Sanatan International Competition 2023 to say was disappointing is an understatement. To host a proud event in Fiji and exclude those Indian players whose mother is of Fijian descent seems a little unfair. Especially since the boys soccer tournament had no such restrictions; so much for women’s equality. Key example is our Sonali Rao.

​A proud Indian who has a Fijian mother. Most of you know her as a well known soccer & netball player. Her brothers participated in the Sanatan Competition unfortunately Sonali didn’t have the same privilege and was not allowed to take the court after taking leave from work & paying her airfares to come and participate. Officials decided 3 days before tournament day to announce the rule, coming in from international territory finding out a day before flying was heartbreaking.

The day itself was no less disappointing with only 6 teams participating and unorganised officials. Game schedule was not followed with times changing more frequently than the rules. At a point it was seen that teams were confused as to what court they were playing on, due to error in delegation.

If you’re thinking why not speak to someone; there was many talks, many requests, many meetings but no ears to listen. The community wanted to listen to no one and that may have been the most disappointing moment for us all.
​
The Sanatan community should be mindful of there rules and regulations, the way they set these without consideration to the local girls can be deemed disrespectful. Especially for those who have grown up in the community and played every tournament before.
I hope there is some proper discussions now that the event is over.

The discrimination in terms of distribution of resources for sports, the need for equal treatment between boys and girls and the bullying and violence that women and girls go through is a barrier that we are trying to break.

This was highlighted by Fiji Women's Crisis Centre Coordinator Shamima Ali while opening the Western Lewasewa Netball tournament at Penang Primary School.

Ali says in the last decade, they have always empowered women and girls to participate in all sports.

She says in all their diverse sports the government has identified 13 communities with which FWCC will be working to encourage women and girls to participate in any sport, whether it's rugby, netball or any sport to create an enabling environment.

She adds that FWCC is a place that looks after women, girls and children who are survivors of abuse and bullying and at the moment, they are working with the FRU to end all forms of violence against women and girls during sporting events.

Ali says the FWCC encourages child protection and safeguarding policies in all sports and they work with stakeholders like the UN Women and the government for an action plan on prevention against all forms of violence against women and girls.

The Lewasewa tournament is underway in Rakiraki, where Primary schools from Ra, Ba, Tavua, Lautoka, Nadroga, Navosa and Yasawa are currently participating. Source: Fijivillage News

Dr Paul Geraghty was born of Irish immigrant parents and raised in Rugby, Warwickshire, England. Educated at Lawrence Sheriff Grammar School and Rugby School, he was awarded a travel scholarship and spent a year teaching in Fiji, when he began his research into the dialects of Fiji. 
After graduating from Cambridge with an MA in Modern Languages (French and German), he earned his PhD from the University of Hawaii with a dissertation on the history of the Fijian languages. He was recruited as researcher by the Fijian Monolingual Dictionary Project in Suva, which had been recently founded by the American/Canadian actor and philanthropist Raymond Burr. 
This project developed into the Institute of Fijian Language and Culture, of which he was Director from 1986 to 2001, being recognized for his service in researching and revitalising Fiji’s linguistic and cultural heritage with the award of Officer of the Order of Fiji by the then President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara in 1999. 
In 2001 he accepted a position at the University of the South Pacific, having previously written and taught there the first university course in a Pacific language. He is currently Adjunct Associate Professor in Linguistics and working on postgraduate courses in Fijian in addition to conducting wide-ranging research. 
He is author and editor of several books, including The History of the Fijian Languages (University of Hawai’i Press), the Lonely Planet Fijian Phrasebook, Borrowing: a Pacific Perspective (Australian National University Press), and The Macquarie Dictionary of English for the Fiji Islands, and numerous articles in professional journals and newspapers on Fijian and Pacific languages, culture, and history. 

Fiji Labour Party denounces the Police decision to bar political parties from participating in the march in Suva this morning in protest against Japan’s dumping of the Fukushima nuclear waste water into the Pacific Ocean.

This is not the restricted freedom our people voted for when they elected the coalition government into office,” said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

It was disgusting to see the Police stopping Fiji First leader Voreqe Bainimarama and four of his Party members from participating in the protest march. Acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chiu said the permit did not include participation of political parties.

On whose instructions was this condition stipulated?” Mr Chaudhry asked.

It certainly is a denial of the right to freedom of assembly, association as well as expression.

Even if the permit did say so, and we ask why, there should have been no reason to bar politicians from marching in their personal capacity. What is the government afraid of?
​
Such actions make us wonder whether Fiji has indeed embraced true democracy under the current government or were all those election and post election promises to fully restore the rights and freedoms of our people simply hollow rhetoric?" Mr Chaudhry asked.

FLP: One Man's Dictates, Beating all into submission to accept his sole decision over Fukushima waste water dump

​Prime Minister Rabuka’s personal views on the dumping of Fukushima nuclear waste water in the Pacific Ocean should be subordinate to public interest and the demands of the Pacific people, says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

It seems the matter was not discussed at Cabinet level for a collective decision. He is also defying a parliamentary decision denouncing the dumping. Should the nation bow to the dictates of one man?

Why doesn’t Mr Rabuka insist that Japan dump its nuclear waste in its own lakes as has been proposed by Tuvalu’s Minister for Finance, Seve Paeniu?

The PM should also show solidarity with The Pacific Island Forum (PIF) whose general consensus is that of concern for the marine life and food sources that Pacific Island nations so heavily rely on.

In March 2011, an earthquake caused damage at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Water was used to cool the reactors and this water, now contaminated, was stored after the event. Fukushima has since been decommissioned and in early 2021, the Japanese government decided to dump the stored water into the Pacific Ocean.

At its request, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was commissioned to provide a report verifying that the proposed procedures to dump the water met international standards.

However, the report is based on procedures provided by TEPCO - the private Japanese corporation that owns the defunct Fukushima plant.

TEPCO was heavily criticised for the way the plant was constructed, for its response to the nuclear crisis and for a lack of transparency in the government inquiry that followed.

Also, the IAEA itself has been criticised in the past for not monitoring the implementation of procedures laid out in their reports.

In other words, it is up to TEPCO, and not an independent agency, to carry out the dumping as proposed by them to the IAEA. The report states that: “TEPCO has the prime responsibility for the safety of the discharge of the ALPS treated water from FDNPS (Fukushima)”.

To date, there has not been enough regulation of TEPCO in regards to Fukushima which raises concerns for the decommissioning process involving the dumping of nuclear waste. While The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) of Japan has been assigned the duty to carry out checks and tests, it is TEPCO at the helm.

The peoples of Fiji and the Pacific have every right to be concerned and so should the Fijian government. TEPCO is a profit-focused private corporation that will be entrusted with a task that could have huge implications for the general public, within and outside Japanese borders.

There is no room for mistakes as contamination would be very difficult to mitigate against. The Pacific is one connected waterway, and despite being a long way away, nuclear contamination off the coast of Japan can make its way to the shores of Fiji.

If the Japanese government is content with the IAEA report, its own regulatory competence and is confident that TEPCO will carry out the procedures as verified by the report, then the potentially contaminated water should be dumped into Japanese waterways.
​
As many others, including Pacific leaders and NGO’s, do not share the same confidence in TEPCO and Japan’s nuclear regulatory capacity, the Pacific should be spared.

The Suva Fish Market Association has come out strongly today and stated that it does not agree with the dumping of the treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, and they are also concerned that Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka is saying that the discharged water is safe.

President of the Association, Samu Maraiwai says the 1.3 million tonnes of treated nuclear waste to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean poses a risk of massive destruction to our marine ecosystem and our source of livelihood.
​
Maraiwai says the waste will be toxic to a certain level and it will affect the marine ecosystem including fish, seaweeds, corals and other sources of our livelihoods.

The 68-year-old says it may not affect us now but in the next 40 years, our future generation will be massively affected. Source: FijiVillage News

Reverend James Bhagwan, an anti-nuclear activist and the general secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches, holds the view that insufficient data is available to ascertain the safety of disposing of Fukushima’s nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.

Bhagwan says we haven’t seen what the impact is as there hasn’t been a test done on what this does to fish, marine life, recognizing that the ocean is already under stress.
​
Pacific Conference of Churches and Alliances for Future Generation will be conducting a rally on Friday to condemn Japan’s planned dumping of Fukushima nuclear wastewater. FBC News

"Subject: Nurse Strike in Fiji

Summary:
This analysis provides an update of a possible nurse strike in Fiji, including information on the grievances, strike timeline, potential impacts, and recommended actions to mitigate the consequences.

1. Background:
The nurse strike in Fiji is scheduled to commence on Thursday, August 24th, 2023. The primary reason behind the strike is the failure to implement the promised pay rise, which has caused discontent among nursing personnel across the country.

2. Grievances:
Nurses in Fiji are frustrated with the lack of progress in receiving the promised pay rise. The failure to meet wage expectations has led to financial strain on the nurses and their families, affecting morale and motivation in their line of work.

3. Strike Timeline:
- Thursday, August 24th, 2023:
- The strike depends on any change in pay. If there is no adjustment, it will proceed.
- The strike will commence at the Colonial War Memorial Hospital (CWM) in Suva.
- After 2 hours at CWM:
- Labasa Hospital will join the strike.
- After an additional 2 hours at CWM:
- Lautoka Hospital will go on strike.
- Subsequent stage:
- All health centers across Fiji will join the strike.

4. Potential Impacts:
The nurse strike in Fiji could have the following potential impacts:
- Disruption of Healthcare Services:
The strike may significantly disrupt healthcare services in the affected hospitals and health centers. With the withdrawal of nursing staff, remaining healthcare professionals will face challenges in providing adequate care to patients, leading to delays, longer waiting times, and reduced efficiency.
- Increased Workload for Other Health Workers:
Other healthcare workers, including doctors, technicians, and support staff, will experience an increased workload due to the absence of nurses. This additional burden may result in exhaustion, burnout, and compromise the quality of patient care.
- Delayed or Deferred Medical Procedures:
Certain medical procedures, appointments, and surgeries may need to be delayed or postponed until after the strike is resolved. This delay could cause anxiety and potential complications if patients' conditions deteriorate during the waiting period.
- Public Outcry and Pressure on Authorities:
The strike is likely to generate public outcry, particularly if healthcare service disruptions adversely affect patients. The public may put pressure on authorities to address the nurses' demands promptly, leading to negotiations and potential resolution of the dispute.
- Economic Impact:
The strike may also have economic implications. If people forgo seeking medical treatment during this period, it could lead to financial loss for healthcare facilities. Furthermore, prolonging the strike and continuing disruptions in healthcare services may impact tourism, foreign investments, and Fiji's overall economy.

5. Recommended Actions:
To minimize the potential impacts of the nurse strike and ensure the continuation of essential healthcare services, the following actions are recommended:
- Urgent Negotiations:
Authorities should engage in negotiations with the nursing union to address their concerns promptly. Initiating dialogue and finding a mutually satisfactory solution is crucial for resolving the dispute and preventing prolonged disruption to healthcare services.
- Contingency Plans:
Establishing contingency plans to manage the strike's impact is vital. Hospitals and health centers should develop strategies to deploy alternative staffing arrangements, including temporary nurses or reassigning duties to other healthcare professionals, to ensure continued patient care during the strike period.
- Public Communication:
Transparent and timely communication with the public is important. Updates on the strike, alternative healthcare arrangements, and potential disruptions should be conveyed to patients, their families, and the general public to manage expectations and mitigate negative sentiment.
Conclusion:
The nurse strike in Fiji poses a significant threat to healthcare services and the overall well-being of the population. Authorities must take immediate action to address the nurses' concerns, negotiate a resolution, and implement contingency plans to minimize disruptions and ensure the continuity of vital healthcare services.
I want to hear a backbrief on our Contingency Plans this Thursday on how best RFMF can assist our Major Hospitals and Medical Centres, if the nurses' grievances are not heard by the Coalition Govt within their 28 days of notice.
For your nec support and actions.
Manoa
BG
Comd JTFC"

Fiji’s 2006 coup brought to power a government determined to resist industrial action. Seven months after Bainimarama seized power, Fiji’s 1,500 nurses walked out of the country’s hospitals in a strike over pay and conditions. The nurses were aggrieved that the interim government had cut their pay by five per cent (as it had for all other civil servants), lowered the retirement age, and failed to implement a wide-ranging agreement reached with the deposed government of Laisenia Qarase before the 2006 election. The government treated the strikers with contempt, offering one per cent, and then refusing to negotiate further. Exhausted, short of money, and more eager than ever to find jobs overseas, the nurses were forced back to work after sixteen days. Mahendra Chaudhry, despite his credentials as a former union leader, was as dismissive of the nurses’ cause as the military man who had appointed him finance minister. Kuini Lutua, as general secretary of the Fiji Nursing Association, was at the centre of these events, leading the strike, encouraging her members to stand firm – and condemned by Chaudhry and other ministers. She is the author of this first-person account of events. The nurses’ defiance encouraged others to follow suit. Unions affiliated with the Fiji Islands Council of Trade Unions (FICTU) – the Fijian Teachers Association (FTA), the Fiji Public Employees Union, and the Viti National Union of Taukei Workers – walked off the job on 2 August, though without the same solidarity or unity of purpose as the nurses; the teachers called off their strike within a day and other workers held out for only a week. Meanwhile, Taniela Tabu, spokesman for FICTU, was arrested. He later claimed to have been forced to strip to his underwear and humiliated. Military officers, he said, threatened him with death if he were summoned to the barracks again. As Vijay Naidu shows (chapter 11), the strikes revealed deep splits within the Fiji trade union movement. The Fiji Trade Union Congress and its affiliate unions, widely regarded as sympathetic to the coup, had already settled for the one per cent pay increase offered by the government, and offered no assistance to its rival FICTU when FICTU unions went on strike. Bainimarama thought the strikes vindicated his coup. He pointed out that he led a non-elected government, and could therefore resist interest groups in the interest of the country as a whole. ‘We do not have to worry about votes’, he said.
‘This Government is not going to budge.’


By Kuini Lutua

INTRODUCTION

On 5 December 2006, when news of the 2006 coup surfaced, I was with seven senior members of the Fiji Nursing Association (FNA) at our MacGregor Road headquarters. We were practicing presentations of the FNA’s submission on the draft Radium Protection Bill. A special cabinet select committee was scheduled to meet with us at 10am that morning. Just as we left the office to go to Parliament House, mobile phones started ringing as distressed family members called their relatives about the coup and the trouble at the parliamentary complex at Veiuto.

Amongst the callers was my secretary, calling to alert me that there had been a military coup and that the cabinet select committee meeting had been postponed until further notice. We returned to the conference hall, and I conveyed to my colleagues what had happened. As we sat down, one of the nurses tapped my back and said, let us pray and not worry. I don’t know how my heart cried out that day as we prayed. All I can remember is that after a very long time I heard myself saying ‘amen’ in unison with my colleagues. We hugged each other, and then the other FNA leaders returned to their jobs at the CWM Hospital. The 2006 coup left the FNA in a difficult position. We had negotiated concessions from the now deposed government of Laisenia Qarase, but these had not yet been implemented. Would they be honoured by the post-coup administration? What would be the result of the inevitable economic decline that invariably follows Fiji’s coups, and the cutbacks in civil service pay that have also been a familiar feature of post-coup policy-making? What kind of solidarity could be
expected from other trades unions in negotiations with the post-coup interim government? This chapter looks at the background to the nurses’ strike of July–August 2007, at the fissures that emerged amongst the trades unions, and at the confrontation between the nurses and the interim cabinet

The signed partnership agreement and memorandum of agreement

The FNA, together with members of the Confederation of Public Sector Unions (CPSU – comprising the Fiji Public Service Association [FPSA] and Fiji Teachers Union [FTU]), had, after some hard negotiation, on 26 April 2006, signed a partnership agreement with Prime Minister Qarase, the chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), Mr Stuart Huggett, and its secretary, Anare Jale; it culminated in a five year Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) that established an Industrial Relations Framework (IRF) set to run from 2006 to 2008. The MoA contained clauses that were to resolve industrial relations issues dating back to 2003; to give back to the members of the FNA and other public servants most of the outstanding payments of increments and scheduled cost of living adjustments; and entailed some commitment to the implementation of the 2003 Mercer Job Evaluation Exercise recommendations.

I was thrilled, knowing that with the agreement and the MoA, I could now leave the FNA when my contract expired and seek less stressful jobs. What I had set out to do for the nurses seemed to be finally materializing. The Qarase government had accepted the need for some redress to cover the loss of salaries that civil servants had experienced in the wake of the 2000 coup. This acceptance had come as a surprise to the FNA because a few of the ministers in the Qarase government had labeled civil servants as ‘dead wood’, ‘under-performing’, or ‘time-wasters’. There was seldom a good word about the dedicated service of those who worked tirelessly to fulfill the wishes of these ministers and provide essential services to the public. This change in attitude indicated an emerging awareness that only civil servants could implement government’s political strategies. For the FNA, the negotiations that led up to the signing of the partnership agreement showed the importance of presenting a strong and water-tight case to the government, buttressed by robust facts and figures, in order to convince ministers that taking better care of public sector workers would give the workers an incentive to work harder and more productively. It was also pointed out during the negotiations that it was mainly civil servants who suffered financial hardship each time there was a coup.

The 2000 coup happened shortly after the conclusion of a previous strike by the nurses. Some people to this day still blame the nurses for that coup, saying that they had, prior to the takeover, staged a protest to ensure that the Mahendra Chaudhry-led government would fall. These same people, however, forget that two strong women supporters of the Fiji Labour Party were past executives of the FNA and that, prior to the 2000 coup, they still had much influence over the running of the Association. The May 2000 strike was a result of legitimate industrial grievances: it was not a politically orchestrated attempt to destabilize the Chaudhry government. As a result of that strike, the PSC ordered a salary review, and the nurses went back to work, while their dispute was referred to arbitration. They then accepted without question an Award by permanent arbitrator Jon Apted. Little did they know that problems would arise during the implementation period: The PSC and Ministry of Health repeated their mistake of 1998 – the salaries of the nurses and medical orderlies were wrongly assimilated to the salary scale recommended in 1993. Salary levels had since been adjusted to add three more levels, so the change in salary should have entailed a movement across rather than downwards.The members were upset and angry about this unfair treatment. Although the dollar value of their new salaries was often higher, they found that they had lost, on average, two to four increment levels once they were moved to the new scale. To make matters worse, all civil servants had been denied annual increments because the government had frozen increments. Many of the members had remained on the same salary level for the previous four or five years of
service, some for even longer.

When new graduates came into the workforce after 2000, the more senior nurses – including those who had graduated a year or two earlier – found themselves on the same salary as the newcomers. Many tendered their resignations and looked outside the Ministry of Health for employment. Some migrated overseas. More than 20 nurses moved on to the newly opened Suva Private Hospital and some joined the Military Hospital where they were offered a better salary packet. Some who remained in the public sector workforce, resigned from the FNA
because there was no response from its officials, the Ministry of Health or the PSC in relation to their salary grievances. The FNA lost a considerable number of members in this period. Many members started criticizing the Association’s leaders, but it was difficult to ascertain the real cause of the dissension of members at the time. Migration overseas of nurses was to become an evermore pressing issue in the wake of the 2000 coup. In addition to long-established destinations – like Australia, New Zealand and England – new destinations – like Bermuda and the Bahamas – actively sought to recruit nurses from Fiji. Other Pacific Islands – such as the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Cook Islands – had formerly recruited Fiji nurses, but pay-rates in the Pacific have become uncompetitive compared with those on offer from the newer destinations. One of the barriers to the movement of Fiji nurses overseas has always been the need for prospective migrants to pay the airfares. But recruiters from the Caribbean now offer packages that include air travel costs, thereby generating the potential for a much more substantial drain of nursing talent from Fiji in future years.

As in May 2000, nurses went on strike in 2005 over the issue of wrong assimilation of salaries for nurses who had graduated before 2000. Some were earning between F$9,000 to F$11,000 when they should have been earning F$14,000 to F$16,000. Payroll had been part of my responsibility when I was with my previous employer, the Reserve Bank of Fiji. I was well aware of the effects of payments of annual increments and the importance of workers getting the correct movement in salary when promotions and acting allowances were paid. It was not too difficult for me to see that there was something seriously wrong with the salaries that the nurses were being paid. There were continuous complaints from members that they had been on a higher salary before the salary adjustment of 2000/2001. My first task when I became the FNA General Secretary in September 2001 was to listen to the members tell me their stories about the unfairness of the 2000 salary review and the subsequent award. Checking the files and getting salary slips and letters of appointment from members, I discovered that, it was not only those who had commenced their careers shortly before 2000 that were affected, but also those who had started well before 1998. I began to work with the office staff to build up case histories for all members that brought up salary grievances. After a while, we were able to detect a pattern in the salary treatment of staff nurses who had graduated in the same year and those who had been promoted in the same year.

We found that many of these senior nurses had lost out on the higher salary that should have accompanied promotion because their salary before promotion had been determined at the wrong level. This generated widespread disillusionment and lack of incentive to work hard, beyond the common compassion of nurses to provide care for the sake of saving lives. Some of the nurses turned to the teachings of the Nurses Christian Fellowship, which urged them to forsake strike action and preached ‘you do not ask for your pay, because nursing is a calling from God’. Some would say to the junior nurses, ‘one day your pay will be put right but you must not refuse to do good because your pay is low – you just provide the service’. In 2006, this unsatisfactory situation appeared to have reached some resolution. The correct salary adjustments were finally calculated for most nurses. For some, this was on the eve of their retirement. There may be others who retired on the wrong salary. I had to constantly negotiate with Anare Jale who was then secretary to the Public Service Commission, and Stuart Huggett who was its chairman. Having someone from the private sector as the chair of the PSC brought some useful experience to the position, and enabled the government to finally acknowledge the great injustice that had been done to those employed in the civil service. I have a sister who was holding a senior technical civil service post.

When I shared with her the story of the regular transfer of nurses to the wrong position on the new salary scale, she confirmed that it was the same for all the other civil servants. She added that it hurt the technical staff in the different ministries to be so treated: they know that they are qualified people, have been trained for at least three years and have specialist skills and competencies that are essential for the core services of government. Yet their remuneration has not moved upwards in the way that had been settled during previous negotiations
between government and the public sector unions. In the aftermath of the 2006 coup, in early 2007, the interim government declared to the media that there would be a 10 per cent pay cut for all civil servants. The FNA and CPSU members approached new PSC chair Rishi Ram to confirm what the media was reporting. He denied the news reports. He said that there was no confirmed reduction but it was likely that the partnership agreement and MoA would be affected by the change in government. This was no surprise to us, given the bitter experience of civil servants after the 1987 and 2000 coups. The timing was dreadful from the public service employees’ point of view: there was to have been some salary increase for the civil servants in the last pay of
December 2006, and another 2 per cent adjustment in the beginning of 2007. In mid-2006, there had been agreement for a delayed staggered payment of 2 per cent arising from the agreement between the trade unions representing the civil servants and the Qarase government. This all changed after the December 2006
coup. At first, it was said that the balance of payment due for the three year IRF, covering 2005 to 2007, would be paid sometime in 2007. That never eventuated. Nurses had good reason to feel aggrieved.

When the negotiations with the PSC became no longer fruitful, the CPSU agreed that members would vote on the separate issues affecting each of the public sector unions. In addition to the broader issues, the FNA had an ongoing dispute about the 12-hour shift that was being imposed on nurses by the CWM Hospital management. Although several meetings had taken place with the Ministry of Health representatives and the PSC, the FNA was not satisfied with the outcome of the talks and sought the intervention of the Minister for Health, Dr Jona Senilagakali. Fortunately, he decided in our favour, agreeing, on the basis of evidence that we presented to his ministry, that such shifts were not feasible. The FNA conducted a secret ballot on the five issues affecting our members in March 2007, with the results being declared on 28 April at the 50th Annual General Meeting of the Fiji Nursing Association at the Tradewinds Hotel in Lami, on Suva’s outskirts. There was an overwhelming response from the members, with 875 votes cast on all five issues. At the final count, 89 per cent of votes were in favour of taking industrial action – (i) against the 5 per cent salary reduction; (ii) for not honouring the partnership agreement; (iii) for not honouring the MoA signed with the previous Qarase government; (iv) for the breach of the collective agreement on the reduction of the compulsory retirement age from 60 years to 55 years; and, (v) for the imposition of a 12-hour shift for nurses who worked in hospitals.

A trade dispute was lodged on 21 June 2007 with the Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations and Tourism, through its permanent secretary, Taito Waqa, indicating the cause of the dispute, the results of the secret ballot and the intended date for industrial action (midnight 24 July 2007). As our members worked in essential services, we had to give 28 days notice to the ministry of our intention to take industrial action. The intention of this law, I believe, was to give the relevant ministries enough time to intervene through a dispute committee or mediation process to try to settle the matter amicably.

The FNA then waited for a reply to our notification. We knew that we had followed the rules to the letter, but we received only a reply that the dispute was being analyzed. Even before we knew the result of the secret ballot, the interim Minister for Labour, Industrial Relations and Tourism, Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, had sent me a copy of a letter addressed to the general secretary of the Public Service Association, Rajeshwar Singh, requesting his attendance at a meeting aimed at mediation with the trade unions that were contemplating filing
trade disputes. I immediately sent a reply to her, stating that dialogue was of no use to us because our grievances were already under consideration by our membership through the secret ballot. At that stage, we in the leadership of the FNA were not sure whether or not our members would want to stage industrial
action. I was not happy with the way that the FNA was addressed in the correspondence. It seemed to me that our invitation to the mediation meeting was an afterthought. Furthermore, we did not want to start premature dialogue that might compromise our position. It was the minister herself who wanted to mediate. However, there
are appointed officers in the Ministry of Labour who are trained to do this job. In my opinion, the minister has the last say and is the final decision-maker. For the minister to intervene in person at this early stage would have been a waste of time for us as well as her. Nevertheless, other trade unions decided to meet her for this mediation process. The media later reported that these efforts were not successful.

The countdown for the industrial action started when the trade dispute was lodged. Internally, FNA president Simione Racolo called for an emergency meeting of the FNA national council. At this meeting, we informed the council of the process that was to take place; about the results of the negotiations that we had been having with the PSC; and about the involvement of the permanent secretary for health, Dr Lepani Waqatakirewa. The members were told to prepare their colleagues by updating them weekly on the progress of the talks with the
interim government. As general secretary, I was to be in contact with them if some positive changes seemed likely to materialize. The presidents of all the FNA branches were asked to keep talking to members, encouraging them to keep working normally with the patients. For those who worked in weekly or monthly clinics, they were to be told that, if there were to be industrial action, they were not to come to the health centres or hospitals, but to take a supply of drugs for patients to cover that period. The branch presidents were reminded to choose their picket sites carefully so that they were not on government premises. If picket sites were in public places, the owner of the land was to be approached traditionally. Picket sites in Fijian villages were discouraged, to avoid any appearance of ethnic bias. Ours is a multiracial union, and we did not want to seem dependent on traditional Fijian support. (Sometimes this was unavoidable; in Tavua, for example, the
turaga ni vanua insisted that it was his duty and that of his warriors to protect the nurses.) Other plans included assembly and distribution of the cell-phone numbers of contacts at the branch level because we were not to use the government phones. The FNA national council met to decide on the financial assistance to be given to branches that needed it. In past strikes, we had found it necessary to look after striking members only for two or three days. Judged by our previous strike experiences, we were very optimistic.

A week or two before the 24 July, when the nurses’ strike was scheduled to commence, I continued talks with my counterparts, Agni Deo Singh, the general secretary of Fiji Teachers Union, and Rajeshwar Singh, the general secretary of the Fiji Public Service Association. Together, we tried to negotiate with interim Minister for Public Sector Reform Poseci Bune. This man, I thought, did not know what he was talking about – we found what he was offering absurd because he made no commitment to any movement in the interim government’s position despite being aware that all three of our unions had lodged trade disputes with the Ministry of Labour. He also made it difficult for us to meet him – for example, at one point, giving excuses that he was not in Suva and that we would have to wait until he returned after the weekend.

Meanwhile, our 28 days notice deadline was closing in and we had not made any progress. Rajeshwar Singh again made arrangements with the CPSU to meet the ‘money man’ Mahendra Chaudhry. This arrangement, I believe, was made through Felix Anthony, the general secretary of the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC). By this time, there was a rumour that the FTUC was backing the interim government and that the unions that were affiliated with this organization would not stage any industrial action while the interim government was in power. I do not know how true this was but there were mixed feelings amongst the FTUC affiliates – some of them supported us later on during the strike. We met the interim Minister for Finance at his office on 9 July 2007. This was after the CPSU had met with Poseci Bune earlier on the same day. That afternoon, the CPSU leaders were called to meet with the interim Minister for Finance at the FTUC building to finalize what had been discussed with Rajeshwar Singh at the interim Finance Minister’s office earlier in that day.

During those discussions I was uneasy and sensed that my fellow trade unionists had sold us out because I did not hear any change in the initial offer that the interim government had made to settle our trade dispute. Personally, I wanted to vomit. I couldn’t believe that my colleagues and ‘brother trade unionists’ had embraced defeat by accepting the deal from government without any struggle at all. They had told me that the secret ballots conducted amongst their members had delivered over 90 per cent in favour of industrial action. I could not understand how easily they could change their tune on that day. I prayed that evening as we sat late into the night at the FTUC office, and resolved not to sign any agreement until I had consulted with Simone Racolo and the Suva-based National Council. Some of my colleagues were disappointed by my decision. On 12 June 2007, together with CPSU leaders Rajeshwar Singh and Agni Deo Singh, I met with interim Prime Minister Bainimarama to try to convince him that the policies that they intended to apply to the civil servants would damage the public sector and create a very negative image of the interim government’s leadership, jeopardizing their claims to bring positive change to the country.

Our three unions met more regularly after the nurses’ trade dispute had been lodged, but it became ever clearer that the FPSA and FTA were not committed to strike action or solidarity with the nurses. A week after our dispute was lodged, I met the interim Minister for Commerce, Taito Waradi, and his ministry’s permanent secretary, Mr Yauvoli. Mr Waradi was also acting Minister for the Public Service Commission. He had been informed of our dispute and wanted to talk to me regarding how best our issues could be addressed. I agreed to see him partly because we had been classmates at the Dudley High School in 1970, and because Mr Yauvoli’s wife was a personal friend. At that meeting, I pointed out to both Mr Waradi and Mr Yauvoli the importance to us of the agreement and the MoA. I was afraid that if the interim government did not honour them, it would cause nurses to take industrial action. These were very important agreements for both salaried and wage-earning civil servants. If they were to throw these agreements out, I told them, I was afraid to think of the consequences.

Mr Waradi suggested that perhaps the interim government might shelve or defer the implementation of its planned course of action. I responded that the impact of this would depend on how it was announced to the public and how we in the trade union leadership might explain the interim government’s intentions to our members. I emphasized the fact that the two agreements contained commitments by the government to pay the lost salaries and wages of civil servants who had been in government employment since 2001. In total, the agreements entailed a salary increase of around 27 per cent even without adjustment for the fact that the entire civil service had not received a full increment since 2000. Only about seven per cent of what was contained in the agreement and MoA had been paid by January 2006. Normal increments averaged three per cent for other civil servants. The other important issues were the implementation of the 2003 Mercer Job Evaluation recommendations; the implementation of the intended Performance Management System (PMS) and the job-related allowances; and the need to address the unions’ 2003 log of claims. In the MoA, the issues specific to nurses were: the re-introduction of higher pay for higher professional qualifications and scarce skills; the provision for housing for nurses and medical orderlies or payment of lodging allowance in lieu of housing; and the payment of risk allowance to nurses and medical orderlies who work in high risk areas. These were very important issues for the nurses and had been continually raised at FNA annual general meetings. Even if nurses’ pay remained low, improved working conditions – such as provision of rent-free housing – would discourage many nurses from leaving Fiji.

On 10 July 2007, I called the FNA president and the two Suva-based council members to update them on an offer from interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry – a restoration of 1 per cent of the proposed 5 per cent pay-cuts in December 2007. I explained my position and I also reminded them about the mandate we had from the members. I wanted to hear their views on the way forward for me as the FNA’s chief negotiator. By this point, I suspected that we were alone in our fight, as the other trade unions had their own issues to think about, and because their mandate from their members was not clear. The president ordered an emergency meeting on 21 July of the full national council so that we could inform them of what had transpired and seek their reaction. The FNA president and I had sought the intervention of the interim Minister for the Public Service Commission as the end of the 28-day notice period drew near. We sat twice with the Permanent Secretary for Health and the Secretary to the PSC on 20 July to try and come to a consensus. At the special national council meeting at the FNA Conference Hall on 21 July 2007, reports from most national council members were presented. Not one of them indicated a negative response to the strike action. While all this was going on, I was involved in a big project with the European Union; it was to start with workshops in Viti Levu and Vanua Levu. I used these opportunities to meet the members and talk to them about what might transpire, and I also gauged their feedback on the strength of resolve in the different branches. One message that we emphasized was ‘explain to your husband/wife and family members why we have to take strike action, so that they will support
you’. We did not know how long the scheduled strike would last, but, because there would be no pay for a number of days, we needed their understanding and cooperation. We had very able and committed national council members representing the 20 FNA branches, and they were very aware of the difficulties that we would face by making a stand on our own. Our CPSU team had broken up and I respected the decisions that my colleagues had taken. I had to brace myself for the outcome of the FNA emergency meeting of 21 July 2007.

After that, there was no turning back. The president and I had received warnings, and even threats, that we couldn’t back out at that stage as the response from the branch representatives was overwhelming. We knew that, because many of our members were married to members of the security forces, they might face severe pressure to back down; but the word from many of them was ‘they became nurses first and got married later’. Many of these brave women and men came out on strike when the clock struck midnight on 24 July 2007. The media and members of the security forces continued to hound me and the FNA president around the clock for comments and explanations. Other members of the national council were also pestered by members of the security forces near their workplace. However, we handled this professionally. There were two incidents of violence reported to us involving members being manhandled by their spouses; we allowed these members to go back to work for their own safety.

On the first day, more than 1,000 nurses were reported to be at the 20 picket sites. Others joined in on the second and third days. Even some non-members joined in and, as they did so, filled in FNA membership forms at the different strike sites around the country. On the second day, we called upon interim Prime Minister Bainimarama to intervene. He refused. Instead, he said the strike was a ploy to bring down his government, and that the stand-off with the unions could have the effect of deferring the elections planned for 2009. He claimed his government did not have the money to restore the five per cent pay cut. But we wanted proof that the government had no money – there seemed to be plenty available for government ministers to take overseas trips at the taxpayers’ expense. In the first few days of the strike it looked as if we might get somewhere; interim
Minister for Labour Bernadette Rounds Ganilau kept promising that concessions would be made and that the dispute could be settled. She admitted that our strike was legal, but she was too intimidated by the interim prime minister to take action and make a decision in our favour, and so she kept delaying.

Whatever authority she had over industrial disputes was taken away from her by Bainimarama, who was determined that our strike should fail. Our initial request to government had been that they should restore the one per cent immediately, restore two per cent in December 2007 and the remaining two per cent in 2008, but once the strike began we went back to demanding the full five per cent. In the end, Bainimarama offered us one per cent, with further discussions to take place over the remaining four per cent. We had been down that road too many times before and we were not fooled. What that meant was nothing beyond one per cent. The truth was that, going back to 2003, we were actually owed a pay increase of 27 per cent. Talking to the media, I pointed out that there was a vast imbalance between the work we did and the amount we were paid, and I wanted to know why nurses always faced pay cuts when a military coup took place.

Mahendhra Chaudry blamed me, rather than the government, for the plight of the nurses, and said we should have sorted all this out with the Qarase government rather than raising the issue when finances were in a critical state. Fiji Human Rights Commission director Shaista Shameem said the right to life of patients, sick people and the elderly was more important than the right to strike, to which I replied that these were not normal times and that our hands had been forced by poor working conditions and low pay. Ultimately, I said, the right to life was the responsibility of the government, not of the nurses. The Methodist Church, possibly Fiji’s largest and most important institution outside government, refused to help the interim government when asked for assistance. Church president Reverend Laisiasa Ratabacaca said the government
was responsible for the situation and that the church would not interfere.

We had to tighten security at our headquarters in MacGregor Road because we thought the strike might attract people who would use our struggle for their own political purposes. Our concern, as I kept telling the media, related purely to nurses’ issues, and the interim government, which was in charge of the country, should not be surprised if all sorts of problems arose. ‘Every coup’, I pointed out, ‘sets a country back 10 years and I hope the prime minister doesn’t forget it’. On 2 August I told the media ‘We have reached day nine and now there is no turning back. Our members have indicated there is nothing stopping them from carrying on in order to get their five per cent back’. I called on the nurses who were still working to join the strike: ‘As long as some nurses remain in hospitals’, I said, ‘this fight will go on. If all members come out and sit, then we will prove to the interim government that nurses are vital in order to have the hospitals functioning.
​Nurses must unite and take industrial action’.

By 8 August, however, we realized that the interim government was willing to let Fiji’s hospitals and health system collapse rather than yield to our demands. We had held together for more than two weeks. We had strengthened each other at the picket sites with chain prayers and singing, and people had helped us, but we could not hold out indefinitely because we had no savings. Fiji’s nurses are not prosperous. It was impossible for them to accumulate sufficient savings to survive through a long-running strike.

​“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 word 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.