'You are doing just opposite of what Rabuka Coalition is trying to achieve with the process of healing, so get out of FSC BOARD'

31/5/2023

SINGH claims he only wanted inquiry into $47m scam in the Sports body

Youth Minister Jese Saukuru

COALITION GONE MENTAL? If so, Education Minister Aseri RADRODRO will need PYSCHOTHERAPY from his newly appointed PS, EDUCATION, SELINA CAMAIBAU KURULECA. Lingering questions hang over her past

31/5/2023

SELINA KURULECA
Favourite book: Along came a Spider – James Patterson
Never tell – Catherine McCall
A Day Late and A dollar Short – Terry McMillan
Full Blown – David Lovelace
Favourite movies: Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice; Spy; Iron man;
Favourite TV series: Death in Paradise; Yes Prime Minister; House; The Wire; Sons of Anarchy

Someone needs to ask the Public Service Commission chairman the questions:
What happened at the Learning Centre when she was President of the Parents and Teachers Association?
The alleged misappropriation of funds from the Suva Grammar School and Veuito Primary School?
She had applied to become a full member of the Fiji Psychology Society but her application was not accepted because she allegedly couldn't provide transcripts of her academic record.

SCREAMING FOR HELP FROM GEORGE SPEIGHT: As Speight's application for release is being processed, frightened Fijians of all races were looking to her 'mental help expertise'. She had expressed serious misgivings about the late Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase's Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill, especially with respect for AMNESTY to be granted to persons convicted of offences related to Speight's 2000 COUP

'ALL CHIEFS AND ONE INDIAN'. The i-Taukeinization continues at PSC
The failed PAP candidate Parmesh Chand, the only Indo-Fijian, has been appointed Permanent Secretary Civil Service and Public Enterprises

Well known psychotherapist, Selina Kuruleca has been appointed Permanent Secretary for Education, top business executive, Eseta Nadakuitavuki has been appointed Permanent Secretary for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, former senior military officer and former Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mason Smith has been appointed Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs and Immigration and Acting Permanent Secretary, Pita Wise is the new Permanent Secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office.

Following an extensive recruitment process, the Chair of the Public Service Commission, Luke Rokovada says with the agreement of the Prime Minister, he is announcing 11 appointments.

Rokovada adds that, with these announcements, all Permanent Secretaries are Fijian nationals which is a testament to Fiji’s expanding talent pool and the Civil Service’s success in attracting outstanding applicants.

Kuruleca has extensive experience working in various capacities as Consultant, Therapist, Team Leader, Board Chair and Manager. Rokovada says she brings a wealth of knowledge from working in the Civil Service, Banks, Non-Government sector both locally and internationally and technical partners such as World Health Organisation, United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund. Kuruleca replaces Dr Anjeela Jokhan who resigned earlier this year.

Eseta Nadakuitavuki has over 35 years working experience and has held executive roles in the banking industry. She has been at the forefront of negotiations with the Department of Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation for disbursement of social welfare assistance. She is also the Chairperson of the Women Entrepreneurs Business Council and has firsthand experience in articulating strategic initiatives for women such as mentorship and the women economic empowerment programs. She is also a member of the Global Banking Alliance for Women.

Rokovada says Mason Smith has over 38 years of experience serving in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Acting Head of Mission with the Fiji Mission to the United Nations in New York, Permanent Secretary for Agriculture and was responsible for implementing several Government policies and programmes in a cost effective and efficient manner. He also served as Director for several Boards, Chairman of the Biosecurity Authority of Fiji and in leadership roles in the private sector. He worked in an executive capacity with Goodman Fielder. For the past six years he has been the Regional Director for International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

Rokovada says Pita Wise has a wealth of knowledge and extensive experience in the Civil Service. He has served for more than 36 years in various capacities from Economic Planning Officer to Deputy Secretary and Permanent Secretary in several Ministries. He holds a Master’s degree in Economics and Bachelor’s degree in Economics. He assumes this role from Yogesh Karan who has been reassigned as Permanent Secretary for Multi-Ethnic Affairs and Sugar Industry.

Jone Maritino Nemani, has been appointed Permanent Secretary for Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations.

The PSC Chair says Nemani has accumulated 33 years of work experience locally, regionally and internationally working in diverse industries. Rokovada says Nemani has extensive experience in strategic planning and advisory capacities at executive, national, regional and international level, delivering clear policies and workforce direction of government, corporate and state entities. Nemani was a former Permanent Secretary for Youth and Sports and was the Director for People and Workforce Strategy at USP.

Atelaite Rokosuka has been appointed Permanent Secretary Fisheries and Forestry. Rokosuka is a career Civil Servant, serving in the Civil Service for the past 27 years in many capacities in various Government Ministries before becoming Acting Permanent Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry. Doctor Lesikimacuata Korovavala has been appointed Permanent Secretary Foreign Affairs. Dr Korovavala has more than 35 years of experience in executive leadership, change management and international relations. He has served in academia and as an International Policy Advisor offering advisory and consulting services to clients on security management, international policy, international relations, policy analysis, capacity building, project management and human resource development in Australia, Asia and the Pacific regions. He had served previously as the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs.

Doctor Andrew Tukana has been appointed Permanent Secretary Agriculture and Waterways. Doctor Tukana served in the Agricultural Sector for over 30 years. Rokovada says he has served in Fiji and the Pacific region and brings with him extensive senior leadership experience. Doctor Tukana replaces Vinesh Kumar who has been acting in the position since 17th March 2023.

Parmesh Chand has been appointed Permanent Secretary Civil Service and Public Enterprises. Chand has served in Senior Executive Leadership roles for more than 30 years. Chand replaces Susan Kiran who has been posted as Secretary to Cabinet.

Manasa Lesuma has been appointed Permanent Secretary for Housing. Lesuma is a career civil servant progressing steadily through the ranks in senior executive roles. He served as Deputy Secretary Operations at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and Chief Executive Officer at the National Fire Authority. He also served as Permanent Secretary for Defence, National Planning and Policing since 2019 which became Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs and Immigration this year. Earlier this year he was reassigned as acting Permanent Secretary for Housing. Lesuma took over from Sanjeeva Perera who has resigned.

Isoa Talemaibua has been appointed Permanent Secretary Rural and Maritime Development and Disaster Management. He is currently the Head of Budget at the Ministry of Finance.

Rokovada has extended his warm welcome to the new appointees and expresses gratitude to the outgoing Permanent Secretaries for their significant contribution to the Fijian Civil Service and Government during their respective tenure. Source: Fijivillage News

USPGATE: PAL AHLUWALIA sacks JANUSZ JANKOWSKI, Deputy VC and Vice-President (Research & Innovation) after JANKOWSKI exercises the Whistleblower USP Policy and files 13 page complaint against Ahluwalia

30/5/2023

The 13 PAGE REPORT is addressed to the USP Council chair & pro-chancellor, and former Marshall Islands president Dr Hilda Heine and Deputy Chair & Deputy Pro-Chancellor Professor PAT WALSH

The University of the South Pacific Council has appointed Professor Janusz Jankowski as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice President at its meeting in Apia, Samoa.
Professor Jankowski has expertise in Health, Research, Innovation, Education, and Government Policy in Asia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States.On his appointment, Professor Jankowski says he is humbled to serve as Vice President of Research and Innovation for The University of the South Pacific.
17 November 2022

“The power of that one vote has allowed Fiji to say to Professor Pal Ahluwalia, come home.”
Sitiveni Rabuka

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL AND FOR LIMITED AUTHORISED DISTRIBUTION ONLY
Dear Hon. Hilda Heine and Prof Walsh,
"I write to inform you of my formal submission of a series of complaints under the University of the South Pacific ‘Whistleblowing Policy’.
I have been in consultation with The Chair and deputy Chair of the USP Council on two previous occasions in March and April 2023.
I have reflected on these communications carefully and it appears there are no other options left to me other than activate this avenue of progression." 16 May 2023. Full letter coming soon

Fijileaks: Log of USP Contract for J Jankowski

Contacted by HH’s to consider post March 2022.
Shortlisted and interview September 2022.
Offer letter 4th October 2022.
20 emails of exchange documents and visa paperwork completed October 2022
Council appointment 13th November with 5 documents exchanged for press.
29th November first version of contract issued.
10 emails regarding clarification of travel and clinical work in December
January 17th 2023 signed the consultancy and the main contract.
3rd February 2023 I was informed the USP had unilaterally rescinded my original contract and wanted me to sign a less advantageous contact for 3.7 years instead of the previous 5-year period.
During this time, I have been requested to submit ALL my documents three times; first to the HR director, then to the new HR officer counter signed by a Justice of the Peace and yet again in February by a notary public.
Since the original contract was unilaterally rescinded by USP I have understandably become more cautious. In the current contract I have asked that the appropriate email concessions are made explicit in the revised contract to avoid further confusion. These include premium economy travel to and from work, clarification of remote working periods to be with my son during his exams and again during his A-level results (as promised), correcting the revised employer superannuation from 6% to 7% (as promised), ensuring the supplied vehicle is registered and has road insurance (as promised), ensuring there is an annual training budget to maintain skills and annual budget to be provided (as promised), for agreed clinic time medical practice allowance to be provided in day time hours to suit patients (as promised), USP to actively support communication with the medical registration authorities to enable my registration to be completed (as promised), to be allowed to maintain current UK board commitments on a remote basis (as promised), to be provided with a prepaid sim card, phone and laptop for exclusive USP work (as promised).
In March it was agreed I could start face to face in June 2023. This was subsequently rescinded a week later unilaterally.
Final Modified Contract sent to me on Monday 13th March with corrections.
Email 3.19 am with an ultimatum to sign the contract by 8am the same day.
Contract signed same day.
28th March I was told my medical report had expired and I needed to go through the whole long medical report submission procedure again. On the same day I queried this and asked to see the regulations. None were ever forwarded.
3rd of April I informed HR my 3-month remote contract was due to expire on the 16th.
4th April HR indicated my Medical Report had expired as it was submitted on the 11th of November 2022, 3-month window apparently. I indicated that it was Easter, and my doctor was away for 2 weeks.
11th of April. I wrote to HR [to] ask if the original medical report could be counter signed to prevent delays. No response was ever received.
13th of April a month contract extension granted to mid-May instead of until 22nd June when I have agreed to arrive in person, and this has been agreed and witnessed by USP. I have queried this twice.
17th April UK time in the middle of emails my account locked with no warning.
When I queried this, I was told that this was because I have not signed the 1-month extension. So, I was ‘locked out’ without warning from my USP accounts for 7.5days.
24th April new contract issues. Some dates were still wrong that I had to change by hand.
I remained lock out of USP permissions for another 2 days. My diary appointments were lost, and I was unable to undertake several internal and external meetings.
28th April Medical report resubmitted with another signature from my GP.
3rd May HR mentioned they needed another stamp.
3rd of May medical report with new stamp resubmitted to HR.
As of Friday the 12th of May, no documents have been submitted at any time by USP to the Fiji Government for my work permit.
Fijileaks: Whistleblower Jankowski is SACKED by Ahluwalia on 26 May 2023.

USPGATE: USP Staff Report and Recommendations to Council lay bare dysfunctional state of affairs under VC AHLUWALIA. 'Staff departures indicate USP no longer `employer of choice’ for regionals or expatriates.'

29/5/2023

"It is strongly recommended that the VCP and the COO [Chief Operating Officer] relocate to Laucala campus to effectively manage the University. Laucala is the hub of academic and administrative activities, and they need to be in proximity to the largest number of faculty, staff, students’ and external stakeholders which is vital. Being located at the Main Campus or Headquarters allows the Vice Chancellor & President to obtain first-hand
understanding of the pulse of the University which informs decision-making and facilitates effective leadership and management of the institution."
27 April 2023, Staff Report and Recommendations to USP Council

www.fijileaks.com/home/the-bdo-report-into-rort-at-usp-is-not-history-wadan-narsey

USPGATE: Power of One Man at USP questioned by concerned scholars. To PAL AHLUWALIA. 'Is this a sell-out of Our Sea of Islands? Response to proposed Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI)'

29/5/2023

Coming soon, PAL AHLUWALIA SACKS his Deputy VC Professor JANUSZ JANKOWSKI after his Deputy reports Ahluwalia to his bosses for a litany of failings; USP Staff and Unions up in arms over Jankowski's immediate sacking. They want AHLUWALIA OUT of USP

the Sustainable Coastal and Oceania Research Institute (SCORI), funded by the Government of India and based at The University of South Pacific (USP), Laucala Campus in Suva, was officially launched by the Honourable Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi during the Third Summit of the Forum for India- Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC III) in Port Moresby (PNG) on May 22 2023, in the presence of Honourable Prime Minister of Fiji His Excellency (H.E) Sitiveni Rabuka and top leaders from thirteen other Pacific Island Countries (PICs) attending the summit.

Is this a sell-out of Our Sea of Islands? Response to proposed Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI)
By concerned citizens of the Pacific
"Why the Fiji government was not part of the agreement, especially because a foreign government [INDIA] is setting up an institute on Fiji’s territory."

"Professor Pal Ahluwalia has endorsed the potential capture of the sovereign ownership of our oceanic heritage and opening the window for unrestricted exploitation of oceanic data and coastal indigenous knowledge of the Pacific. This latest saga puts Professor Ahluwalia squarely in the category of security risk to the region and regional governments should quickly do something about it before it is too late, especially when the MOU had already been signed and the plan is now a reality. Together with Professor Sushil Kumar (Director of Research) and Professor Surendra Prasad (Head of the School of Agriculture, Geography, Ocean and Natural Sciences), both of whom are Indian nationals, he has to be answerable to the leaders and people of the region.
The second major issue relates to why the Fiji government was not part of the agreement, especially because a foreign government is setting up an institute on Fiji’s territory."

The signing of the MOU between Vice Chancellor and President, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, on behalf of the University of the South Pacific (USP) and the National Center for Coastal Research, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, in March 2023 for the setting up of a Sustainable Coastal and Ocean Research Institute (SCORI) raises serious questions about leadership at USP and how this project poses significant risk to the credibility of the institution as well as the security of ocean resources and knowledge sovereignty of the region.

Regional resource security threat Article 8 of the MOU regarding the issue of intellectual property and commercialization states: “In case research is carried out solely and separately by the Party or the research results are obtained through sole and separate efforts of either Party, the Party concerned alone will apply for grant of Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and once granted, the IPR will be solely owned by the concerned Party.”

This is a red flag provision which gives the Indian government unlimited access to scientific data, coastal indigenous knowledge and other forms of marine biodiversity within the 200 exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial waters of sovereign countries in the Pacific.

More than that, through the granting of IPR, it will claim ownership of all the data and indigenous knowledge generated. This has potential for biopiracy, especially the theft of local knowledge for commercial purposes by a foreign power. No doubt this will be a serious breach of the sovereignty of Pacific Island States whose ocean resources have been subjected to predatory practices by external powers over the years.

The coastal indigenous knowledge of Pacific communities have been passed down over generations and the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organisations (WIPO) has developed protocols to protect indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability and survival of vulnerable groups.

The MOU not only undermines the spirit of WIPO, it also threatens the knowledge sovereignty of Pacific people and this directly contravenes the UN Convention of Biodiversity which attempts to protect the knowledge of biodiversity of indigenous communities.

In this regard, it also goes against the protective intent of the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which protects resources of marginalised groups.

This threat is heightened by the fact that the Access Benefit and Sharing protocol under the Nagoya Convention has not been developed in most of the Pacific Island Countries. Fiji has developed a draft but it still needs to be refined and finalised and key government departments are made aware of it.

Traditional knowledge of coastal eco-systems of Pacific people are critical in mitigation and adaptation to the increasing threat of climate change as well as a means of collective survival. For Indian government scientists (who will run the institute), masquerading as USP academics, claiming ownership of data generated from these knowledge systems will pose serious issues of being unethical, culturally insensitive, predatory and outright illegal in relation to the laws of the sovereign states of the Pacific as well as in terms of international conventions noted above.

Furthermore, India, which is a growing economic power, would be interested in Pacific Ocean resources such as seabed mining of rare metals for its electrification projects as well as reef marine life for medicinal or cosmetic use and deep sea fishing.

The setting up of SCORI will enable the Indian government to facilitate these interests using USP’s regional status as a Trojan horse to carry out its agenda in accessing our sea resources across the vast Pacific Ocean. India is also part of the QUAD Indo-Pacific strategic alliance which also includes the US, Australia and Japan.

There is a danger that SCORI will, in implicit ways, act as India’s strategic maritime connection in the Pacific thus contributing to the already escalating regional geo-political contestation between China and the “Western” powers.

This is an affront to the Pacific people who have been crying out for a peaceful and harmonious region.

The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, signed by the leaders of the Pacific, tries to guard against all these. Just a few months after the strategy was signed, USP, a regional institution, has allowed a foreign power to access the resources of the Blue Pacific Continent without the consent and even knowledge of the Pacific people.

So in short, USP’s VCP, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, has endorsed the potential capture of the sovereign ownership of our oceanic heritage and opening the window for unrestricted exploitation of oceanic data and coastal indigenous knowledge of the Pacific.

This latest saga puts Professor Ahluwalia squarely in the category of security risk to the region and regional governments should quickly do something about it before it is too late, especially when the MOU had already been signed and the plan is now a reality.

Together with Professor Sushil Kumar (Director of Research) and Professor Surendra Prasad (Head of the School of Agriculture, Geography, Ocean and Natural Sciences), both of whom are Indian nationals, he has to be answerable to the leaders and people of the region.

Usurpation of state protocol
The second major issue relates to why the Fiji government was not part of the agreement, especially because a foreign government is setting up an institute on Fiji’s territory. This is different from the regular aid from Australia, New Zealand and even China where state donors maintain a “hands-off” approach out of respect for the sovereignty of Fiji as well as the independence of USP as a regional institution. In this case a foreign power is actually setting up an entity in Fiji’s national realm in a regional institution. As a matter of protocol, was the Fiji government aware of the MOU? Why was there no relevant provision relating to the participation of the Fiji government in the process? This is a serious breach of political protocol which Professor Ahluwalia has to be accountable for.

Transparency and consultation
For such a major undertaking which deals with Pacific Ocean resources, coastal people’s livelihood and coastal environment and their potential exploitation, there should have been a more transparent, honest and extensive consultation involving governments, regional organisations, civil society and communities who are going to be directly affected. This was never done and as a result the project lacks credibility and legitimacy. The MOU itself provided nothing on participation of and benefits to the regional governments, regional organisations and communities.

In addition, the MOU was signed on the basis of a concept note rather than a detailed plan of SCORI. At that point no one really knew what the detailed aims, rationale, structure, functions, outputs and operational details of the institute was going to be. There is a lot of secrecy and manoeuvrings by Professor Ahluwalia and academics from mainland India who are part of a patronage system which excludes regional Pacific and Indo-Fijian scholars.

Undermining of regional expertise
Regional experts on ocean, sustainability and climate at USP were never consulted, although some may have heard of rumours swirling around the coconut wireless. Worse still, USP’s leading ocean expert, an award-winning regional scholar of note, was sidelined and had to resign from USP out of frustration.

The MOU is very clear about SCORI being run by “experts” from India, which sounds more like a takeover of an important regional area of research by foreign researchers. These India-based researchers have no understanding of the Pacific islands, cultures, maritime and coastal environment and work being done in the area of marine studies in the Pacific. The sidelining of regional staff has worsened under the current VCP’s term.

Another critical question is why the Indian government did not provide funding for the existing Institute of Marine Resources (IMR) which has been serving the region well for many years. Not only will SCORI duplicate the work of IMR, it will also overshadow its operation and undermine regional expertise and the interests of regional countries.

Wake up to resources capture
The people of the Pacific must wake up to this attempt at resources capture by a big foreign power under the guise of academic research.

Our ocean and intellectual resources have been unscrupulously extracted, exploited and stolen by corporations and big powers in the past. SCORI is just another attempt to continue this predatory and neo-colonial practice.
The lack of consultation and near secrecy in which this was carried out speaks volume about a conspiratorial intent which is being cunningly concealed from us. SCORI poses a serious threat to our resource sovereignty, undermines Fiji’s political protocol, lacks transparency and good governance and undermines regional expertise.

This is a very serious abuse of power with unimaginable consequences to USP and indeed the resources, people and governments of our beloved Pacific region. This has never been done by a USP VC and has never been done in the history of the Pacific. The lack of consultation in this case is reflective of a much deeper problem. It also manifests ethical corruption in the form of lack of transparency, denial of support for regional staff, egoistic paranoia and authoritarian management as USP staff will testify.

This has led to unprecedented toxicity in the work environment, irretrievable breakdown of basic university services and record low morale of staff. All these have rendered the university dysfunctional while progressively imploding at the core. If we are not careful, our guardianship of “Our Sea of Islands,” a term coined by the intellectually immortal Professor Epeli Hau’ofa, will continue to be threatened. No doubt Professor Hau’ofa will be wriggling around restlessly in his Wainadoi grave if he hears about this latest saga.

PILLOW AND PROFESSORIAL TALKS: E-mails have emerged revealing that five days after re-registering GGI in February, Ganesh Chand was already sending out invitations to potential speakers to MAY conference

28/5/2023

Meanwhile, USP Vice-Chancellor Pal Ahluwalia is yet to respond to us whether he was aware that RAJNI CHAND, the wife of former USP Professor and his buddy BIMAN PRASAD, and a paid employee of the USP, was a TRUSTEE of GGI, when USP hosted the two-day girmit* conference.
Fijileaks: We call for the suspension of Biman Prasad from Coalition Cabinet and the matter be referred to FICAC and Police for PROBE.

BIMAN PRASAD is refusing to answer whether HIS WIFE was aware (via Pillow Talk) that the Coalition Cabinet was going to set aside $500,000 for Girmit Celebrations, hence Rajni and Ganesh Chand ran and re-registered the defunct Global Girmit Institute.
The GGI was approved the next day, and it went on to organise the two-day international girmit conference at USP.
Was Prasad aware that his wife was running around, registering the de-registered GGI, which had failed to submit its audited accounts.
Ahluwalia, who was the Chief Speaker, is yet to answer questions (see below) regarding the famous Nixonian question: When did he know that Rajni was a GGI trustee, and what did he know about the GGI?
*Was USP paid to host the conference? How much?

Fijileaks to USP Vice-Chancellor PAL AHLUWALIA, 15 May 2023
Apologies dost.

1. Were you aware when you accepted the invitation from GGI that Biman's wife Rajni was one of three trustees who registered the de-registered GGI on 23 February 2023 shortly after Biman announced the $500,000 for the Girmit celebrations?

2. Did the USP charge the GGI to host the conference, and if so, how much will be billed to the GGI?

3. What is the explanation for such a magnanimous gesture if it was free?

4. What action will USP take against Rajni or will you launch your own separate inquiry into her association with the Global Girmit Institute?

Most people, especially Indo-Fijians, are appalled by my revelations, and more to follow later.

Regards
Victor

Girmitiyas:
Documenting, Researching, Writing, and Communication of Histories and Lives

An International Conference
16-17 May 2023, Suva, Fiji.

Introduction:

'Girmitiyas', defined as all those who trace their ancestry to the Indian Indenture System (1834-1921), now number an estimated 12-15m in the world. No confirmed figures are available on this. Girmitiyas now reside, either permanently or temporarily, in almost all countries of the world. But what binds them together is a shared history.

While Girmit and Girmityas have been the subject of academic research since the 1930’s, the number of such works and their prominence remained relatively weak until the recent decade. 2017 marked a turning point. In 2017, the 100th year of the end of Indenture, was commemorated globally.

Since then, there has been an escalated interest in Girmit. Conference papers, articles, books and monograph numbers have increased significantly since then. Even two high quality international academic journals have also commenced publishing. In the UK, Ameena Gafoor Institute commenced publication of the Journal of Indentureship and its Legacies in 2021 (https://ameenagafoorinstitute.org/journals). In the same year, Indenture Papers: Studies on Girmitiyas (https://girmit.ac.fj/), a journal by a consortium of 6 institutions – Global Girmit Institute, University of the South pacific, NCIC-heritage Centre, IIT Patna, BHU, and Tata Institute of Social Science, commenced publication.In Mauritius, following the Slave Route Project, UNESCO has paid homage to the dislocation of 1.2m Girmitiyas through indenture by the endorsement of the Indentured Labour Routes Project. The ILRP has major projects on documenting, researching and writing Girmitiyas.

Given the rising interest in Girmitiys, this trans-disciplinary conference will focus on documenting, researching, writing, and communication of Girmitiya lives and histories.

Objective: The primary objective of the conference is to facilitate discourse on all aspects related to documenting, researching, writing and communication of histories and lives of Girmitiyas, past and present. The conference aims to create a dialogue between scholars from different disciplines on the themes listed below.

Core Themes
The following core themes are suggested:

Core Theme 1:   Indenture Database
Core Theme 2:   Documenting families and family histories
Core Theme 3:   Academic Research on Indenture
Core Theme 4:   Girmitiya Fiction
Core Theme 5:   Academic Publishing of Girmitiya materials
Core Theme 6:   Music, Dance, Drama, Movies as medium of Communication
Core Theme 7:   Binding Themes – Identity formation and significance of Girmitiya Identity(ies)
Core Theme 8:   General – Other papers related to Girmitiyas

Presentation Format

Posters
Full Presentation sessions (length: 15 mins)
Student presentation sessions (length: 10 mins)
Lunchtime lightening sessions (length: 5 mins)
Films - Screened parallely.
Art - displayed in conference gallery
Drama - performances in evenings.

For academic papers: Preference is for papers to be circulated to participants on the first day of the Conference, and presentations to be largely interactive.

Language: English.

Who Should Attend?: All researchers, writers and activists whose interest is on Girmityas and/or on research, publication and production of expressive arts materials.

Academic Paper Submission
Abstract details: Word limit for abstracts - no more than 300 words, including keywords. Abstracts must include the proposed title of the paper, author full name(s), address(es) and email address(es) of all authors. Authors are encouraged to indicate the session in which they wish their paper to be placed. The final decision on paper placement shall be that of the Conference Convener.

File type: Word for Windows.

Full paper: This is required for papers whose abstracts are accepted. Selected papers shall be published in our journals Indenture Papers: Studies on Girmitiyas or Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji.. There is no word limit for the papers, but papers must be of publishable standard. Those not able to submit full papers, but whose abstracts have been accepted can still make presentations at the conference as long as they are registered; these authors will need to make their own arrangements for copying and circulating their speaking notes, ppts or completed papers.

Abstract and Paper Reviews: A selection panel shall assess all abstracts received and advise authors of the outcomes. The key criteria would be relevance to the theme of the Conference. All final papers shall be blind reviewed to ensure standards.

Submission Address: [email protected] . An electronic submission board is being established; details shall be circulated.

Film, Art, Drama Proposal Submission
Proposal details: Submittees should provide an abstract of the activity they propose in no more than 300 words. Details to be included are: (a) creator (s); (b) copyrights, (c) censor details (if films), (d) formats, and (e) equipment, etc., requirements if accepted for the conference.

Important Dates:

The following are the critical dates (these are the last dates; earlier submission is preferred):
1.   Submission of Abstract: 31 March 2023
2.   Notification of acceptance: 2 weeks from submission
3.   Full paper submission: 1 May 2023
4.   Early Registration: 1 May 2023
5.   Late Registration: 16 May 2023
6.   Daily Registration: 16 May, 17 May, 18 May

Social Events
Conference Dinner: 16 May 2023
Networking Dinner: 17 May 2023
Related Event 15 May 2023: Launch of Girmit Day at Albert Park, Suva.

Registration Fee:

Pacific Island, Girmitiya Country Residents/India/Third World Residents: $F50 (USD25)
Other Residents: $F200 (USD100)
Students, Unemployed, Retired: $F5 per day
Observers from Pacific Island, Third World Residents: $F50
Observers - First World Residents: $F100
Day Rates: $F40 (excludes dinners and transfers)
All participants must register.

[* Full Registration Fee allows for conference materials, session fees, cocktail, and all teas and dinners. (The rates are subsidised by sponsors).]

Logistics
The conference city, Suva, is located 4 hours drive from the Nadi International Airport, or a 20 minute local flight from Nadi Airport to Nausori Airport. There are two international airports in Fiji: Nadi and Nausori. International participants are advised to consider travel by road from Nausori to Suva. Organisers may arrange of special transportation if numbers and arrival/departure schedules permit.

Travel

Fiji is well serviced with international flights. Airlines which fly to Fiji include: Aircalin, Air Kiribati, Air New Zealand, Air Vanuatu, Jetstar, Korean Air, Virgin Australia, Fiji Airways, Qantas, Air Niugini, Solomon Airlines, United Airlines (code share with Air New Zealand). There are multiple fights a day from Australia, New Zealand and the US. Fiji Airways also flies to Singapore and Hongkong. Korean Airlines flies to Fiji from Seoul twice a week. Air Niugini, Vanuatu Air and Solomon Airlines fly to Fiji from Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Other countries in the Pacific are serviced by Fiji Airways and a number of regional airlines.

Conference Committee
Conference Convener: Dr. Ganesh Chand, Global Girmit Institute (GGI)
Conference Organising Secretary: Mr. Satya Nand Shandil, Head of School of Business, Pacific Polytech.
Conference Deputy Organising Secretary: Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Associate, GGI

Conference Advisory Committee
To be finalized:
Dr. Amba Pande, JNU, India.
Dr. Mosmi Bhim, Fiji National University
Dr. Rajni Chand, University of the South Pacific
Dr. Ramchandra Joshi, A.P.J A Kalam GCol, India
Dr. Subhash Appana, University of the South Pacific
Dr. Vishnu Bisram, Commentator, New York
Mr. Nadesa Goundar, Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand
Mr. Praneil Chandra, Broadcaster, New Zealand.
Mr. Ravi Dev, former MP, Guyana
Mr. Robin Nair, Member of Council, Fiji National University
Mr. Vijendra Prasad, Chairman of Girmit Museum Committee
Ms Bhavika Naidu, Fiji National University
Ms Vandhana Nath, University of Fiji, Lautoka
Professor A.B.M. Shawkat Ali, University of Fiji, Lautoka
Professor Anand Chand, University of the South Pacific, Fiji
Professor Biman C. Prasad, Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji
Professor Dharmendra Sharma, University of Canberra, Australia
Professor Mumtaz Alam, Fiji National University, Lautoka
Professor Satish Chand, School of Business, UNSW Canberra, Australia
Professor Shaista Shameem, University of Fiji
Professor Subramani, University of Fiji, Lautoka.
Professor Vijay Naidu, Suva.

Conference Contact Details:

Chief Convener: [email protected]: (679) 9955709
Organising Secretary: [email protected] @gmail.com ; mobile: 9353369
Offices:
Global Girmit Institute, Saweni Shopping Centre, Queens Road, Lautoka
Pacific Polytech, Lautoka Campus, Ajodhya Prasad Road, Lautoka
Pacific Polytech, Suva Campus, Nabua Road, Suva
Website: http://girmit.ac.fj/ www.globalgirmitinstitute.org
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/fijigirmit/?fref=ts

Financial Support: Limited funds are available for partial financial support for travel and/or accommodation for international and local participants. The extent of support depends on financial sponsorship secured by the date of conference, and the submission of quality papers.

Primary Sponsors: Government of Fiji; University of the South pacific, Fiji National University; Pacific Polytech; Global Girmit Institute.

Logos go here

Conference Sponsors Confirmed to Date: TBA

RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA DAY, 'MYTH, MANA & MISREPRESENTATION'. FACTS are being twisted about Lauan CHIEF, to impose i-Taukei control but one that has caught our eyes is his links with Rev. Charles Andrews

28/5/2023

Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief:
We seriously doubt the Coalition government's claim that the Anglican Church priest, the Reverend Charles Freer Andrews, was approached to personally tutor Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.
I have in my private collection, many letters and papers of Andrews, that I have used for my manuscript, The Indian Coolies: Gandhi's Outcastes Within the British Empire, 1834-1920.
From available documentary evidence, Andrews (with William Pearson) made his first visit to Fiji in 1915, at the request of Mahatma Gandhi, to study the plight of the Indian indentured labourers.
In 1917, Andrews made a second visit to Fiji. He was appalled at the moral degradation of the Indian coolies and called for an immediate end to indenture; and the Indian Indentured System was formally abolished in 1920.
In 1936, on his visit to Australia and New Zealand, Andrews stopped in Fiji
Unless, there was another 'Charles Andrews', our 'CFA' can't have tutored Ratu Sukuna for preparation to Oxford University.
Was there, indeed, a private tutor for Ratu Sukuna, and who was it?
Sadly, while i-Taukei commentators have been too polite (frightened) to upset the 'reconciliation' bandwagon, the Indo-Fijians have been cheerfully riding on it.

Ratu Sukuna and NLTB: Fact and Fiction, Written August 2005

By Victor Lal

It was one of the wisest of Fiji’s colonial governors, Sir Arthur Richards (later Lord Milverton), who first offered to Ratu Sukuna the seed of an idea that produced the Native Land Trust Board. But it was Ratu Sukuna who planted the seed, nourished it, and gave the resulting plant sturdy growth and permanent form.

The preceding statement is how the NLTB has portrayed the great Lauan chief to us on its official website. In other words, if it had not been for Ratu Sukuna, the Fijians would have been a ‘people without a land’.

Now, a row has broken out between Professor Ron Duncan of USP and NLTB general manager, Kalavati Bakani, on the role and function of the NLTB in Fijian society. Bakani’s robust response also smacks of ‘Hello, what do you know, Professor Duncan, about the NLTB and its role as a guardian of native lands in Fiji’.

What is the truth about NLTB and Ratu Sukuna? The answer will not be found in what has been written and perpetuated by the historians, the NLTB, the Fiji Government, and Fijian nationalists on Ratu Sukuna but what has not been written on the NLTB and the Lauan chief.

It lies in the examination of the private papers of Milverton, the initial
architect of the NLTB, which has been gathering dust in the University of Oxford’s Rhodes House Library, the former depositary library of colonial studies. Milverton’s private and family papers are off limits to
researchers. I was however recently granted permission to revaluate his private papers, especially those pertaining to his governorship in Fiji nearly 70 years ago.

Let us see how Ratu Sukuna came to be involved in the creation of the
NLTB..

The NLTB was created in 1940 by the Native Land Trust Ordinance (also known as the NLTO). Governor Richards landed with his family in Suva on 28 November 1936.

Private Collections

By early February 1937 he was confronted with a major ‘Indian problem’ which was visible on the horizon:
‘What are 200,000 people in a country which could easily support ten times that number? However at their present increase the future lies with the Indians. The Fijian is so far behind.’

He also remembered one grey-haired old Indian coming to him and saying: ‘Where will you find in Fiji the Indian sitting under the tree his father planted.’ He had an Indian cook, Bala.

On 26 February 1937, in a letter to Gerald Creasy of the British Colonial Office in London, he refers for the first time to Ratu Sukuna. At the time when Richards arrived in Suva, Ratu Sukuna was on a trip to Europe paid for by ‘voluntary’ contributions from the people. Richards proposed to ask him if this were true when he returned, but he had no intention of breaking him.

‘He is too potentially valuable and he would be a very dangerous malcontent. He is 49 years of age, a member of Leg Co and votes as he pleases. I have a mind to make him my Adviser on Native Affairs. I propose to gamble a little on him, to trust him and, I hope, to use him for the good of the country in solving the land question.’

His choice was a good one. They became friends with complete trust in each other and together they worked on Richards’ plan for land reform which would radically change the old communal system. The basis of the plan rested on the fact that the Fijian community possessed five times as much land as they could use either then or at any time in the future having regard to their visible population trends, and in pointing this out in speeches which he made to Fijian assemblies in every province throughout the country.

Richards made it plain that, if they insisted on holding back and they could not hope to use, which was their prerogative, the future of their country must be troubled. With diplomatic impartiality, he went on to point out what the Indians had done to bring prosperity to their country.

He wrote to Creasy on 7 September 1937: ‘People tell me that I have the confidence of the Fijians and anyway the name of the King’s representative is still something to conjure with here. The Fijians trust the King and will take from the Governor what they would take from no one else. Perhaps with Sukuna’s help I may be able to solve the problem. My idea is to turn him on to dividing up the country into lands surrendered by them to the Crown to be held in trust and allocated at the Crown’s will on what terms it considers just to anyone, Fijian or Indian or European, but the chief objective is the Indian. No more freehold - only long leases. I should constitute a small Board of which the Governor would be Chairman and would always sit as such, to deal with difficult decisions during the land division, and afterwards to be in general control of the allocations.’

All rent revenue from the land so allocated was to be paid into a welfare fund for the benefit of the indigenous Fijian population.

Ratu Sukuna supported the plan whole-heartedly and Richards warmly acknowledged the lead which he took in persuading the chiefs to agree to it. There were already young Fijians who were impatient with the old communal system and wanted personal freedom from it, but nevertheless the readiness of the chiefs and their people to agree to the proposals was probably the finest act of trust in colonial history.

Ratu Sukuna estimated that he could draw up the most equitable division of land within two or three years.

Unfortunately, Richards was transferred to Jamaica a few months later, and although the scheme was proceeded with for a time, it was hindered by the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 before it could be implemented.

"All rent revenue from the land so allocated was to be paid into a welfare fund for the benefit of the indigenous Fijian population."
Governor Lord Milverton and Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna

But just look at the 'Kana Loto' Chiefs short-changing their SUBJECTS

INTERLOPER RABUKA claims the GCC can never be modernized. If so, how come he had become its Chairman and is the only COMMONER who is LIFE MEMBER of GCC who had been 'drinking homebrew for 16 Years'

26/5/2023

Fijileaks: We argue that to balance the re-establishment of the GCC after a hiatus of 16 years, and the re-introduction of Ratu Sukuna Day, the i-taukei in the Coalition government and the chiefs had to cynically announce GIRMIT DAY, which the Indo-Fijian leaders and their pom pom cheerleaders fell for it.
When the 'Leonidas'* returns to the Fiji Museum to gather dust, nothing of material substance will change for the descendants of the Girmitiyas.
We have already been shoved down our throats, the resolutions that was passed by the GCC at Bau:
A final report by GCC Review Committee, headed by Dr Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka, to be presented at a Special Meeting by the end of July;
Setting up a special fund for development of iTaukei - including reinstating the old lease distribution policy;
Strategic review of iTaukei institutions, including the iTaukei Land Trust Board, iTaukei Land and Fisheries Commission, and iTaukei administrations comprising of iTaukei Affairs Board, provincial, district and village councils
Endorsed the outcome of the iTaukei Resource Owners forum in March 2023 Economic empowerment to be a priority for GCC and iTaukei institutions
An economic empowerment framework for iTaukei implemented by iTaukei Affairs
Confirmed head of yavusas (tribes) to receive $200 monthly for carrying out their responsibilities
Endorsed nominees for members of Ratu Sukuna Memorial School Board

WHAT DID THE DANCING INDO-FIJIAN GIRMITIYA DESCENDANTS ON BAU ISLAND AND THEIR LEADERS GET FROM GIRMIT DAY. ZILCH!
RIP: The last remaining matriach of the Lal family, our Founding Editor-in-Chiefs paternal AUNT passed away in Sydney last week at the age of 94, during the GIRMIT DAY CELEBRATIONS.
There was NOTHING for her to celebrate. After 50 years on her Rakiraki sugarcane farm, she and her husband (died a week before his 100th birthday; both fluent in i-Taukei Ra dialect) were evicted after the expiry of their land lease, and the house and horses were all confiscated by the i-Taukei Land Trust Board. They were forced to join their children in Sydney, Australia, missing their farm, the mango trees they had planted, and their old farming friends.
They never received a single CENT IN COMPENSATION.
They were treated worse than those TURTLES and PIGS offered to the Great Council of Chiefs, Thieves and Others on Bau Island.
After all, to quote MICK BEDDOES frequently used favourite propaganda phrase, they were NOT the FIRST INDIGENOUS PERSONS OF FIJI.
*So, Ratu Sukuna Day and the traitors BIMAN PRASAD and MAHENDRA CHAUDHRY's celebratory words about Ratu Sukuna and his land policies wrung hollow in her dying days.
Her ashes will be scattered in Australia, and not RAKIRAKI.
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY

The Great Council of Chiefs can never be modernized, says Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. Since the establishment of the GCC in 1876, it has had its own values and traditions that cannot be altered or changed to date. Rabuka says the meeting has the paramount chief’s representatives from the vanua together with their traditional values and identities, which makes the Bose Levu Vakaturaga unique.
“It cannot be, because this is the Council of Chiefs, it’s established by Geneology and all they can do is listen to the young people and women in their tribes and take that onboard.”

An Extract from VICTOR LAL, CHIEFTAINCY versus DEMOCRACY
Before the 1992 general election, Rabuka stood for the presidency of the SVT, beating Mara’s wife, Adi Lady Lala Mara to the post. Was that where things went from bad to worse in his relationship with the Maras. Rabuka replied as follows: ‘It shouldn’t have been because my selection was done the proper way. Hers was only thought of at the meeting. Yes! My candidacy was lobbied for by Cakaudrove. We went to Bua and Macuata and asked Lau for support and some other provinces. At the meeting, someone realised what was going to happen (that Rabuka was going to win) and Tomasi Vakatora stood up and nominated Adi Lala.’

The Great Council of Chiefs

In 1972 the Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) took a bold step forward-the Council decided that members of Parliament in both Houses who were indigenous Fijians would be members of the Great Council of Chiefs. By doing this, they gave out three NFP Members of Parliament, Captain Atunaisa Maitoga, Isikeli Nadalo, and Apisai Tora a voice in the Council of Chiefs. This move, taken quietly and without any fuss or bother, according to Ramrakha in 1978, came as a great surprise to the Members concerned, and they took full advantage of it all. But it was a major concession to make. Here were these members who belonged to a Party that was undoubtedly predominantly non-Fijian in membership, and was often suspect in the eyes of the rank and file Fijian, and its members were freely allowed to participate in the deliberation. It was a thoroughly progressive move on the part of the Council. And yet the leader of the NFP, Koya, made a blunt call for its abolition.

The NFP had often advocated absorption of the Fijian Affairs Board into the mainstream of political life and coming under the ageis of one single administration, and it had advocated the ultimate redundancy of the NLTB by giving titles to the Fijians, and giving them the incidents of ownership short of power of sale. Reaction to Koya was savage. Personally, Ramrakha remained unconvinced that the Council of Chiefs had outlived its usefulness. On the other hand, the Chiefs themselves 'must recognise that we live today in a basically democratic society, and that changes will have to come'. Ramrakha continued: 'I would ask the Chiefs to behave as Chiefs: there are many mountains to be moved; there is a great deal they have to do. Your society still looks to you to deliver the goods-you are subjected to old pressures, and new ones. The only reservation I make of the Great Council of Chiefs is that we do not hear enough from them.' Ramrakha had uttered these words two decades ago; in the 1987 street demonstrations against the Bavadra government, led by Tora and others, he however found himself the target of Fijian anger through one of the placards which read: 'K.C. Ramrakha-the deserter, shut up.'

Ironically, these Fijian demonstrators were totally oblivious to Ramrakha's role at the 1970 Constitutional Talks where he and other NFP delegates gave the Council of Chiefs the power of veto on decisions affecting the Fijian race. Another irony, in fact a comical farce, was the pronouncements of Tora at the demonstrations: 'We shall recover the rights of Fijians sold out in London in 1970. We have no need for your system, your democracy. We shall never have such things imposed on our paramountcy…They [Indians] have tried to blackmail us with economic power. It is becoming Fiji for Fijians now. We took in the Indians which Britain brought us…They won't learn our language, our customs, join our political parties. It is time for them to pack and go.'

What Tora failed to tell his fellow demonstrators was that he had changed his name from Apisai Vuniyayawa Tora to Apisai Mohammed Tora after becoming a Muslim while serving with the Fijian forces in Malaya. He had provided the prefix 'National' to the Federation Party to form the NFP. As recently as July 1986 he asserted that 'Government policy is that Indian people are here to stay whether people like it or lump it. Without Indians Fiji would never have been what it is today, economic-wise and otherwise.'

Moreover, the Great Council of Chiefs finally gave to Ramrakha more than he may have bargained for in the 1970s. In the name of Fijian ethnicity, they hurriedly endorsed Rabuka's revolution and seized a large chunk of responsibility on behalf of the Fijian people through the promulgation of a new Constitution in 1990. In their pursuit for total and absolute control the chiefs, however, were also beginning to lay the foundation for their own gradual destruction for history, time, and the people were no longer totally on their side, not to mention the Colonial government.

As a Maori professor, Ranginui Walker, declared in Auckland in 1987: 'The coup is nothing more than a shameful use by an oligarchy that refuses to recognize and accept the winds of change in Fiji. It would appear from this distance that the Great Council of Chiefs, still living in their traditional ways, have been misled. Their land rights are secure under the 1970 Constitution. But because they have not been taught their rights, they are readily manipulated and swayed by demagogues.'

The chiefs also launched a new political party, Soqososo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT), that it hoped would unite the Fijian people under one umbrella. The reality, as we know from the recent election results, turned out to be quite different. Some Fijian leaders questioned the wisdom of the Council of Chiefs, as a formal non-political institution, to sponsor a political party. Tora wanted to know what would happen to the dignity of the Council if it failed to capture all the Fijian seats. 'Our firm view,' he said, 'remains that the Bose Levu Vakaturaga should be at the pinnacle of Fijian society, totally removed from the taint of ordinary politicking'. The biggest shock was the election of Rabuka, a non-chief, to lead the SVT, who defeated Ratu William Toganivalu and Adi Lady Lala Mara. Butadroka was quick to respond: 'If the SVT delegates can put a commoner before the chief, then I don't know why a chiefs-backed party can do such a thing. - putting a chief-in this case the highest ranking chief, Ro Lady Lala-before a selection panel.'

The greatest shock of all was the recent election of Rabuka as the first 'independent' chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs. It is not surprising therefore to read of Ratu Mara's expressed concerns. Shortly after the first coup Rabuka wanted to exclude commoners from the Great Council of Chiefs altogether: 'I respect chiefs. I do not like the composition of the Great Council of Chiefs. There are so many non-chiefs there who will try to dictate the resolutions of the Great Council of Chiefs. The Chiefs are so humble, their personalities and their character do not make them forceful enough when they discuss matters. They will agree, they will compromise…whereas those who are not Chiefs in there tend to be very, very selfish.'

After Rabuka secured the prime ministership, he however began to develop ideological justifications for his ambitions. In August 1991, while professing to be a loyal commoner, he wondered whether it was appropriate for chiefs to involve themselves in electoral politics. Their proper role was at the local village level, because 'when it comes to politics, the chiefs do not have the mandate of the people'. While counting himself as an ideal candidate for leadership he reiterated that 'there are a lot of capable commoners who can play a very, very important role in the Fiji of the next decade'. He pointed out that 'the dominance of customary chiefs in government is coming to an end' and soon 'aristocracy' would be replaced by 'meritocracy'. Ratu Mara, who thought Rabuka was an 'angry young man, speaking off the cuff in any instigation', also faced Rabuka's wrath. Rabuka described Ratu Mara as a 'ruthless politician who has been allowed to get away with a lot. Maybe it's because of the Fijian culture that he is a big chief and because he was groomed well by the colonial government'.

The sudden change of Rabuka's tune on chieftaincy can be best illustrated by quoting Jone Dakuvula. Accusing the 'colonial' chiefs of keeping the commoner Fijians in political subjugation and economic morass, Dakuvula had personally challenged Rabuka on Fijian unity, specifically for his remarks during the two coups that 'I want all the Fijian people to be on one side. The whole thing is a solidarity of the Fijians and then we can compete'.

In Dakuvula's words, 'This reactionary notion has no basis in history or current realities. We Fijians have never been united at any time, either at the village level or national level. The various confederations of competing and warring vanuas, now roughly reflected in the provinces, outline these divisions. Any experienced village chief will tell Colonel Rabuka that all Fijian villages are riven with competing divisions along family, tokatoka, mataqali and other lines.' Furthermore, Dakuvula maintained that any chief who claimed to command his villagers' loyalty and unity at all times these days was 'a liar'.

He said Rabuka need look no further that the position and history of his mataqali. Dakuvula went on the claim that 'what the Taukei Movement and the Great Council of Chiefs proposal will achieve is the exact opposite of what they desire: it will result in provincialism, parochialism, unhealthy rivalries, patronage, corruption and the discrediting of the chiefly system'. Strangely Rabuka, on becoming prime minister, himself began to invoke the 'Melanesian' model of achieved leadership against the 'Polynesian' model of ascribed leadership. He compared his paramount chiefs (Mara included) to the banyan tree 'where you don't see anything growing', and suggested that they should step down.

Chieftainship versus Democracy

A general review of the trend of events clearly reveal that commoner Fijians have become increasingly strident in their criticism of the traditional chiefs, displaying spontaneous or calculated outbursts of individualism. One governor, Everard im Thurn, in 1905, dared to point out that excessive subordination of the Fijian people by their chiefs was a serious impediment to their progress and, indeed, a danger to their survival as a race. In his opening address to the Council of Chiefs, he outlined what were to him the worst aspects of chiefly rule in Fiji:

'You Fijians have done very little to help yourselves. You few chiefs are fairly prosperous. But your people-such of them as are left-are mere bond servants. They work for you partly because the law to some extent compels them. The reason why they do not care to work more for themselves is that your chiefly exactions prevent them from gaining anything for themselves-and property to make life interesting to them…Do you know what we mean by the word 'individuality'?…the man that has individuality uses his own brain to guide his own actions. He thinks for himself…he uses his own hands for his own benefit. To him life will be worth living. That is the habit of thought which we and you should encourage the Fijians.’

The late Dr Rusiate Nayacakalou, in his study of modern and traditional Fijian leadership, warned that 'attempts to displace existing leaders are viewed with suspicion and jealousy and may be met with drastic action'. It also reflects the trauma of an indigenous people struggling to encompass tradition within the framework of democracy. Ratu Mara's call for respect of the chiefs is a familiar one. When the SVT was formed, Durutalo said: 'This is the last hurrah of the chiefs. It is an attempt to stem the tide and salvage their hold and support of the Fijian people. There has been a gradual erosion of their political influence, accelerated particularly in the urban areas and this is a last ditch attempt to contain that'. The perennial question is how: through chiefship or democracy?

SHUT UP, COOLIE: In 2005, when our Founding Editor-in-Chief called for the ditching of Queens Birthday as public holiday, and the holiday be replaced by 'Leonidas or Girmit Day' the racists in the Qarase government told our Editor to 'JUST SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO INDIA'

KEEP AWAY FROM BAU: MERE SAMISONI, 'One of the most successful i-Taukei businesswoman to break glass ceiling, and Founder of Hot Bread Kitchen chain' was NOT invited to GCC gathering on the BAU ISLAND

26/5/2023

GCC HYPOCRISCY: "Economic empowerment to be a priority for GCC and iTaukei institutions." Go, LEARN from Dr Mere Samisoni

THE BURNING HOT QUESTION
WHO WAS BEHIND HER EXCLUSION?
Ratu Epenisa Cakobau or Sitiveni Rabuka?
Fijileaks: Our sources claim that her success in the business world is a threat to the CHIEFS Patriarchal POWER BASE. The chiefly system will not survive the 21st Century.

Information Economy, which is about EQUITY based on REDUCING POVERTY AND PROMOTING EDUCATION, HEALTH, DEMOCRACY, GOOD GOVERNANCE, the RULE OF LAW, AND JUSTICE, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE 17 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (2030) AND THE BLUE PACIFIC (CLIMATE CHANGE, 2050)

By LICE MOVONO

Published In Fiji Plus Magazine, August 5, 2019

Once upon a time, the manufacture and supply of bread in Fiji – available only in either the iconic long loaf or the sliced square loaf varieties – was controlled by twenty or so Chinese bakeries scattered across the country.

Dr. Mere Samisoni. Photo: JONATI TOROCAKEBack then, bread wasn’t quite the staple food that it has since become – thanks, to the enterprising instinct of a 41 year old Fijian nurse who decided to return home from Australia and change the course of her career and life by venturing into the bread making business to earn her crust.

Forty years later and looking 81 years young, Dr Mere Samisoni has no reason to regret opening Suva’s first Hot Bread Kitchen (HBK) in 1982. She had to overcome regulatory hurdles over 5 years to make that happen. By 2006, more than 30 HBK shops had sprouted throughout the country to transform the entire landscape of Fiji’s bakery industry.

Mere, however, is no mere revolutionary. And bread was a rare feature in the daily menu of meals available in Mere’s mother’s kitchen during her childhood. It was a luxury and simply unaffordable.

Mere’s mother and mantra

Hailing from Lomaloma village on the island of Vanuabalavu, Mere Tuisalalo was born and grew up with her 5 siblings in the colonial capital town of Levuka. Her tender age didn’t excuse her from performing various chores assigned by her mother for the efficient running of their household.

Mere’s daily tasks were to collect and stack firewood every afternoon; and help prepare each morning’s breakfast. Getting breakfast ready meant she had a better chance of grabbing the lion’s share from the food table. She didn’t mind the task because of that prospect.

Being her mother’s namesake (whom she affectionately refers to as Mere Levu or “Big Mere”) didn’t entitle her to any special privileges. What she inherited from Big Mere was the maternal vault of ethical values that have fashioned how she lives, works and thinks.

Mere’s perseverant resolve is founded on the principle that no task is too hard; and no obstacle so insurmountable. There is also, she firmly believes, a silver lining in every cloud. Her path-breaking career in business (punctuated with occasional setbacks) and acclaimed status as the nation’s pioneer in leveling the business field for women bear testimony to her successful pursuit of that ideal. She has been named Businesswoman of the Year not once, but thrice!

Mere accredits all her success to her beloved late mother: “I had to graduate from the school of hard knocks at the University of Big Mere first – long before I obtained my nursing qualifications, my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees; and my doctorate in business administration.”

Big Mere was a preacher’s daughter of European, iTaukei and Tongan ancestry. Mere Tuisalalo Fonolahi (her maiden name) was betrothed in marriage to Ratu Keni Naulumatua, the Turaga na Rasau. Privileged by chiefly birth to have a proper education, Ratu Keni escalated the ranks of the colonial civil service to become a postmaster.

Ratu Keni was stationed in Levuka at the time of the divorce of Mere’s parents. Big Mere was left with the custody and care of their 6 children. Tugging on to her mother’s skirt as they moved out of the quarters remains etched in Mere’s memory of that day.

Big Mere didn’t let the breakup break her stride. She kept the children fed and together by earning a living from sewing and doing all kinds of odd jobs.

Mere reflects: “She was resolute. To work is to pray. We had to work from the time we woke up in the morning until it was time to go to bed. It was all based on a strong biblical foundation.”

Bred on a diet of hard work and religion, young Mere (was by her own account) strong and hardworking as a child. Her circumstances didn’t allow her much scope for academic excellence then. But she was athletic; and perhaps even sassy. Mere rose above her situation in life to stand up for herself and others. “I’ve never been frightened of bullies,” she says.

Nursing and marriage

At 17, Mere decided that Levuka was too small for her and worked to find passage on the steamship MV Tofua to a new life in New Zealand. She travelled on her own, did not have a passport and stayed at the home of her older sister, Marianne, while she studied to become a nurse.

“I had a strong sense of empathy. Caring for other people came naturally to me from my mother,” Mere says.

It was in NZ that she met Jimione (Jimi) Samisoni, a medical science student. Upon her return to Fiji, they would date, get married and eventually move to Australia. Before they relocated, Mere worked in the maternity ward of Suva’s Colonial War Memorial Hospital.

“We got married here in 1961 at the Centenary Church and had our wedding dinner at the New Peking Restaurant. We couldn’t afford anything else,” recalls Mere.

Young Dr Jimi soon landed himself a scholarship to begin postgraduate studies in Queensland. This kept the Samisoni family studying and working in Australia from 1962 to 1979.

Very much her mother’s daughter, Mere couldn’t sit idly at home.

She seized the opportunity to work evening and weekend shifts at suburban hospitals while nurses were on strike. Her nursing credentials and experience allowed her to be promoted quickly. Mere longed, however, to work in rural hospitals serving Australia’s Aboriginal communities.

“They felt neglected and distrusted outsiders. I had to work really hard to build their trust. It took several months but once they trusted me, they adored me!”

Breadwinner’s investments

Mere reveals: “we had no money when we arrived in Australia. We had just got married. Jimi was a poor student. I needed to work to supplement his meagre stipend.”

She was enticed to invest their savings in buying property.

“We decided to buy ourselves a Housing Commission home which the government was providing for the influx of young Europeans migrating Down Under. It was affordably priced at AU$ 2,500, I thought, and within our ability to finance and repay.”

Mere worked to beautify the garden and develop their first humble home. When Jimi was recruited as a lecturer at the University of Queensland, the couple found reason to move somewhere closer to its campus and the opportunity to flip the house.

“I had learnt to sew from my mother so I sewed new curtains, did the house up nicely and sold it for AU$ 10,000. Then I bought another home in a nicer place in suburban Kenmore. It cost me AU$ 10,500. When we left, I sold that for AU$ 68,000.”

It was there that Mere discovered bread. As the smell of each fresh batch wafted into her home, the young mother grew curious. She did not just want to buy the bread, she wanted to know how it was baked and how the bread business operated.

Her nose led her to the bakery of David Bedwood in Kenmore Village Shopping Centre.

“David came from 200 years of bakery blood in his veins. I managed to persuade him to come to Fiji with us and become our business partner. We knew nothing about baking. I’m a manager and I know how to manage money and people – that was my strength.”

Having left Fiji as a nursing graduate, Mere would return after more than 17 years away, a nursing manager. She is the first Fijian nurse to become a Fellow of the College of Nursing Australia (FCNA). However, Fiji’s Ministry of Health policy about promotions at the time dictated Mere would start on the floor as a junior nurse, which she was not willing to do.

That’s how HBK was born.

With Jim returning to a medical career in the public health system and, thereafter, the Fiji School of Medicine which he would eventually head, Mere became restless without a job. The prospect of opening a bread shop weighed heavily on her ambitions.

There was a lot of skepticism and red tape leading to long delays, forcing David to return to Australia. Mere remained undeterred.

After a few false starts with local financing, she eventually found partners and some good bakers to open HBK’s first bakery in 1982, funded with $6,000 capital and a loan from ANZ Bank.

The first day was a huge success. The plan was to open for two hours to test the market but they ended up opening until 10 pm as excited people stood in long queues to sample its freshly baked products.

Having confirmed that she was now on to a good thing, Mere’s ambition was irrepressible.

Matriarch’s empire

She soon opened another outlet in Suva while researching and market-testing other areas for opportunities. A few more HBKs sprung up – and although she had to close some branches and open others, eventually the number of outlets multiplied to the 27 they’ve got today. More are opening soon.

“People just wanted a slice of that bread. The long loaf, of course, was the most popular.”

Mere was always innovating and trying new things – including the introduction of HBK’s iconic cream bun, but she makes sound business sense by insisting on profit margins.

“One of the things we did that nobody else did was to make sure that for every mix, it had to be measured and priced so that we know what went into production; and we knew what to expect at the end of the day.”

“One of the things we did that nobody else did was to make sure that for every mix, it had to be measured and priced so that we know what went into production; and we knew what to expect at the end of the day.”

Her business model operated on the principle of decentralising power. Each outlet had its own manager and sales people.

Over the years, the company has toyed with different finance and ownership structures – the latest being the idea of initial public offerings of HBK’s shares.

At several points of the company’s history, HBK had hired corporate leaders to drive the company forward. Today, however, it is completely run by family – under the leadership of Mere’s son, John Samisoni.

“I am training John to take over from me. I had the family more involved at operational and board levels. Then I found that it was too much family and I needed to get in some corporate honchos, so we co-opted some. Then I saw that corporate model wasn’t working ideally for us.”

“As a leader, you’ve got to watch the motives. So I have brought it back to family.”

HBK beyond Mere will be about delegating leadership to the children and the matriarch’s priority is to ensure those coming in have the necessary qualifications, and nurture the same spiritual principles and values that inspired her own success.

“The children have got to understand the vision and mission of the company.” “Any company can be unique because ultimately, the question is – what are the needs of the company? For me the needs of the company spring from its nature as a family business. The business has got to be there for the family, it cannot just be about finance.”

Her attentiveness to those kinds of concerns, among others, made HBK the ‘Female Employer of Choice for Women’ at the 2015 Women in Business awards.

HBK has as many women as men working in the company. Mere is proud to have on her staff people who have worked for her through several decades – some for as long as the company has been in operation. Often, children of staff have also joined HBK.

The octogenarian still visits the office daily to ensure that the values of spiritual strength and hard work instilled by Big Mere remain the main ingredients for HBK’s classic bread recipes.

SAILING THROUGH SAFE WATERS: RFMF says Mara is NOT a deserter and DRITI: "LEAVE Mara alone. I am surprised about people forgetting about a Third Officer charged. He is still walking around a free person.”

25/5/2023

DRITI

Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara

KALOUNIWAI

Brigadier-General (Retired) Mohammed Aziz

The Third Officer 'walking around a free man' is the former Deputy Commander Brigadier-General MOHAMMED AZIZ

*Our Founding Editor-in-Chief had provided bulk of the documents linking AIYAZ SAYED KHAIYUM to corruption and which formed basis of calls by Pita Driti, Ratu Ului Mara, Mohammed Aziz, and Jone Kalouniwai for the removal of Khaiyum from the interim military government.

*I vividly recall receiving a phone call one Saturday morning from Khaiyum's former BUDDY and now Coalition Cabinet Minister *******, asking me what evidence I had regarding Khaiyum. His BUDDY was with him, it later turned out, gracing the party.
I had incontrovertible evidence and scores of leaked files on me.
Aziz spearheaded the plan to remove Khaiyum but Bainimarama chased them away, saying all the allegations were 'hearsay' nonsense.
When Driti, Mara, and Aziz were arrested, Aziz began crying at the Togotogo Police Station, and later through Khaiyum's interference he was released without charge, and is 'still walking around a free person'.*
KALOUNIWAI became a State Witness in the Driti Trial, prompting that infamous cartoon by TruthforFiji, mocking the alleged treachery on Kalouniwai's part.
As for Aziz, Bainimarama owed him a favour, for it was Aziz who had intervened and stopped the interview when a soldier accused Frank Bainimarama of murdering the CWR mutinous soldiers.
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY
Sadly, unlike Driti and Mara, the Great Council of Chiefs, Thieves, and Others went into HIDING for SIXTEEN YEARS (Yes, for 16 Years) and would have been hiding for another four years from Bainimarama and Khaiyum if the Coalition had not formed the government.
We cannot help LAUGHING at these COWARDS talking TOUGH in BAU, and their supporters basking in glory and thanking GOD-KALOU'.

The Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Major General Jone Kalouniwai states that the RFMF will not be pressing any charges against former senior military officer, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara for desertion.

Major General Kalouniwai says with the growing interest in the recent return of Ratu Tevita back into the country, there has been a lot of hype surrounding the possibility of him facing a General Court Martial due to claims that he was a Deserter, contrary to section 37 (2) (a) of the Army Act 1955.

The Army Commander says the RFMF wishes to advise that Ratu Tevita Mara applied for his resignation of Commission and discharge from the RFMF on the 29th of March 2011.

This was approved by the Commander of the RFMF on the 31st of March 2011 and subsequently gazetted on the 20th of May 2011.

Major General Kalouniwai says this effectively meant that Ratu Tevita was no longer a member of the RFMF, hence no longer subjected to military law from 31st March 2011 onwards.

The Commander says Ratu Tevita absconded Fiji on 9th May 2011 while facing a sedition charge from the State in the Magistrates Court.

Former Land Force Commander Piti Driti said this of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara (more commonly known as Roko Ului) in the wake of scathing attacks on social media, calling into question the Coalition Government’s decision to cancel a border alert for the Lauan chief, and this week’s decision by the DPP’s Office that there is insufficient evidence to justify fresh charges against him.

Ten years ago, Mr Driti and Roko Ului were charged with inciting mutiny for allegedly planning the removal of the military-led Bainimarama government.

Mr Driti pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment which he served. Roko Ului escaped to Tonga before his trial and remained in exile until the FijiFirst government was voted out in the 2022 General Election. The DPP subsequently entered a nolle prosequi in respect of his pending charge as the State was unable to continue the prosecution against Roko Lui while he was in Tonga, but the police placed a border alert requiring Immigration officials to notify police if he returned.

Roko Ului returned to Fiji recently and has been seen at the Great Council of Chiefs meeting on Bau Island this week. According to a statement issued this week by Acting Minister for Home Affairs Filimoni Vosarogo, the border alert had been cancelled. A subsequent statement by the Assistant DPP, Lee Burney, said that upon a review, it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to recharge Roko Ului

When asked if there was any animosity or ill-feeling towards Roko Ului, given he was left to face the music alone – Mr Driti said there was none.

“I did not feel abandoned by him at all,” he said.

“I had my own nemesis to face.

“It was my personal music to face.

“He had a bullet to bite and I had one, but I bit mine.

“I have no ill-feelings towards him because we were always complaining about how (Aiyaz) Sayed-Khaiyum was trying to control the show from day one.”

During the trial, Mr Driti admitted he had made comments about then Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and asked intelligence cells to track Sayed Khaiyum and report to him.

He also said he told junior officers that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum was influencing the Prime Minister in government decisions.

However, Driti denied he told Lieutenant Colonel Tagicakibau that the Attorney General had to be eliminated by Christmas 2010.

He maintained his loyalty was to the Commander of the RFMF, but said Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, was leading Fiji in a different direction.

Three assessors found Mr Driti not guilty of two charges of inciting mutiny and uttering seditious comments but this was overruled by the presiding judge.

Mr Driti said the people of Lau should be proud of Roko Ului, that he was brave enough to risk his life and prove a story – “that we had a dictatorial government, led by the then PM and controlled by his AG.”

“I was charged via the information passed over to the Commander, the former PM.

“He (Roko Ului) took off because of the dictatorial rule that was at work then.

“He knew what was coming. He is not a deserter. We were both forced to resign.”

Mr Driti said instead of making comments on social media and calling for investigations, people should look at what happened to Roko Ului objectively.

“They should leave him alone.

“He also did a heroic act and what he did was not cowardice.”

The former Land Force Commander said there was so much focus on Roko Ului that many had forgotten a third party involved in their plan.

“I am surprised about people talking about Roko Ului and forgetting about the third officer charged. He is still walking around a free person.”

<<Previous

SINGH claims he only wanted inquiry into $47m scam in the Sports body

'ALL CHIEFS AND ONE INDIAN'. The i-Taukeinization continues at PSCThe failed PAP candidate Parmesh Chand, the only Indo-Fijian, has been appointed Permanent Secretary Civil Service and Public Enterprises