Ashwin Raj branded the USP journalism pair (Pat Craddock and Matt Thomspon) as: “Ill-informed, self aggrandizing, self-selected moral entrepreneurs. It is all too easy, in this context, for foreign academics having barely spent any significant time in Fiji, to drum up dialectics of freedom and un-freedom.”

Crosbie Walsh: "Dr Thompson has been in Fiji for three months. Far too short a time to speak out so confidentially on local issues. Putting it bluntly, as far as local customs, behaviour and events are concerned, he is wet behind the ears. It could be argued that three months is long enough when civil rights abuses are concerned, but he has no direct knowledge of the alleged abuses. He has relied on what others have told him, which raises questions about the knowledge, biases and agenda of his informants...And if he is deported for breaking conditions in his working permit or for some other reason will he then retire to Brisbane with enough new material to add a disparaging deportation chapter to a new book, tentatively titled Tortures in Paradise"  - Walsh - Blowing on the Embers of Old Fires: Media and Academic Freedom and Responsibility, reproduced by Fiji Sun, 29 June 2014

Thompson on Delaibatiki (Facebook): "Comedy gold!Today things took an even whackier turn when a newspaper editor rang to ask about "Torture in Paradise", a book or possible chapter of a book he said I'm rumoured to be writing under the cover of being an academic. If you read about this mythical tome in tomorrow's paper, remember you heard about it here first - only slightly after me, given I'd never heard of it until I picked up the phone this afternoon!

Sunday 29th June

Dear Heather –

"I will not be signing the letter sent to me as I do not accept that I have broken any  codes, ethics or regulations except that I did not make it clear on the Media Release(MR) that it was my personal viewpoint.  However- I have issued many MRs in my media work here, which dates back to the early 1990s, and not one MR has ever been questioned by the USP except  this last one. Future media releases will be clearly identified as coming from myself. 

I stand by my view that the original MR was accurate, balanced and a response to items that were already in the news arena.

Before giving an interview to any media  I advise them that the views are my own. I  have followed the procedure during my many years at the USP and working for other NGOs and media. You and Dr. Williams betrayed me. We had an informal conversation. That is on audio tape, yours and mine. There was no mention of further action. That night the USP issued a strong and inaccurate statement. Next morning we met and I was asked to write a draft for the basis of a new media statement. I received no comment on the draft and then received your letter, which I consider a threatening statement. I acknowledged that  I signed that I read the code of ethics. I did not say I broke any.

I have issued a Media Release today. Ana will receive a copy. Pat ."

Letters to the Editor, 30 June 2014

Dear Sir,

It is wonderful that USP management is so quick off the mark to investigate possible breaches of the USP code of conduct by two journalism lecturers, who merely gave their personal views to the media on continuing media censorship in Fiji, and military brutality in the past.

But so far, both USP management and the Chair of USP Council have refused to initiate any inquiries or make any public response whatsoever into two important issues concerning the performance of USP management, raised previously by the public through the media.

Both these issues concern transparency, good governance and accountability, which are all part of USP’s Mission and Vision statements, that an honest and effective USP Council, the ultimate governing body of USP, should demand from USP management.

First, can the Chairman of USP Council (Mr Ikbal Janif) inform the tax-payers of Fiji and the USP region, what exactly were the circumstances which led to the recent resignation of Professor Susan Kelly (Deputy Vice Chancellor at USP), at great financial cost to the University and taxpayers?

The second issue concerns talented and scarce regional academics leaving USP, clearly unwanted by the USP management.  The most recent case was Professor of Economics, Dr Biman Prasad, who was outstanding as Dean for several years, and in the opinion of most senior academic colleagues and sectional administrators at USP, eminently qualified, both academically and administratively,  to be appointed to the position of Deputy Vice Chancellor, for which he had unsuccessfully applied (I mean no disrespect to the appointed individual who has the good luck to be a beneficiary of the circumstances).

The USP Appointment Committee (of which Mr Ikbal Janif was also Chairman) was entitled to make its own judgment. But, as a tax payer and a former USP professor concerned about serious ongoing governance issues at USP, I wish to question if the final appointment committee meeting,  followed the basic principles of fairness and natural justice to Professor Biman Prasad.

(1) after six months of delay while Professor Prasad (and the applicants) were put through any number of interviews and tests, why was the appointment committee meeting not postponed for a few days, because the Chairman (Mr Jannif) was supposedly “ill-disposed” on that particular day of the final committee meeting?

(2) why was the meeting chaired by the Deputy Chair of Council, who was not on the original Appointments Committee, who was not present at the public presentations by the candidates, who was not part of the earlier interview processes, and who would therefore not have been in a position to judge the relative merits of the candidates?

(3) is it correct that at that last appointment committee meeting (at which there were two absentees), the same Acting Chairperson, supported by the Vice Chancellor, took an active role in pushing for the current appointee, who had nowhere near the academic or administrative qualifications of Professor Prasad, instead of letting the normal committee members make the decision?

Mr Janif  must be accountable to tax-payers both as Chair of the ultimate governing body, USP Council, and as Chairman of this particular Appointment Committee, which supposedly found Professor Biman Prasad’s application for the position of Deputy Vice Chancellor, inferior to that of the current appointee.

Can Mr Ikbal Janif, also a former Chairman of Transparency International Fiji, please personally enlighten the public on these two issues, answer the three questions raised above, and put into practice the principles of transparency and accountability, which USP management are often preaching to the Pacific taxpayers who “own” USP?

Professor Wadan Narsey
Suva

Sunday, June 29, 14

This is a personal statement by the writer. It does not reflect the views of the USP.

The University of the South Pacific has issued an ultimatum to Patrick Craddock of the USP Journalism program to sign a statement that would effectively silence him from talking to the media.

Craddock alleges that Dr. Williams is frightened of upsetting the military government of Prime Minister Bainimarama. He quotes Dr. Williams saying during their only meeting

“All of us understand that we don’t live in a normal democratic government situation.”

“…whatever we put out in the news media we are very careful..”

Craddock says Dr. Williams told him during their meeting that the University of the South Pacific is a government institution and does not operate in a democracy.

Craddock alleges the USP letter is intended to intimidate him by suggesting that his actions may put the work permits of new staff at risk.   The letter also asks him to refrain from making any adverse comments about the USP even after his contract ends.

The letter implies that he has behaved in a manner “prejudicial to the peace, good order, good government or morale” in Fiji by publicly criticising the military for justifying torture of dissenters and by criticising recent unfair treatment of journalists. Craddock believes his statements, made with a belief in academic freedom, are in the public interest.

The USP letter, which is released with this media statement, says there was a complaint from outside the USP. Who complained – was it the army, the police, MIDA, the Attorney General?  Craddock asked and was not told. The letter does not say if the complaint was upheld or even detail any due process to be followed.

In the informal recorded discussion Heather Stadel of USP Human Resources says that the complaint came from inside the USP. She refuses to name the complainant.

The letter implies that there were inaccuracies in the Media Release. There were none. The army has admitted that they have tortured and beaten people. Samisoni Pareti, a Fijian journalist was denied accreditation to the recent Pacific Islands Development Forum. After the original media release was published he received an apology from the Ministry of Information. Another journalist, Netani Rika says he was visited by special police.

Mr. Craddock also alleges he was personally insulted by a fellow USP academic Aswhin Raj during an  interview with Radio New Zealand International. Ashwin Raj also commented on both USP journalism academics on the blog “Fiji Leaks”.

Raj signed his name and position on the blog as being on the staff of the USP. Craddock has lodged a formal complaint against Aswhin Raj with the USP Human Resources Manager, Heather Stadel.

(Audio attached  of Dr. Williams talking with Patrick Craddock during their informal discussion)


IN:  All of us understand...


OUT: we are a government institution funded by them.

Duration 1.30”

For further information: Patrick Craddock 786-4898

END

SPEECH BY THE MARAMA BALE NA ROKO TUI DREKETI, RO TEIMUMU KEPA,

LEADER OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL PARTY (SODELPA),

AT SODELPA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING,

SUVA, JUNE 27TH, 2014

Ni tiko saka na Turaga Bale na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba na Vanua o Kubuna na kenai sasavu.  Ni tiko saka na Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau, Na Ai Sokula, Na Vanua Vakaturaga na Tovata, Na kenai sasavu, kina noqu Vanua o Burebasaga, Na kenai sasavu.

SODELPA delegates, friends and colleagues.

I am very honoured and pleased to be part of this annual meeting at this critical moment for our party and for Fiji. I am grateful for the opportunity to address you.

As we step up the planning and execution of our election campaign a number of issues have emerged. These include the shocking spread of poverty and unemployment, the decline of government services and infrastructure and the crippling cost of living.

When our manifesto comes out soon, the country will learn in some detail what we are offering the poor and needy to ease their burdens, to improve services and provide people with work.  

THIS REGIME HAS said recently THAT government had been working hard to ensure everyone is given the opportunity to live life to the fullest.

This is the statement of a member of the wealthy elite, living in his own privileged world and divorced from everyday realities.

How can citizens live life to the fullest when they cannot find jobs? Their frustrations are intensified as they see few prospects of employment under the Bainimarama-Khaiyum dictatorship.

And what about the anguish of that Navua mother and her husband who lost their baby recently because the ailing health services failed them? What has that tragedy done to their prospects for living life to the fullest? They will carry their sorrow always.

What progress can they expect in medical and maternity care from a government that has presided over an eight-year drop in standards? The answer is that they can expect little change; it will be just more of the same.

How can low income families live life to the fullest when they are struggling to feed themselves because many FOOD ITEMS are virtually beyond their reach?

Each day is about survival, Mr Khaiyum - surviving the conditions your regime has created.

I can disclose today that research by one of our NOMINEES, Mick Beddoes, shows that the consumer price squeeze is far worse than earlier calculations of a 60 per cent increase in the cost of food lines since 2006.

Mr Beddoes and his helpers surveyed 32 items, comparing the prices now with those of 2006.

They found the average increase was 86 per cent.

The lowest individual increase was 16.2 per cent, the highest 227 per cent.

They selected 10 items as a likely weekly household shopping list and made a 2006 comparison to determine the increased cost burden on families of today.

The list included one no.11 chicken, 10kg flour, rice, soya bean oil, powdered milk, washing detergent, breakfast crackers, whole peeled tomatoes, BBQ chops and soap.

Listen carefully to what they discovered. It shows in very stark terms why the people are complaining about the cost of living under THIS REGIME.

In 2006 the total cost of the 10 items would have been $38.60 a week.

Now a family pays $75.92 for THESE SAME ITEMS – an increase of 96.68 per cent.

I have asked that copies of the survey be distributed among delegates for wider circulation in the community.

I wonder how many of these increases are caused by the boosting of import duties and tariffs as a means of raising finance for a cash hungry government?

The regime must take full responsibility for its failure to achieve expansion in the economy.

THE REGIME has had nearly eight years to repair the economic damage created by its military coup – and it is still falling well short.

It must take full responsibility for the wage stagnation that has worsened the plight of the poor and further devalued what little money they have in their pockets.

We say to those who are suffering:

Hold on; we are ALMOST THERE. We cannot produce miracles but we can promise special measures to bring you some immediate relief.

We will give you proven policies for change, so that once again you CAN have hope; once again you can look with confidence to a better future.

I wish to now comment further on the issue that is close to the heart of every indigenous Fijian; it is already a burning topic in homes and villages.

Bear with me please as I go into some detail on this.

It affects every member of the indigenous community and it has a wider significance for the country.

I speak of customary land and the threat to its ownership by THIS REGIME and those who do their bidding.

Indeed the threat has hardened into a reality.

A move to control this precious commodity is already well advanced.

For the indigenous Fijians, it is bound up with our identity and our culture. It is an anchor in a sea of change.

I have chosen my words carefully in what follows because I do not wish to be seen as provocative.

You will agree that the provocation comes from those who have pushed on us unwanted change in a constitution with no democratic legitimacy.

It has come also from other legal measures that are almost beyond belief in their extremity.

We are a responsible party; we are patient and peaceful and will always act with restraint.

But the regime must know it is impossible for us not to speak out in view of the circumstances we now face.

To remain silent would be a betrayal of our people. It would be a betrayal of our God-given heritage and of the generations yet to come.

Ladies and gentlemen and friends, our weapon in this crisis is the truth and the truth will prevail.

Previous constitutions WITH THEIR ENTRENCHED LEGISLATION AND GROUP RIGHTS gave strong protection to Fijian land ownership. All the political parties, all our communities, recognized how important this was.

But now Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed- Khaiyum have chosen to weaken this fundamental element of the indigenous birthright. The evidence is there in the constitution they handed down and, most blatantly, in their Land Use Decree.

We have consistently protested the regime’s policies on indigenous land and have given the reasons for this.

The only response we get is to be called liars. That’s their policy - to accuse us of lying. That’s the best they can do. It works like this – if you don’t like what your opponent says but can’t give an informed reply, just dismiss it as a lie.

This is a crude and pathetic way of avoiding the issue.

Bainimarama keeps repeating that the protection for Fijian land is stronger than it has ever been. HE TELLS US THAT LAND IS SAFE.

THE LAND IS NOT SAFE. THE REGIME goes on to cite a referendum requirement in their constitution as proof of this.

In the circumstances, this makes no sense ... no sense at all.

I will explain why shortly.

I now intend to issue a number of challenges directly to Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Let me start with their constitution. In the first draft there was no reference at all to native land. It was left out completely. This caused disbelief and uncertainty among landowners.

It was only when SODELPA supporters AS THE GENERAL SECRETARY HAD ALLUDED TO THIS MORNING began to make their concerns known that Bainimarama-Khaiyum decided they had better make a change.

You can be pretty certain that without SODELPA’s intervention, and comments from others, they would have enacted their supreme law without any specific mention of native land.

I challenge them to tell the nation and the indigenous people why it was left out of their first draft?

What were they thinking when they did this? Tell us, we would like to know.

special entrenched provisions in earlier constitutions gave secure safeguards for Fijian land ownership, and ownership by the Banaban community of Rabi and the indigenous people of Rotuma.

The 1997 constitution protection covered the Fijian Affairs Act, Fijian Development Fund Act, Native Lands Act, Native Lands Trust Act, Rotuma Act, Rotuma Lands Act, Banaban Lands Act, Banaban Settlement Act, and the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act. They could only be altered after three readings of a Bill for change in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Motions for the second and third readings had to be carried in each chamber.

As an additional safeguard nine of the 14 members of the Senate appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs had to be supportive of change on the third reading.

Alterations to the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act also required three readings with the votes of two thirds of the members in each House. Votes of nine of the 14 GCC senators were also needed.

The people’s draft constitution of the Yash Ghai Commission, that was scrapped by the regime, also listed entrenched laws – iTaukei Lands Act cap 113, iTaukei Land Trust Act cap 134, Rotuma Lands Act cap 138, Banaban Lands Act cap 124, and Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act cap 270.

All these carefully thought-out and thorough safeguards were thrown out, without the permission of the INDIGENOUS Fijians.

The regime also claimed to have abrogated the 1997 constitution which contained these protections.

It has scrapped the Senate and got rid of the GCC; so they are now out of the way THUS MAKING IT EASIER TO ENACT DECREES TO FUTHER THEIR AMBITIONS.

I challenge Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz-Khaiyum to tell us why they did away with these strong defences of our land? They have NEVER given us a proper explanation.

Perhaps they will again accuse SODELPA of lying when we keep reminding the indigenous people of what they did to those entrenched provisions.

So what action did they take to replace what they had removed?

Fijian land was put into a long list of rights in the Bill of Rights of their constitution.

But of course there is a catch. There nearly always is.

Clause (5) (c) of section 6 of that Bill of Rights means rights can be limited if this is necessary. In plain language that means the indigenous rights to land can be undermined by an act of parliament AGREED TO BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

To underscore what we are saying, I refer here to an expert analysis by the Citizens Constitutional Forum that concludes that the Bainimarama-Khaiyum Bill of Rights offers no real protection to Fijian landowners.

I challenge Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to explain their limitation clause.

Spell... it... out... please.

I ask them “will you once more resort to your empty policy of accusing me and SODELPA of telling lies?”

Voreqe Bainimarama’s famous retort that Fijian land is well protected by his constitution’s requirement for any changes to be subjected to a referendum does not stand up to scrutiny.

It is upside-down logic, making no sense in the circumstances to which I refer.

Remember that it has been said that the Bainimarama-Khaiyum charter may be the most difficult constitution in the world to amend.

The amendments we seek are for Fijian land to be comprehensively protected as it was in the 1970, 1990 and 1997 constitutions.

 Under their constitution it would be very, very hard to achieve this because they have made it very hard to alter. that’s because they don’t want to change any part of it.

That is now the problem as we take up the struggle to secure our land rights.

don’t be fooled by Voreqe Bainimarama’s statements about a referendum.

It is nonsense.

Another issue comes into play.

In a referendum, all registered voters would have their say on questions relating to Fijian land ownership. How can this be? How legal would that be? How right would that be? There would surely be no precedent anywhere in the world for it.

There is a further big flaw.

Fijian land does not belong to individuals. It is owned by groups of people. This was recognized in the 1997 constitution which had a full chapter dedicated to group rights. Much of this concentrated on Fijian land and the protective provisions for it.

But there is no mention at all in the regime’s constitution of indigenous group ownership of land. This integral aspect of indigenous culture has simply been erased.

On whose authority was this done? The chiefs as a body did not agree; the people did not agree.

We will be forgiven for seeing this as another direct assault on our indigenous ways and traditions.

I said that a move to control our land had already begun. The prime vehicle for this is the Land Use Decree – which is like a super law - and its Land Bank.

They severely violate landowner rights.

Some owners have already decided to place their land in the Land Bank, which competes with the Native Land Trust Board.

Once they have made that decision their owners’ rights are virtually lost to them.

The super decree gives sweeping powers to the prime minister to make decisions on land to be utilized under it.

Understand that the power conferred on the prime minister is very dictatorial. The decree  overrides all other laws, including the Native Land Trust Act and ALTA.

It is the first time that so much power over native land has been given to an individual.

We are constantly told by Bainimarama-Khaiyum that everyone in Fiji is equal. This is not true. The Land Use Decree imposes a state of inequality on indigenous landowners.

It cannot be challenged in court which means the owners could not judicially question the validity or legality of a lease or any lease conditions or take any grievances to court.

This discrimination against the landowners is itself a serious breach of landowner rights. It is also in breach of Section 26 of the regime’s constitution which states that every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection, treatment and benefit of the law.

In our view, the Decree makes the indigenous people second class citizens by denying them certain legal rights.

Freehold landowners are not treated in this way.

This discrimination must stop!

It is not evident to us how the consent procedures for depositing Fijian land in the Land Bank actually work. But it appears that only 60 per cent support of the owners is required.

What is clear is that powers are effectively taken away from the Native Land Trust Board. This undermines the board’s statutory responsibility to protect the best interests of indigenous landowners and resource owners.

The Prime Minister, not the owners, decides how land shall be used.

He can also make regulations under the Decree - with no apparent provision for the landowners to have a say in this. Leases can be issued by the Prime Minister for up to 99 years.

We will find out how many 99 year leases, and other leases, have been issued; to whom they have been issued and under what conditions.

we ask, How would land be returned to the landowners after 99 years, if by then it includes a massive list of assets constructed on it?

How would the landowners find the huge amounts of money to purchase such assets?

We see a very real risk that land would revert to lease in perpetuity as a consequence of the likely inability of the traditional owners to purchase assets on it.

Voreqe Bainimarama has also taken over the chairmanship of the NLTB.

This fits his strategy of gaining maximum control of native land. He wants this because he enjoys that kind of power.

All the very troubling and unprecedented circumstances I have outlined are also in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 and ILO Convention 169.

Fiji has not signed the UNDRIP and the Bainimarama regime has been silent on why it has not done so. What is clear, is his regime does not intend to sign the UNDRIP as they are hell bent on undermining indigenous Fijian identity and aspirations as clearly spelt out in Khaiyum’s thesis. This so-called academic paper is the foundation for all the policies for the elimination of indigenous Fijian identity. We will expose this truth to all indigenous people of this country and for them to be aware of the systemic and comprehensive policies of this regime to disenfranchise them. 

I declare to you now that SODELPA will not rest until the wrongs I have described have been righted and indigenous people once more have full protection for their customary ownership of land.
 
In Government, we will abolish the Land use Decree and the Land Bank.

In association with other parties we will explore legal means for establishing a constitution that reflects the popular will.

The mandate of the people is supreme. They possess the sovereign power of the nation.

We will strengthen and reorganise the NLTB to ensure its management and its organization is fully equipped to meet the needs of the owners and of the nation.

The Fijians have long acknowledged that they have a responsibility to make land available for the development of Fiji.

Additionally we will ensure that the chair of the NLTB is chosen by landowners in consultation with the government. We will review the present system of distribution of lease money which has disempowered our Turaga ni Mataqali, Turaga ni Yavusa and Turaga I Taukei and is effectively destroying the communal foundation of indigenous society.

My friends, last week we were told by Voreqe Bainimarama about the virtues of “green growth”.

He assured us that this environmentally sound model of development is best for Fiji and the region.

We don’t disagree.

Our manifesto contains a number of proposals for ensuring a clean environment, responding to climate change and embracing principles of sustainability.

We say that the environmental record of Voreqe Bainimarama’s regime is very bad, despite his advocacy of “green growth”.

He has rarely made public comments on environmental problems that concern different communities.

Consider for a moment the dispute at Draunibota Bay in Lami where a proposed heavy industrial scheme threatens mangroves and other marine resources.

I have met with the local vanua Navakavu, and the i qoliqoli owners, who oppose the industrial rezoning.

I share their concerns and those of all the residents.

The vanua complain about the lack of open consultations on what is proposed. Their voice is not being heard. This is not consistent with policies of “green growth” and good, accountable governance.

Our party calls on voreqe bainimarama to use his unfettered authority to halt the industrial zoning plan and work with the people to ensure their wishes are met.

If he does not come out publicly in support of the vanua, and the other residents, then he can hardly claim to be a champion of the environment.

I assume that by now he is following up on a report by one of his permanent secretaries about soil erosion caused by intense logging and other unsustainable practices. Again, this is not consistent with the commitment by his regime to conservation and responsible development.

He should break his silence as well on the major damage caused to mangroves during his watch. What exactly is his policy? Why was the destruction allowed to happen? SODELPA and the country would like to know.

SODELPA will enact policies to convert designated mangrove areas into marine reserves and sanctuary. This is critical for my province of Rewa which has seen a steady decline in mangroves. Mangroves are critical for marine life and for sustainability of marine ecosystem and an effective barrier to the effects of climate change. It is also a source of food for hundreds of people.

Members of SODELPA and friends, WE have been traveling widely to prepare for our election campaign.

Last week WE VISITED the northern division.

Frankly I was shocked at the state of affairs in Vanua Levu. We intend to soon tell the nation what we saw, what we experienced, and what we intend to do about it.

The bottom line is that the regime’s Look North Policy is a farce and a failure.

But for today I wish to pay tribute to the people we met.

They are the salt of our earth…kind, friendly and hard working.

Our supporters in Vanua Levu are filled with zeal for our cause.

One memory stays with me; it haunts me and inspires me.

At WAILEVU IN LABASA WE spent time with the local Indo Fijian community. They were very welcoming, very gracious.

I could sense their expectation that I and SODELPA could do something to help them improve their lives, to make conditions better.

I reminded myself that this campaign is not just about winning. It is about what happens after that – the formation of a government that will help our citizens.

It is about being worthy of the faith people have in us to restore, reconstruct and rehabilitate Fiji.

It struck me that we are all victims of the coups that have weakened and broken this land.

The Indo-Fijians felt the brunt of earlier upheavals – the fear, the stress, the insecurity, and sometimes, the brutality.

This time the indigenous people have been at the receiving end.

We too have experienced our own coup nightmare. This has given me a fuller appreciation of the ordeals suffered by the Indo-Fijians.

I know others feel the same.

HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT COUPS ALSO BRING BLESSINGS AS In a way there is a now a new bond between us. It is a bond of our common humanity forged in the uncertainty, the turmoil and repression of military force and illegal dictatorship.

Now is the time for us all to hold hands, and look after each other.

We have to put a stop to the unlawful takeover of elected governments.

We must teach our children about the rule of law and the importance of building understanding and trust between us.

At the beginning of these remarks, I highlighted some of the key issues emerging in the election.

But there is one that surpasses them all.

We have to remove the dictatorship of Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. It is a product of the kind of force which has done so much damage to Fiji.

For us to cure the ills of unemployment, poverty, the high cost of living, poor services and Fijian fears over their land, Bainimarama-Khaiyum must be voted out.

If they get back into government, we can expect the same kind of dictatorial thinking and intolerance which has marked and marred the last eight years.

They will be bent on exercising maximum control over us through the powers given to them in their constitution and their laws.

THIS IS A REMINDER TO US ALL ESPECIALLY THE NOMINEES. yOU ARE THERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AS SERVANT LEADERS. TRUST IN AND RELY ON THE LORD ALWAYS.

So rally and unite now for our freedom;

rally and unite for truth and justice,

and for work and food on the table!

Let us march forward to victory and unity!

TOGETHER WE CAN, TOGETHER WE WIN!

Let us choose democracy over dictatorship!

Thank you for listening and May God bless us all!

                                                                         ________________

ADOLF Hitler was a tax dodger who hid a vast fortune across several Swiss bank accounts, historians have discovered. Documents have emerged showing the dictator amassed hundreds of millions of pounds in today’s money, which he concealed from the German people. It appeared to vanish completely after his death, along with his substantial art collection.

But historians have now managed to trace the money through tax documents and bank statements. They believe he was worth around 1.1billion Reichsmarks, the equivalent of £3.6billion today. During his lifetime the Nazi leader insisted his public speeches only made him a small amount of money and that he did not even have a bank account. But documentary The Hunt For Hitler’s Missing Millions, to be aired [in United Kingdom]  on Channel 5, will explore how he secretly gained a huge fortune.
He refused to pay taxes, dodging £1.75million before passing a law that made him exempt.

The book he wrote in prison, Mein Kampf, generated one million Reichs-marks-per-year after Hitler decreed that a copy be given to every married couple – paid for by the government. Experts also claim the dictator wrote a secret will on the morning of his death, hoping to trick the German people into believing his humble claims. In it he dedicated five pages to a political diatribe against the Jews and just three to his personal will.He presented himself as almost penniless, writing: ‘What I own belongs, as so far as it is of any value at all, to the party.’

There was no further mention of his wealth, only that his relatives should be given enough ‘to sustain a simple middle-class life’. It was to be administered by Hitler’s private secretary and fellow Nazi, Martin Bormann, who was witness to the will and named as Hitler’s sole executive. However Bormann was shot dead not long after Hitler committed suicide. The will was intercepted by Allied forces as a suspected Nazi tried to smuggle it out of the country, hidden in the shoulder pad of his jacket.

Historian Dr Chris Whetton said: ‘He loved money. He just wasn’t prepared to do much for it.’ The Nazi leader also copyrighted his image, meaning he even earned royalties every time a post-age stamp with his face on it was sold. Herman Rothman, a retired British Intelligence Officer was among those to discover and translate the will. He said: ‘We were absolutely shocked by what we found. I think the private will was also for consumption by the German people. He wanted to show in his private will he had very little. 'I always felt he thought about it very, very clearly, he wanted to show the people he had no benefits, that his life was purely devoted entirely to the wealth of the German people.’ The Daily Mail, 26 June 2014

Former UPP President and Opposition Leader Mick Beddoes today issued an appeal to all of the former members and supporters of the UPP to join him and others in SODELPA and help restore democracy in Fiji

Beddoes said he had waited until now to make this appeal as he wanted to give his former members and supporters enough time to make their own decisions on which of the opposition parties they wished to join following the winding up of the United Peoples Party in October last year.

Beddoes said that at the time of the winding up he had thanked them for their allegiance and loyalty. This has seen him elected twice to parliament.

Giving them time to decide for themselves who they would support in 2014 was important.

Beddoes said there has been an 8 year lapse in political activity. Many former members and supporters have relocated, migrated or passed on. Regrettably a few have compromised their principles and associated themselves with Frank Bainimarama.

However he was encouraged by the continuing positive feedback suggesting many were waiting for him to declare his candidacy. He looked forward to re-establishing contacts and building on the original the support base.

Beddoes said he was at the final stages of his planning and budgeting for his campaign which he would be launching shortly. His first round of meetings would cover Vatukola, Tavua, Ba, Lautoka, Nadi, Kulukulu, Nadroga, Pacific Harbour, Navua, Vesari, Lami, Suva, Nasinu, Nausori, Levuka, Taveuni, Kioa, Rabi, Bua Bay, Kasavu, Savusavu, Wainunu, Bua and Labasa.

Authorized By:  Mick Beddoes

CONTACT

MOBILE: 8305249

OFFICE: 9085043

Email: mick.beddoes@gmail.com

Twitter @BeddoesM

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mick-Beddoes/633315270088589?ref=hl

Website: www.mickbeddoes.com

25 June, 2014

Response to Media

Recent comments by our senior academic staff aired on Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat programme and appearing in the media have been brought to the attention of the University and concerns expressed about their accuracy and propriety.

The University again wishes to make it clear that the views expressed by Dr.  Matt Thompson and Mr. Patrick Craddock are their own.

The University of the South Pacific upholds the principle of academic freedom and the right of its members to comment responsibly and within their area of expertise on current affairs. 

As outlined in the University’s Code of Professional Conduct for Academic Staff, in doing so, staff must observe the laws of the State and comply with University statutes and rules.

Given the concerns expressed about the accuracy and propriety of the comments made by Dr. Thompson and Mr. Craddock, and to protect the academic freedom of all staff (and thereby ensure collective adherence to the University’s Code of Professional Conduct for Academic Staff), the University has initiated an internal investigation, and will consider appropriate action.

___________________________________________________________________________
For further queries please contact our Media & Public Relations Coordinator Ana Tudrau-Tamani on (679) 3232039, (679) 9719588 or email ana.tamani@usp.ac.fj at the Development, Marketing & Communications office.

MEDIA BIAS SURVEY
SURVEY PERIOD: APRIL 1st to JUNE 18 2014

MATERIAL SOURCE: FIJI SUN & FIJI TIMES NEWS PAPERS

The Truth about Media Bias.

There’s been much discussion about this. The issue here concerns what many believe to be a lack of fair and balanced coverage by Fiji’s two daily newspapers. The end result of such a scenario is that readers are deprived of the facts, comment and news reporting they require to make informed decisions.

In an election it is even more vital for the people to have access to credible even-handed reporting. Without this an election cannot truly be regarded as free and fair as the electorate is less than well informed and therefore limited in its ability to make a sound judgment on whom to vote for or support.

On June 12th 2014 during the opening of the Fiji First office in Suva, Frank Bainimarama accused the Fiji Times of bias. I thought it was extraordinary that he made no comment about the content and slant of the political coverage of the Fiji Times competitor, the Fiji Sun. This said something about the way his mind works.  Many citizens regard the Sun as being primarily a mouthpiece for the Bainimarama government.  In other words, they see it as being extremely biased in favor of the administration to the extent that it is a propaganda organ.

In a Fiji Sun report on April 30th 2014 about a media workshop held in Suva, the Chairman of MIDA, Ashwin Raj  while rejecting claims that the Fiji Sun is biased in favor of the regime said, quote -

‘That is not true, I wish you could read the Fiji Sun on a daily basis because I’ve seen various reports on the National Federation Party, lots of attention on its new leadership. I’ve seen pieces by the Fiji Labour Party leader, pieces by SODELPA, PDP secretariat, and so it’s there’ Unquote.

Ms Rachna Lal The managing editor of business Fiji Sun said this about their reporting at the same workshop, quote

Denies claims The Fiji Sun is a 'government newspaper' but says Rear Admiral Bainimarama's policies have been positive. Ms Lal says he has done a lot of work developing rural areas, which had been neglected by previous governments.

What we are as a newspaper, and we make no apologies for this, is broadly supportive of the Bainimarama government's policies. We believe these policies are building a better Fiji. We know these policies have strong, broad, public support

These are all very strong comments and denials. What are the people to make of them? What is the truth? Either we can all see it or those defending the obvious bias are in a constant state of denial for obvious reasons. So we decided to check for ourselves.

Over the last three weeks, I organized our own research into the content of both newspapers; the aim was to get a clear picture of the political content of both news papers so that we could make a reasoned judgment on the extent or otherwise, of bias.  

The research covered the period from April 1st to June 18th. Of the 79 days covered, we surveyed 59 issues of the Fiji Sun which is 75% of all issues in that period, and 58 Fiji Times or 73% of the total issues in that period.

In April the Bainimarama government received 75% of the Fiji Sun coverage while the opposition got 25%. The Fiji Times gave the Bainimarama government 63% of its coverage and the Opposition 32% with Independents getting 5%

Fiji Sun Coverage:-

In the various categories the Fiji Sun gave the Bainimarama government 40% of the Top Billings, 75% headlines, 100% front page pictures, 90% front page articles, as well as 67% of all the articles.  Bainimarama also got 80% of all full page articles, 46% half page, 55% quarter pages, 68% of all the pictures, 89% of all tweets and 75?% of the first word.

They gave the opposition 60% of the top billing, 25% of the headlines, 0% of the front page pictures, 10% of the front page articles, 33% of the articles, 20% of the full pages, 54% of the half pages, 45% of the quarter pages and 32% of the pictures, 11% of the tweets and 25% of the first word.

Fiji Times coverage         

The Fiji Times gave the Bainimarama government 100% of its top billing, 100% of its headlines, 100% front page article, 62% of its articles, 65% half page, 59% quarter page 65% of its pictures. The opposition received 33% coverage in its articles, 26% of the half pages, 38% of the quarter pages and 30% of the pictures, while the Independent candidate received 5% of the articles, 9% of the half pages, 4% of the quarter pages and 5% of the pictures.

In May the Fiji Sun gave the Bainimarama government 73% of its coverage, opposition 25% and Independent 2% while the Fiji Times gave the government 49% coverage, the opposition 47% and the Independent 4%

Fiji Sun Coverage:-

In the various categories the Bainimarama government received 64% of the top billing, 75% of the headlines, 83% of the front page pictures, 83% of the front page articles, 71% of the articles, 82% of the full pages, 65% of the half pages, 73% of the quarter pages, 76% of the pictures, 91% of the tweets, 60% of the first word.

The opposition received 32% of the top billing, 25% of the headlines, 17% of the front page pictures, 28% of the articles, 18% of the full page, and 32% of the half pages, 26% of the quarter pages, 22% of the pictures, 9% of the tweets and 35% of the first word. The independent candidate received 4% of the top billing, 2% of the articles, 3% of the half pages, 1% of the quarter page, 2% of the pictures, and 5% of the first word.

Fiji Times coverage

The Fiji Times gave the Bainimarama government 40% of the top billing, 17% of the headlines, 50% of the front page pictures, 0% of the front page articles, 51% of the articles, 50% of the full pages, 44% half page, 54% quarter page, 48% of the pictures.

The opposition received 60% of the top billing, 83% of the headlines, 50% of the front page pictures, 100% of the front page articles, 45% of the articles, 50% full pages, 57% half page, 40% quarter page, 47% of the pictures, while the Independent candidate received 5% of the articles, 6% of the quarter page and 5% of the pictures.

Over the first 16 days of June 2014 the Fiji Sun gave the Bainimarama government 73%, the independent 1% and opposition 26% of its coverage. The Fiji Times gave Bainimarama and his government 59%, independent 8% and opposition 33% of its coverage. In the various categories the two dailies gave each of our groups the following coverage:-

Fiji Sun Coverage:

The Bainimarama government received 67% of the top billing. 80% of the headlines, 100% of Front page pictures, 100% of the front page articles, 78% of all the articles, 93% of full pages, 68% of half page, 70% of quarter pages 66% of all pictures, 100% of tweets and 39% of the first word.

The opposition received 33% top billings, 20% headlines, 0% front page pictures, 0% front page articles, 21% of articles, 7% of full pages, 28% of half page, 30% of quarter page, 33% of all pictures, 0% of tweets and 54% of the first word, while the Independent candidate received 0.7% of the articles, 4% of the half pages, 0/5% of pictures and 8% of the first words.

Fiji Times Coverage:-

The Bainimarama government received 0% of the top billing, 0% of the headlines, 100% of the front page pictures, 0% of the front page articles, 59% of the articles, 1005 (what does this mean?) of the full pages, 60% of the half pages, 58% of the quarter pages, and 58% of the pictures

The opposition received 100% of the top billing, 0% of the headlines, 0% of the front page pictures, 0% front page articles, 33% of the articles, 27% of the half page articles, 36% of the quarter pages, 33% of the pictures while the Independent candidate received 100% of the front page articles, 7% of the articles, 13% of the half page, 6% of the quarter pages, 9% of the pictures,

Summary

While the Fiji Times is generally more balanced in its reporting with 58% covering the Bainimarama regime over the total survey period, the Fiji Sun’s coverage for the regime has never dropped below 73%.

The Opposition received just 26% coverage from the Fiji Sun and 36% from the Fiji Times, while the Independent candidate received 1% coverage from the Fiji Sun and 6% coverage from the Fiji Times.

It is fair to conclude that even though the survey covers the period when the Media is supposedly more free and unrestricted, the results of the current coverage of the two main print media organizations suggests is definitely practiced.

The UFDF has issued dozens of statements on various issues and upwards of 80% never get a mention in either paper, although the blogs and overseas radio & TV provide reasonable coverage.

The Media Industry Development Decree 2010 [Decree No 29 of 2010] was created to establish discipline and balance in the media industry and MIDA was established to enforce the provisions of the decree.

In particular in Schedule 1 (Section [17 (1)] Media Code of Ethics & Practice is supposed to be the Media Industry standard for reporting and Media outlets are supposed to comply with the following requirements.

1. Sec 1: Accuracy, balance and fairness: in particular  (d) ‘Media organizations have a duty to be balanced and fair in their treatment of news and current affairs and their dealings with members of the public’ & (e) Editorial comment in any medium must be clearly identified as such and kept separate from news reports.

1. Sec 2: Opportunity to reply: Media organizations have an obligation to give a fair opportunity to reply to any individual or organization on which the medium itself comments editorially

 

1. Sec 21: Impartially and balance: Media organizations shall endeavor to show fairness at all times, and impartiality and balance in any item or programme, series of items or programmes or in broadly related articles or programmes over a reasonable period of time when presenting news which deals with political matters, current affairs and controversial questions.

 
The results of our survey make it clear that The Fiji Sun has consistently provided upwards of 73% coverage for the regime which is in breach of the provisions of Sec 1: Accuracy, Balance and fairness, Sec 2: Opportunity to reply and Sec 21 Impartially and balance of Decree 29 of 2010.

The Media Industry Authority headed by Ashwin Raj is charged with the responsibility of ensuring ‘compliance’ with these laws and aside from complaints lodged by Beddoes in February, April and May 5th 2014, Sec 54 of the Media Decree below does allow the Authority to act without complaints against those who breach the decree.  Yet no action has been taken.

Part 9 Complaints to the Authority; spells out in Sections 53 to 58, how one can complain and what MIDA is required to do about those complaints.

Once they receive a complaint they are required to notify the media organization of it, request for more information from the complainant and media organization if they need and either dismiss the complaint or proceed with it. If the Media organization fails to provide the information requested then they shall be guilty of an offence under Sec 59 and subject to a fine of $10,000 or 2 years imprisonment or both.

With regards to the 3 complaints lodged with MIDA, they have not asked us for further information nor have they advised that the complaints have been dismissed; therefore we can assume they have complied with Sec 56 and notified the media outlet concerned.  

Now given the long time that has lapsed since I lodged my complaints, if the Media organization has not provided information sought by MIDA, then according to Sec 59 they are guilty of an offence. If however the Media organization has not been advised of the complaints, then MIDA has failed to do its job.

Not so long ago MIDA Chairman Raj, sprung into action in response to comments made by Ratu Vesikula at a meeting with Frank Bainimarama in Tailevu. Almost within days of the speech MIDA charged TV One for breaches based on complaints lodged by Sharon Smith Jones about the inadequate airtime given to Bainimarama on the news item, not happy with the 73% advantage in the Fiji Sun obviously. The outcome of the MIDA intervention was reported as follows quote:-

MIDA has upheld the complaint, saying in a statement that the speech threatened "racial and communal discord" and was a "blatant breach of the Media Code of Ethics and Practice on the part of Fiji TV".

"Masquerading itself as an exercise in freedom of expression, political discourse has, in fact, descended to unabashed racial vilification and i some instances its content is tantamount to injourious or hate speech," MIDA Chairman Ashwin Raj said in his ruling.

"The media must not antagonize but should play a much more productive role in fostering cohesion, engendering an ethos of robust debate," he said.

On Wednesday Fiji TV broadcast a response from the interim Prime Minister, but may also be ordered to broadcast an apology.

MIDA is also seeking advice on whether impose a fine, which could be up to $US55, 000.

MIDA has said it will be keeping a closer eye on the media in the lead-up to elections on September 17.

It’s been 4 months since my first complaint was lodged and the only feedback to date is ‘well get back to you’ Again on March 28th a Fiji Times report by Nasik Swami quoted the MIDA Chair stating the following:

"You know, people say that we have not been given equal amount of access so we will have an independent unit to see how much access political parties, government and the other political parties are getting."

Mr Raj said giving equal access to political parties, government and other entities was a requirement for media organizations.

"So we need to ensure there is evidence-based intervention, nobody should presume that a particular media organization is biased towards a particular political party or a particular entity."

But where is the Media Monitoring Unit?  When will it start monitoring?  We are less than 89 days away from elections.  What will they monitor?

The result of our short survey does point to bias on the part of the Fiji Sun. In any democracy, this situation would be a matter that would concern the Supervisor of Elections, the chairman and members of the Electoral Commission and the Chair and Board of MIDA and moves would have already occurred to take corrective action to ensure balance and fairness are reestablished so the integrity and credibility of the elections is not compromised.

Not so in Fiji.  

So long as those who have the responsibility to ensure Fiji holds free, fair and transparent elections choose to turn a blind eye to what has been obvious to all for some time now, then the people of Fiji can only draw one conclusion from their silence and unwillingness to enforce their own laws.

These officials have compromised their own integrity and are complicit in the adoption of a selective compliance approach to the decrees to suit their master’s predetermined aims and outcomes.

Mick Beddoes
SABETO-NADI
June 20th 2014