No benefit for ordinary worker in Khaiyum's Budget 2017-18

The ordinary worker gets no benefits from Budget 2017-18, says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

“It is a show Budget which flaunts the allocation of big moneys to different sectors but we will have to wait and see how much of this funding actually trickles down. We know from past experience that moneys allocated are not actually released to ministries and departments,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

The poor will be disappointed to see that the 9% VAT on basic food items imposed by Economy Minister Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum in Budget 2016 remains despite strong protests from the public.

The National Minimum Wage of $2.68 an hour announced by the Minister is an insult to workers. It is grossly inadequate to meet the basic needs of the ordinary worker.

The ordinary worker will also not benefit from the increase in the #tax #threshold to $30,000. It is acknowledged that at least 65% of our workers earn below poverty line wages. The minister should have raised the minimum wage to help them out of the poverty pit.

“What we see here is an #electionbudget with a lot of money being thrown around to impress the voters – increasing allowances for the poor, catering for the handicapped, increasing the tax threshold etc. But, in fact, the Budget is absolutely silent on any real long term measures to tackle the roots of poverty through increasing employment particularly for our youth, raising wage rates for the ordinary worker, bringing down the cost of food and other living costs,” Mr Chaudhry said.

On #Public #Service pay increases, Mr Chaudhry said: “It is unacceptable that civil servants are being forced to convert to yearly contracts in return for pay increases promised in the Budget. Those who decline have been told that they will not qualify for the increases.

“This is sheer blackmail and in contravention of the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Public service unions must fight hard against this draconian measure. It is a question of security of employment of their members,” said Mr Chaudhry.

On #housing, the $60m allocated for affordable housing through the Reserve Bank of Fiji, will not assist people on lower incomes. The truth is that most of our low income workers, those really in need of assistance, will not qualify for it. They will not be able to meet the bank’s lending criteria.

The other objectionable feature of the scheme Mr Khaiyum outlined for the construction of a multi-unit housing project by FNPF at Matavolivoli, Nadi is the fostering of class differences. It will also create social problems.

On the #sugarindustry, it is not clear whether the subsidies on fertilisers and weedicides are a one-off concession for the 2018 elections or whether they were designed to stay in place.

The Budget makes no mention of $100 a tonne guaranteed minimum price demanded by the farmers. Nor does it make any provision for the construction of a new mill for the Ra cane growers.

#Mounting #Debt levels remain a major worry contrary to claims by the Minister that it is being reduced. Debt repayment cost in the 2017-18 Budget has gone up by $65m, from $153m in the last Budget to $217m.

This underscores the fact that we are increasing our reliance on borrowed money. The Budget deficit at 4.5% of the GDP is on the higher side.

“The increase of $700m in revenue seems to be a book balancing exercise to match a similar increase in expenditure. This is improper practice and distorts the real picture.

The FLP Cabinet ministers should have free vote on Budget

Why Chaudhry voted with SVT rebels on 1994 Budget?

BY VICTOR LAL

1994 Budget!
Do we recall the political drama when it was put to a vote?
Do we recall the role the leader of the Fiji Labour Party Mahendra Pal Chaudhry played that fateful day? If not, here is what happened in November 1993. Six members of the former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s SVT government, led by the dissident Josevata Kamikamica, and one from the General Voters, David Pickering, crossed the floor to vote the Budget down with the help of the Opposition. And what was Mr Chaudhry’s reaction? Instead of chiding his political opponents for betraying SVT party solidarity, he immediately wrote to the late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara asking him to have Mr Rabuka tender his resignation as Prime Minister of Fiji.

Twelve years later, he is singing to a different tune, reminding his nine FLP Cabinet ministers to stand by the party’s opposition to the increase in VAT, and to vote against the 2007 Budget because it is against the poor. Of course, he would characteristically reply that it was not his business to discourage the SVT dissidents from voting against the 1994 Budget. Politics is about naked opportunism, and he merely seized the occasion, he would claim, on that fateful November 1993.

Fair game. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible. In retrospect, however, one may ask whether Mr Chaudhry and his supporters are not so much opposed to VAT in the Budget as consumed by their determination to finish off their own political opponents, most notably Krishna Datt and a few others. The Budget has provided them the perfect opportunity to seize their moment, which they have miserably failed to do so far despite their slow but dogged pursuit of the so-called ‘Gang of Five’, especially Mr Datt.

Meanwhile, Mr Datt has revealed that Mr Chaudhry had declined to enter the Multi-Party Cabinet. Why? Was it because Mr Datt was also to serve alongside him? Now, Mr Chaudhry says that he has not turned down the offer by Mr Qarase to become a Deputy Prime Minister. According to him, the sticking point is VAT, as he told Mr Qarase: ‘I said you made it very difficult for me to accept it (DPM) by imposing VAT on the poor people. So we have this big difference in economic and social policy.’

According to Mr Chaudhry, the Qarase government has a record of penalising the poor and pampering the rich. ‘Now how can then I serve as the deputy prime minister in such a government until such time as we sort out these major differences. Are we there to serve ourselves or are we there to serve the people,’ said Mr Chaudhry. Mr Chaudhry added that he was not going to be trapped in a situation like that of Minister for Labour Datt.

‘The point is when I go in I want certain things clearly understood. I will only go on that basis. I will not go in just for the sake of being the deputy prime minister.’ Fair enough. And yet, one has grave reservations about Mr Chaudhry’s explanations, given Mr Datt’s tone and speech on the 2007 Budget, where he also lambasted Mr Chaudhry and his directives on voting pattern. It seems that Mr Chaudhry feels that the two giant FLP political crocodiles cannot co-exist in a multi-party cabinet pool at the same time, given that they have not spoken to each other since moves began to discipline, and if necessary, to expel Mr Datt and others for challenging Mr Chaudhry’s leadership.

During the 1994 Budget debate, the former Opposition leader Jai Ram Reddy claimed that ‘There is a yawning gap between what this government says and what it does, raising serious questions both about its competency and ability to manage the nation’s economy’. Mr Reddy offered to help revise the budget but Mr Rabuka was advised it was not necessary, his senior people encouraged by what they saw as rather mild criticism of the proposal.

The taste of the political pudding is in its eating. If Mr Chaudhry’s only reservations are VAT and the absence of ground rules for the multi-party cabinet, why he did not bluntly tell Mr Qarase that he would enter Cabinet as DPM provided he was allowed to help revise the budget, especially the contentious VAT, for Mr Qarase had reportedly told him, ‘to come and fix it’. On entering Cabinet, the two could have issued a joint public statement on the subject of VAT, and a slightly revised budget could have been presented at the second reading. There is no evidence that Mr Chaudhry nor Mr Qarase entertained the above propositions.

Cynics are saying that Mr Qarase is only eager to bring Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet to thwart Commodore Bainimarama executing a coup. Mr Chaudhry, on the other hand, the cynics claim, is using the issue of VAT in the Budget as a pretext to dismiss his political opponents, especially Mr Datt, both from Cabinet and the FLP.

Whichever side one takes, if Mr Chaudhry is serious about the poor and the nation, he should take the opportunity to expedite the process of drafting ground rules for the successful functioning of the multi-party cabinet. It is widely claimed that it was Mr Chaudhry who allegedly deliberately delayed the drafting of the ground rules, until the fate of the Budget has been decided. There are so many problems with the concept of power sharing in the 1997 Constitution. It is ludicrous, for example, that an Opposition MP who becomes a Cabinet minister finds himself or herself in an invidious position, to vote with Government or on party political lines. There are other matters that need urgent attention and clarification.

The Prime Minister says that the FLP members are part of his Government and should, therefore, vote with him. If they are a part of the Government, were they consulted on the appointment of Dr Tupeni Baba, one of their former founding members, to become the new Fiji ambassador to the UN? Were the FLP Cabinet ministers consulted, or approved, the appointment of those with chiefly ranks to be new High Commissioners to Malaysia and the United Kingdom? It is a well-known maxim that for the successful functioning of a Coalition or a Multi-Party government, there has to be consensus management and the avoidance of surprises.

It is time all the political leaders went back to the drawing board, beginning with the drafting of ground rules. As to the 2007 Budget, it would be best if Mr Chaudhry allowed his FLP Cabinet ministers a free vote on the budget, for in the absence of any pre-agreed ground rules they cannot be punished for adhering to Cabinet collective responsibility and against their party’s own stance on VAT.

Unless, as the cynics claim, Mr Chaudhry has embarked on cleansing his political opponents, especially Mr Datt, from the Multi-Party Cabinet, before he himself enters it as Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji. Moreover, any disciplinary action, which might result in expulsion from the Cabinet, is fraught with legal problems. The ruling in Chaudhry v Qarase on 18 July 2003 on collective responsibility favours the FLP Cabinet ministers who are pro-Budget. It states that ‘Ministers who are members of the Cabinet will publicly stand by the decisions of the Cabinet, if unable to do so, will resign’.

If some of the FLP Cabinet ministers vote for the budget, they will be constitutionally voting not as members of the FLP but as Cabinet ministers who have taken the oath of affirmation to act as Government ministers. There is also no guarantee that the President will readily concede to their expulsion at the whim and fancy of Mr Chaudhry, and a reluctant Prime Minister Qarase at a time when the nation dithers on the cusp of upholding the fledgling democracy and possible military dictatorship. Above all, there is no guarantee that some of those might not return to Parliament as independents in any by-elections.

In historical perspective, Mr Chaudhry joined Mr Rabuka’s own six dissidents to vote down the 1994 Budget? Why cannot he now allow his Cabinet ministers a free vote on the 2007 Budget? It is the only sensible way to resolve the Catch 22 situation his nominated Cabinet Ministers find themselves before returning to the constitutional drawing board.

It is frequently said that ‘the economy is stupid’. In our case, ‘the 1997 Constitution is stupid’ in some aspects and needs urgent attention. The FLP Cabinet ministers must not be made the political sacrificial lambs for any hidden political agendas or on the workings of Cabinet collective responsibility. Mr Chaudhry should never have sent them into Cabinet in the first instance without signing any ground rules. It is Mr Chaudhry, who must, accept responsibility for the strife and division on the 2007 Budget. It is he who must explain to the rank and file members of the FLP why he sent them to Cabinet without any checks and balances. He cannot close the political stable after the horse has bolted out of it – on this occasion, the founding father of the FLP, Krishna Datt.

The only alternative for Mahendra Pal Chaudhry is to completely withdraw from the MPC (I mean Multi-Party Cabinet) and re-negotiate a written agreement on power sharing in Fiji. If not, we will never have political stability in the country; forget about the debate on for and against the 2007 Budget. It is hypocritical of him to say that Mr Qarase does not need his nine Cabinet Ministers to pass the Budget and, in the next breath, to threaten the nine with dismissal if they do not vote with him against the Budget. Surely, if Mr Qarase does not need the nine votes, so why does Mr Chaudhry to defeat it.

The FLP Cabinet ministers must have a free vote on the Budget because of Mr Chaudhry’s failure to draw up any ground rules when he put forward their names for Cabinet positions. They are adhering to collective Cabinet responsibility as required by the Constitution of Fiji.

The nation comes before the party. If not, Mr Chaudhry should never be allowed into Cabinet as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Fijileaks: On 5 December 2006 Bainimarama overthrew the SDL-FLP government and Chaudhry phoned US ambassador Larry Dinger to inform him that he was accepting coupist and treasonist Frank Bainimarama's offer to become Minister of Finance, Public Enterprises and Sugar Reform.

FIJI'S Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) youth president Jope Koroisavou has been released by Police without any charges being laid against him. Mr Koroisavou was arrested on Monday this week while protesting during International Day in Support of Victims of Torture at Suva's Sukuna Park. In an interview shortly after his release, the youth activist said he was interrogated for 48 hours. Mr Koroisavou said he was thankful to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for handling the matter professionally and also thanked his supporters for their prayers. His lawyer Aman Ravindra-Singh said the allegation that was put to his client was sedition and he was questioned in relation to the allegation made by Police. "The allegation that was put to my client was sedition and as the Police had made it public, there was a breach of the Public Order Act," Mr Ravindra-Singh said. "I absolutely refute that and Jope was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to peaceful assembly and these rights are enshrined in the Constitution.". Source: The Fiji Times, 28 June 2017

Rabuka’s 1987 terror regime: a warning for Fiji

By VICTOR LAL
29 December 2006

“Every time we shrug when we hear of another midnight raid, the cries of terrorized women and children, then somewhere in Fiji another potential [Klaus] Barbie [The Nazi Butcher of Lyon in France] is getting a start in life,” said the former Methodist communications secretary in 1987, the Reverend Akuila Yabaki, now head of the Citizens Constitutional Forum. He was speaking out against the reign of terror and torture practised mostly against the Indo-Fijian community by Sitiveni Rabuka, his military henchmen, prominent chiefs, and the dreaded and racist Fijian taukei foot soldiers following the 1987 coups.

Now, nearly twenty years later, we are beginning to hear the first ripples of ‘torture tactics’ by the military against the pro-democracy supporters. But let us hope and pray that Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s military will not go down the road that Mr Rabuka took his troops, chiefs, and taukeists like Apisai Tora to achieve his objective of ‘Fiji for the taukei Fijians’.

The first casualty was the media when Mr Rabuka launched his coup on 14 May 1987. In an editorial on 15 May, the old Fiji Sun asked: “What right has a third-ranking officer to attack the scared institutions of Parliament? To presume he knows how best this country shall be governed for the good of all? The answer is: NONE. The people must decide their own future: not self-promoting dictators and not a Council appointed by and presided over by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka. But was he encouraged by others to act? And if so, who were they?”

We now know who they were, and many of those are still around, in positions of influence and authority. Most of them were prominent paramount chiefs, civil servants, church leaders, lawyers, magistrates, judges, and fallen politicians. They were indigenous Fijians, some of whom, and their offspring, are today hiding from the military in a great game of hide and seek following the 5 December coup. The former governor-general and Mr Rabuka’s paramount chief Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, made it easier for Mr Rabuka to crush civil disobedience by warning that the civilian-cum military regime would not hesitate to use emergency powers it had under martial law.

On 15 May 1987, shortly after the Fiji Sun editorial, the Ministry of Information directed the Fiji Times and Fiji Sun to cease publication. The RFMF occupied Radio Fiji. The same day armed soldiers’ ejected staff of both the two newspapers from their offices, and foreign journalists were questioned by the RFMF. In a sickening spectacle, the raid on the Times office was led by one of its own reporters and army reservist E.T. Volavola in full combat gear carrying a rifle and backed up by a squad of troops.

Mr Rabuka announced a Council of Ministers (COM), which was dominated by ex-Alliance Party Ministers (including Ratu Mara who had lost the election to Dr Timoci Bavadra). Mr Rabuka said his military regime was in full control and the people had accepted the coup, and called on the international community to recognize his regime. He said he had abrogated the Constitution and the regime would govern Fiji by decree. He brushed aside the demands of the Council of Churches “in the name of Christianity” to release the MPs he had kidnapped and was holding as hostages, and “surrender to the sovereign authority of the land”, and restore “our duly elected government”.

He instead moved into deposed Prime Minister Dr Bavadra’s office. But when the Fiji Sun questioned Mr Rabuka’s right to occupy high office, he threw the general manager and one of the directors, who was also President of the Fiji Law Society, in the same prison cell as that occupied by Dr Bavadra. The Sun was singled out for severe maltreatment. Sadly, most of the harassment and intimidation was carried out against the Indo-Fijian journalists, for after all, Mr Rabuka had executed the coup to give Fijians the control of Fiji.

Some Fijian journalists, therefore, switched sides, and became Mr Rabuka’s propagandists, reporting on their Indo-Fijian colleagues and their families. In the end, the Fiji Times agreed to operate under partial military censorship, while the old Fiji Sun was forced to cease operations in the country after it published allegations that Mr Rabuka had bought a house in Suva favoured by wealthy Indo-Fijians and expatriates, on a 100% mortgage from a prominent Alliance politician. In the end, some of Fiji’s best Indo-Fijian journalists were forced to emigrate or seek political asylum abroad. Some of us were not only on Mr Rabuka’s hit list but even had our passports confiscated, ending up overnight from being citizens to wandering international refugees.

The next group that Mr Rabuka and his cronies targeted were his political opponents. Shortly before the coup the taukeists firebombed the law offices of Jai Ram Reddy, now an International Criminal Court judge. The late Sir Vijay Singh was detained and his passport seized, prompting him to ask: “What kind of normalcy is [Ganilau] thinking about when things like this happen.”

Dr Bavadra’s spokesman and current Suva lawyer Richard Naidu was arrested and detained on different occasions. He was chased and beaten up by Taukeists, and finally had his Fiji nationality revoked, and ordered to leave the country for New Zealand. Another legal adviser of Dr Bavadra, John Cameron, had his work permit withdrawn after he filed civil suit against dissolution of Parliament, and had also filed claim with the Supreme Court on behalf of a client harassed by the RFMF, seeking a declaration that State of Emergency and 1987 Emergency Regulations were unconstitutional.

Among judges arrested included Justices Kishore Govind and Rooney, including Chief Magistrate Howard Morrison. Even the Police Commissioner, an Indo-Fijian Pramesh Raman, whose job Mr Rabuka had applied a week before the coup, was taken into custody. Several Indo-Fijian lawyers and academics were also taken into custody, mostly on legal advice of some Fijian lawyers.

Although the vast majority of victims were Indo-Fijians, some prominent Fijians like Amelia Rokotuivanua and Dr Steven Ratuva came in for rough treatment. The two were “lectured” by Lieutenant Pio Wong on how to be “true Fijians” and Dr Ratuva had spells in detention, and at one point the military allegedly tried to poison him with the prepared food it had brought to his house. In 1986 he had claimed in a paper that the RFMF’s only function lay in internal repression or as a conduit for chiefly advancement. He had also suggested that “intermarriages between the sons and daughters of chiefs (including the chiefly officers in the army) helps to consolidate the chiefly comprador clique which ensures the perpetuation of nepotism and inequality in Fijian society”.

On 25 September Mr Rabuka carried out his second coup. Violence and intimidation was encouraged, and a group of escaped prisoners were escorted by the military to march to the Government House to demand pardons. When the GCC refused to recognise Mr Rabuka as president, he declared Fiji a republic, declared himself the head of state and no longer recognised the GCC as such. However, on 5 December he agreed to hand over power to the new President Ratu Penaia and the Prime Minister Ratu Mara. Mr Rabuka took charge of Home Affairs, the CJ returned to the bench, Sailosi Kepa was recalled as High Commissioner from London to take over as Minister for Justice and A-G, and Berenado Vunibobo became Minister of Trade and Commerce. Dr Bavadra retorted: “It is a military government in a civilian cloak.”

The international community resumed trade and diplomatic links with Fiji. Australia conferred Mr Rabuka legitimacy by announcing that it was recognizing Fiji as a state rather than the government of Fiji. Ratu Penaia granted Mr Rabuka and his close circle of oppressors, questionable amnesty, and the Fijians introduced apartheid against the Indo-Fijians. Ratu Penaia also formally signed new Internal Security Decree, giving army power to shoot to kill anyone found with illegal arms that resisted arrests.

As Minister for Internal Security, Mr Rabuka had extraordinary range of powers, which violated international standards of human rights, including the detention of any person for two years; order restriction of movement, freedom of expression, employment, residence or activity; prohibit the printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation or possession of any written material, and prohibit its communication through worth of mouth etc.

And yet Mr Rabuka was free to publish his book “No Other Way”. But no criticism of his book was permitted, and one USP Indo-Fijian lecturer who dared to criticise it, was detained and severely beaten up. My own critical counter-book Fiji: Coups in Paradise was banished from the bookshelves of Fiji. As Mr Rabuka plunged the economy into a decline, he was offered $50,000 from an Australian publishing company as a retainer for his book and a TV documentary. The RFMF, commenting on brief detentions and harassment said, “Due to the current conditions everyone is suspect until proven innocent”. Mr Rabuka went on to become the Prime Minister and chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs on the bandwagon of nationalist and racist ideology, an ideology which Commodore Bainimarama claims he wants to stamp out once and for all.

If that is so, let us hope that he will not follow in the footsteps of Mr Rabuka, for many of my own family members still bear the scars of Mr Rabuka’s storm troopers on their chests, and so do many other citizens from the 1987 and 2000 coups.

The Indo-Fijians, in 1987, were beaten, forced to stand in sewage pools, and subjected to other forms of humiliating punishments. The vast majority of Fijians remained silent to the oppression and racism in their midst. In fact, many joined in its continuation for the next ten years. But freedom, as former military strongman Mr Rabuka found out only very recently (after he was successfully defended by the President of the Fiji Law Society, Mr Sharma, on inciting mutiny), is a cherished and inviolable right.

From Fijivillage News, 27 June 2017:

RFMF concerned with Rabuka’s close involvement with Fiji ex‑Peacekeepers And Action Trustee Association

The RFMF is concerned with SODELPA Leader Sitiveni Rabuka’s close involvement with the Fiji ex‑Peacekeepers And Action Trustee Association and the military will also closely monitor the Association’s call for ex-peacekeepers to gather at the Suva court house this Thursday.

RFMF’s Chief of Staff Colonel Jone Kalouniwai says they are aware of a meeting held between Rabuka and the Association’s seven Executive members at Hotel 2000 in Lautoka yesterday.

Colonel Kalouniwai says the RFMF is aware of the fresh application of grievances the Association will be lodging this Thursday for mention in the Suva High Court in anticipation of the strike‑out application filed by the defendants, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Finance and the Attorney General against the Association.

Colonel Kalouniwai says these grievances which include a $250 million compensation for participation in UN Peacekeeping Missions from 1978 to 2002 with an upfront installment of $150 million is the perfect opportunity for Rabuka to piggyback on and use as a bandwagon of grievances to sway and manipulate the former Peacekeepers Association for his political gains.

The RFMF Chief of Staff says the involvement of the SODELPA Leader now is a mockery for all RFMF peacekeepers because of his non‑action to increase the RFMF Peacekeepers Middle East location allowances during his capacity as Commander RFMF and Prime Minister of the country from 1987 to 1999.

Colonel Kalouniwai says during those periods, all peacekeepers were receiving a meager $15 a day as location allowances for a whole year in Lebanon.

The current location allowances have gradually increased over the years since then to $130 a day for all RFMF Peacekeepers.

The RFMF is warning the Association to be very cautious and must attempt to fully comprehend the real intentions and ulterior motives of Rabuka’s involvement and his genuine assurances within their Association.

Colonel Kalouniwai says there should be no encouraging of ex-peacekeepers to go in numbers to the courthouse on Thursday.

When questioned by Fijivillage on whether he supports the Association calling ex-peacekeepers to go in numbers to the courthouse, Sitiveni Rabuka said that it would be a waste of money if they do that.

Rabuka also confirms that he is not supporting the compensation payment case as the peacekeepers were paid by the Fijian government, and the peacekeeping deal was between the Fijian government and the United Nations, not between individual soldiers and the UN.

The RFMF will be closely monitoring the situation and strongly urges the Association to reconsider their intentions in encouraging all its members around Viti Levu to attend the mentioning of the Association’s fresh application of grievances lodged against the defendants before the Suva High Court this Thursday.

"This was during a time when there was a blackout enforced on political parties from making statements or campaigning before the day of the polls.

"We raised our concern with the Electoral Commission but our concerns were not addressed.

"Now the military is indulging in the same tactics at least a year away from the election. This must be condemned in the strongest manner."
He said the military should not overstep its role despite its constitutional responsibility.

"Operating an Armoured Personnel Carrier in civilian areas when there is absolute peace and stability and no emergency is not guaranteeing peace and security but instilling fear and uncertainty in our people.

"It is sending a wrong signal. The military must understand that it is subservient to civilian rule.

"We ask, are the three Bushmasters for training or going to be operated in our towns, cities and densely populated areas to show force and intimidate our people?"

He said Fiji was not a war zone and peacekeeping training does not involve using Bushmasters in the full view of civilians and visitors to our country.

Col Kalouniwai said the soldiers were using the Bushmasters on the streets last Friday as it was Infantry Day.

"There is no law that prohibits Bushmasters using the roads in Fiji. There is nothing wrong with that," he said.

Colonel Kalouniwai said the Bushmaster was a protected mobility vehicle used to carry troops - that's all.

"They're not an offensive weapon. There is nothing for them (public) to fear.

"We all know the political hype they (NFP) have and they're just trying to make an issue out of this.

"We were just celebrating Infantry Day and the guys (soldiers) thought it would be a good thing for them to take it out, that's all."

He said the fact remained that the vehicles were bought to be used for peacekeeping and pivotal training and there are only three of them used for training purposes.

"There is no harm in us putting it out on the streets and just driving it around."

Col Kalouniwai said Prof Prasad had wrong idea and wrong perception and should try and get more facts from his party's president, Pio Tikoduadua, on what the Bushmaster really is.

Indian drivers caught in the riot tried to race through the mob, but some were stopped by bricks flying through their windshields. They were pulled out and punched and kicked. One Indian taxi driver tried too late to pull out of his parking space. Several Fijians yanked him from the car, punched and kicked him and emptied his pockets.

An older Indian man was knocked to the ground, and he curled up in a ball as a succession of Fijians kicked him as they ran past. A boy was hurled to the street and kicked in the head several times until blood ran down his face.

No one was reported critically injured, and it often seemed that the attacks, although brutal, were short of murderous. The mobs usually let their bloodied victims run off, or the attackers themselves ran on after landing a few blows.

A few shops were looted, but most stores were already boarded up because of a general strike to protest the coup. Late tonight, downtown Suva was eerie and deserted.

With three rival claims to executive authority in Fiji, it remained unclear who was in command. Lieut. Col. Sitiveni Rabuka, who led the coup, appears to have received backing from the Great Council of Chiefs, and his soldiers remain on the streets.

He has, however, indicated that he recognizes the executive authority of the Governor General, who says he is in charge. And the elected Government of Prime Minister Bavadra said it should be in power, although Dr. Bavadra acceded today to the Governor General's call for new elections to resolve the crisis.

''We really don't know what direction we're moving in,'' Mr. Nacola, the Agriculture Minister, said in an interview on the first day of his release.

''We're still living at the barrel of a gun.''