Transcript  on the Media Reporting of the $100m Funds - Aiyaz Khaiyum

"We’d like to address a matter that has been very much been in the media and in particular The Fiji Times and I understand the social media including the websites and FB pages that support SODELPA. This is about the so-called $100m missing articles that have been published by the Fiji Times and continuously has been published further seeking answers on this.

I would like to clarify the situation today, not to explain about the $100m but about the manner in which this matter has been handled by the Fiji Times, in such an irresponsible manner and in particular also by the Public Accounts Committee – the way that they have also handled the matter.

We have so far not made a public statement because we have understood as has been an incident relayed earlier on to another committee matter that we weren’t allowed to comment in public space regarding matters that were before the committee.

The Fiji Times has been pursuing questions from us, sending us questions, we have refused to answer them because we want to follow the proper path.

We yesterday approached the Hon. Speaker of the House and then followed by a letter officially to the Hon. Speaker seeking clarification on our ability to respond in the public space regarding matters before the committee that has been raised in the public space, in particular by one media organisation overwhelmingly.

The Hon. Speaker has given us the clarification and has said that (if) we want (we) can make comments in the media as long as they are not confidential matters that are discussed before the committee so in other words they were not in closed sessions and also that we are at liberty to discuss this with the media organisation.

Our position has always been, any parliamentary committee, standing committee of parliament has quasi-judicial powers. The quasi-judicial powers means that they are able to summon witnesses, they are able to summon people to appear before it but they must also act judiciously.

Acting judiciously means that you do not give running commentary on matter that you are still deciding upon.

In this particular case, because a question was asked regarding Head 50 and because the officer at that time was not the relevant officer to answer the question, she was from Audit. Asinate who is here next to me who is the head of budget- she should been the one to whom the question should have been put to and unfortunately, that officer said I cannot account for it.

The conclusion was then arrived at by the Fiji Times that $100m cannot be accounted for. We have copies of the various newspaper publications that we can show to you and subsequently there was a letter written by the PS (Finance) to chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to say that a detailed response would be provided, which today has been provided and this is what it is.

It gives a breakdown of Head 50, which is always presented in the budget. If you look at Head 50, you will see that it is broken down into various SEGs. SEG 1, SEG 3, SEG 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. It gives a detailed explanation what these amounts are and what these amounts are allocated for.

The $100m that was very loosely referred to is the average amount allocated to Head 50 over a period of 15 years- from 2000 to 2014.

There was absolutely no attempt whatsoever by the Fiji Times or any other media that may have published it to actually exactly find out or they could have very simply gone to the budget documentation that was presented to Parliament last year in November and found out exactly what it was and what they money was exactly used for.

In fact the newspaper article also said that the Small Grants Scheme was in Head 50, the Small Grants Scheme is in Head 2 which is in the PM’s office Head.

This in many societies would be held to be malpractice and this in many societies would be condemned by everybody by a particular media organisation to sensationalise matters about Government finances.

It is sensationalism that is to the detriment of confidence in the economy, trying to create an air to say there is lack of transparency when the right people who are here on either side of me were there to answer the questions.

We were very concerned of course ourselves when we read the reports in the papers. We were also very concerned about the response given by the relevant officer in question and we have spoken to that officer, we have already provided to the secretariat of the PAC a breakdown of Head 50, they have received it this afternoon.

So ladies and gentleman, what we see over here is depriving the Fijian population of accurate information by the media. What we see here is a chairman of the committee giving a running commentary on a matter that is before the committee. We have urged and we have said this before that when a matter is before a committee, it does not mean that just because one person has appeared before that the answer has been given.

The answer and the culmination of the findings is always in the report of the committee. If you go to a court and if it has sat down for four, five, six days hearing, if you hear what witness says on day one, does the judge go out and arrive at a conclusion. No, the judge has to listen to all the witnesses, has to listen to all the facts, all the evidence, then look at the law and come up with a ruling or a decision.

In the same way, the PAC needs to give their findings in the report and this is why we have said previously, running commentaries in particular, when there are matters that involve finances, they need to be done in a very diligent and judicious manner and unfortunately that has not happened.

We have three articles, we have in the Fiji Times on the 6th of August – “No answer for $100m question” – “Response Overdue” dated 8th September 2015 and then the “$100m question” which is dated the 17th of September.

It contains a number of misquotations and omits the actual context within which the answers were given. So I urge the media, when you are reporting on committee findings contextualise the matter. Just because one person has given answer to the committee it does not mean that that would be the outcome of those investigations or those hearings.

The other matter that we would like to address is that we have also highlighted the fact that all these matters, the information can be very easily ascertained. Yes, in this particular instance we did not give the response because we did a thorough analysis going back in the past 14 years and also we wanted to hold off onto it because we also wanted to make a public statement on it, it is very critical.

We also urge the PAC not to give running commentaries. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the chairman of the PAC of the Australian Federal Parliament and one of the members and they themselves said that the findings of the committee is always contained in the report. The findings of the committee are contained in the report and not in a running commentary on a day to day basis by the chair or any other member of the committee.

It is very critical to ensure that we give the right information to the public. The committees are therefore, at the end of the day to find out the best solution. If they are PAC, to find out exactly what happened and then to make a recommendation to the Parliament, that is the purpose of the PAC.

We have also noted a number of anomalies in the manner in which the Auditor General has given the report. There is one particular incident where the Acting PS Finance can tell you, the auditor general’s report alluded to the fact that there were no contracts in place when in fact contracts were in place.

After the Auditor General’s report was presented to the PAC, the Acting PS Finance told the Auditor General’s office that the contracts are here and they were like yes it is here but in the Auditor General’s report reference to it was limited, if not mentioned at all.

We are finding similar anomalies in the Auditor General’s report, we are finding similar lack of understanding of commercial transactions by the Auditor General’s office- a number of modern day transactions that relate to Government, that relate to commercial transactions, the inability to understand the legal implications, they can seek legal advice from the SG’s office but that has been minimal and some of the recent comments that we have seen by them in the queries they have had in the respective ministries shows the complete lack of understanding of certain legal matters and therefore the conclusions they are arriving at is not always accurate nor correct for that matter.

We have now given the response on Head 50 on the Miscellaneous Servicesbudget and I want to tell you for example of what are some of the expenses within Head 50. In SEG 1, it allows for the payer awards- salary adjustments so for example

– in 2001 there was a spike of $45m when there was a restoration of the pay-cut that was implemented in 2000 so that restoration, that adjustment was parked in Head 50 and that came in 2001

– in 2003, there was a provision of COLA and merit payments, that was then saw a spike of about $25m

– in 2005 and  2006, there was a job evaluation exercise, that was implemented, again you saw it exceed over $20m, there were no amounts in 2007 and 2008

– in 2009, again there was job evaluation exercise that saw a spike of close to $30m in that particular SEG

– SEG 3 includes expenses for overseas recruitment, passage allowance for officers on leave- these are those civil servants who are not on contract employment but get long service leave etc, overseas travel costs for civil servants and Ministers. These are parked in SEG 3. The overall increase of 67 percent took place between 2000 and 2014.

– in 2004 the increase in budget was largely due to the increase provision for passage allowance which is the leave allowance entitlement paid to all non-contracted officers after 12 years of service and every third leave anniversary thereafter. There was some reductions in this SEG because then the overseas travel cost for the civil servants were transferred to the individual ministries rather than parking on SEG 50 which obviously gives a lot more accountability

– SEG 5 it includes agents charges and fees, bankers commission and exchange, expenses of experts and consultants and litigation fees- these were all parked in SEG 5

– there was an increase in 2014 because what we did, in order to get more control over it, a number of expenses were moved to SEG 5 so for example litigation fees was moved from the office of the AG to Head 50, it was parked there so these are the ways that the expenses keep on changing

– in SEG 6, 2009 where we started paying FICAC, FICAC was created and the grant for FICAC was paid from Head 50 SEG 6. Now if you notice, in this year’s budget we have a separate (one) that has all the independent commissions- Human Rights Commission, Judicial Services Commission and we have then of course, FICAC, we will get the Accountability and Transparency Commission. All of these commissions are now in a separate head. So SEG 6 will go down from this year because FICAC has been taken out and given a separate head with all the independent commissions. So the accountability, irrespective of which head it is placed in is there, it is movements, it is those adjustments, for example in 2012, there was a new provision for ADB subscription and that’s when the budget went up. From this year SEG 6 will go down because FICAC has been removed from it

– St Johns grant, St Johns ambulance used to be in Head 50 and now it has been moved to Head 22 from this year so obviously it will come down

– SEG 7 has miscellaneous refunds, duty on Government purchases and general reserves plus other one-off budget provisions for specific identified purposes and you will always find this.

– in 2003 there was a spike because a special budget allocation was made for VAT refunds, office building maintenance and asset sales expenses and this is in 2003 so these kind of adjustments take place in SEG 7

– in SEG 9 it includes the provision for purchase of new and replacement of office equipment and vehicles and the vehicle leasing programme for the whole of Government

– in 2002 there was a huge spike which has never been reached after that. Nearly $27m in 2002 that was a one-off budget expense, at that time it was called the Natadola Marine Resort infrastructure development- the realignment of the Queens Road in Taunivou, the Pacific village and the supplementary provision for the standby facility for unforeseen capital projects. That was 2002 and went to $25m or $27m. In 2014 it is about $12m to $13m, in fact it was very low, quite minimal in SEG 9 up until 2008. In 2009 it increased slightly, just over $5m because of the vehicle leasing programme that we have comes in SEG 9 in Head 50. This is vehicle leasing for all the government ministries.

– SEG 10, which is the last SEG has recorded an increase of 763 per cent compared to 2000 and 2014- why? Because this is where TELS is paid from, this is where the Home Grant is paid from, this is where the PSC and iTaukei scholarships, some of which still exists where people are finishing off, this is where these expenses are parked, the Denarau bridge is parked under SEG 10 of Head 50

– in 2011 there was a spike of around $180m because that is when Government pumped in money for FSC and that tapered off in 2012 so these are the kind of expenses that are parked under Head 50

This is the explanation that has been given to the secretariat of PAC, addressed to the chairman of PAC.

This is a very unique situation that we are in now and that uniqueness has been created by the fact is that there has been a lot of irresponsible reporting, in particular in this instance unfortunately by the Fiji Times by taking a particular answer out of context and putting an actual spin to it.

And unfortunately the chairman of the PAC has continued to feed into that rather than saying, look, lets wait for the response from Ministry of Finance, we will then come to a conclusion whether there has been abuse of funds or whether there is $100m missing or if there is any anomalies.

That is precisely what the committee and the chairman should have done because nobody can arrive at a conclusion without getting all the facts and information first, how can you do that, how can the Fiji Times do that and how can the chairman of the PAC allow that to happen and that is precisely what has happened, and it is not an insignificant issue, it is a very significant issue because when you have such headlines, when you have such irresponsible reporting, anybody picking up that newspaper or listening to the radio or reading from a website will say “oh, in Fiji there is no accountability, they don’t know where $100m is”. That is the impact of it and it was allowed to be lingered on for the past couple of months.

And I can bet your bottom dollar that is this response had been provided earlier on they would not have covered it, nor would the PAC, if they would have said, “yes we have received the response” would they have gone into the details to explain to them and said well now it is accounted for, that would have probably been in the report.

So our appeal to the chairman of the PAC and members of the PAC, is please nobody is stopping you from doing your work, you have access to all the officials, you have the ability to call officials who may have not been there for the day and they are the right officials to call, you have access to them, please call them, please get all the information and then arrive at your conclusion.

Please don’t give a running commentary, you are undermining the very committee that you are supposed to be representing with the credibility of that committee is significantly diminished if you arrive at the conclusion without hearing all the facts.

And my appeal to the media is also this- please just because you are sitting at the back, try and understand what is happening, try and talk to the officials if you want to get clarification, nobody is stopping you from doing that. We always respond to questions, reporter from Fiji Times knows, except in this particular instance I did not,whilst questions were sent to me repeatedly from her and the reporter from the West because of this very matter, of whether we could respond publicly or not. And I have it in writing here from the Hon. Speaker of the House that I can and I received the letter this morning and that is why we are holding this press conference.

As I said, we have given the Head 50 details to the chairman of PAC and we are quite happy to also give it to you. In fact because the matter is of such significant importance that we will actually give this to you and you can go to the Ministry of Finance website also where you will find the most up to date information right up to December 2014 regarding our debt to GDP ratio, regarding the Government finances, revenue and spending.

That type of information was not made available before, it is now being made available, in fact we have said this previously.

Thank you very much."

The Fiji Times clarifies its report

Fiji Times Editor in Chief Fred Wesley says efforts were made to ask the Minister of Finance Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum for comments regarding the HEAD 50 and the $100 million in question.

Wesley said it was unfortunate that there was no response from the Minister.

He explained the newspaper’s stance in light of comments made by Sayed-Khaiyum at a press conference where he described the Fiji Times report as irresponsible.

Sayed-Khaiyum did not deny receiving the emails regarding the matter but said he declined to comment because he was seeking clarification as to whether he was allowed to comment on matters that were before the Public Accounts Committee.

He also said a letter was issued to the committee from the Ministry of Finance in this regard.

“There was a letter written by the Permanent Secretary to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to say a detailed response will be provided and it gives a breakdown of head50 which is always presented in the Budget.”

Sayed Khaiyum clarified that $100 million from miscellaneous funds HEAD 50 is not missing.

He adds the amount referred to the average allocated to HEAD 50 over a period of 15 years from 2000 to 2014. Source: FBC News

Bainimarama fooled by Canadian 'Woman of the Year'

A Canadian radio host fooled Frank Bainimarama into presenting her with a 'Woman of the Year' plaque that he and his staff hadn't even checked for authenticity.

The plaque hailed Annie Ji (Katherine) as Fiji 'Ambassador' and 'the voice of Fijians in Canada.'

Unknown to Bainimarama, Annie Ji had no connections and had come up with the gong herself - as a prank.

The 'prestigious' award was made to the con artist during Bainimarama's August Fiji First Party fundraiser to Vancouver.

Annie Ji was even presented the gong at Bainimarama's farewell dinner in Surrey, by Fiji's coup leader himself.

The disingenuous former radio host had approached two Canadian MPs plus the organsiers of Bainimarama trip as part of the con.

According to the Asian Star, Annie Ji duped local MPs Jinny Sins and Sue Hammell into attending the event, telling them the Prime Minister of Fiji had initiated the award.

Bainimarama presented her with the gong with no questions asked.

The story was exposed by the Vancouver based paper, the Asian Star, which reported that Bainimarama actually thought he was going to be presented with the plaque!

The paper says the con was picked up by a sharp eyed photographer and TV producer, who took a close up photo of the plaque and wondered about the misspelling of the word 'Embassador'.

Bainimarama's trip was organised by Netani Gucake and Bobby Naicker and questions remain about the estimated $162,000 that was raised.

Coup4.5 has also been told that a group of Fijian women brought in to perform the meke at the Fiji Day event have been abandoned and can't get home.

The local Canadian MPs are meanwhile furious at being duped while the organisers say they've been told Annie is sick and has had a stroke.

Annie ji Singh was a host at the Radio Fiji Mirchi station in Surrey, but reportedly quit recently.

A spokesperson at the station says they don't know anything and to 'Ask Annie'.

Comments to Fijileaks:

Fiji First Party 23/9/2015 11:14:08 am

The Exam paper WAS leaked. At least that is now established.

What appears in the social media is only a ‘snapshot’ prove of this leakage, revealing only certain questions but the whole of the paper, we suppose, were shared by a few (too many).

How deep did this racket run?

The fundamental question to ask now - Is whether or not this EXAM as a whole is ‘free and fair’ to ALL students (and teachers) involved??

Not marking those Questions -does not address the issue nor does it answer our fundamental question above. The Professor Minister, of all the people, must know this best.

Tomasi Koroi 23/9/2015 11:55:51 am

Editor, I agree with you. But Reddy should have resigned when he was found to have plagiarized in his speech last year. Or at least when he presided over awarding degrees to those who did not qualify for these. He should also have fired his Acting Vice Chancellor. In any country, the Minister and the University VC would have resigned in shame. But here, I am informed that instead of doing this, he hired one of the key persons responsible for the degree mess, to become a senior education ministry official, and continued to allow Rouse to head the University. These are unacceptable in education field.

2011: USP facilitates discussion on Fiji’s Second Bond Issue 

Mr Filimoni Waqabaca, the Permanent Secretary of Finance addresses participants at the discussion. Also in picture are the members of the panel. (Sitting from left - right): Dr Mahendra Reddy from the Fiji National University, Professor Wadan Narsey from the School of Economics at USP, Mr Norman Wilson, the CEO of ANZ and Associate Professor T. K. Jayaraman from the School of Economics at USP.

The School of Economics at The University of the South Pacific organised a panel discussion on “Fiji’s Second International Bond Issue” on 30th March, 2011 at USP’s Marine Studies Lecture Theater in Suva. The discussants were Associate Professor Jayaraman (School of Economics, USP), Mr Filimoni Waqabaca (Permanent Secretary of Finance, Government of Fiji), Dr Mahendra Reddy, Dean (College of Business, Hospitality and Tourism, Fiji National University), Mr Norman Wilson (CEO, ANZ) and Professor Wadan Narsey (School of Economics, USP).

The Panel was chaired by Dr Sunil Kumar, the Acting Head of Economics, who introduced the topic by explaining what the international bond issue implied.  He noted that the US$250 million was borrowed by the Government of Fiji at a coupon rate of 9% that would cost the Government roughly $41 million Fijian dollars per year until March 2016. The government will then be required to pay a lump sum equal to the face value of US $250 million.

Dr T. K. Jayaraman stated that the advantage of selling the bond was that it would increase the foreign reserves and provide real resources for the government to build the economy which he argued was conditioned on wise policies. He pointed out that part of the new bond would be used to repay the earlier bond of US$150 million, which was issued in 2006. The rest would be added to the government treasury for disbursements. Dr Jayaraman said that the higher interest rate of 9% was not a favorable rate compared to the 7% paid earlier. He noted that there were cheaper loans possible from IMF and ADB, but the Government shied away from the harsh conditions laid down by these institutions to implement reforms such as reduction of public debt, trimming of the civil service and cutting recurring expenditures of the government. Observing that bond is not a magic wand, he said the need for reforms has not vanished. Fiji should now implement the needed reforms on its own accord without any outside goading.

Dr Jayaraman emphasised the importance of evaluating the outcomes of such loans before proceeding with this recent borrowing. He stated further that such borrowings should be avoided in the future and another one should not be issued to pay this one as it was done this time.

Mr Filimone Waqabaca, the Permanent Secretary of Finance, said that various reforms were being undertaken in Fiji including the reduction in the ratio of current expenditure to capital expenditure. He argued that recurrent expenditure had been racing ahead like a Rolls Royce while Government revenues were stagnating. The Fiji Government did not wish to draw down on their current foreign reserves in case they needed urgently for imports. Government also chose to borrow internationally rather than locally, as they did not wish to “crowd out” local private sector borrowings by putting upward pressure on domestic interest rates. An internal borrowing of this magnitude would have hurt everyone in Fiji by raising inflation and reducing investment. He stated that Government did not wish to borrow from the IMF because the conditions of IMF would have raised the interest rate while leading to a tighter fiscal policy which would have harmed the domestic economy. Mr Waqabaca referred to the IMF conditionality as harsh three-day medicine, while the bonds would be more gentle family medicine applied over a longer period.

Dr Mahendra Reddy stated that there was no reason why Fiji should not borrow for development and Fiji’s Debt to GDP ratio was not particularly alarming when compared to international norms. He pointed out that Fiji was unable to borrow at a lower rate internationally because of poor economic performance of the domestic economy. He advised that IMF conditionality had proven to be extremely harmful elsewhere in the world and he drew on several examples.

Mr Norman Wilson (CEO, ANZ) described the process through which the bond was raised and the due diligence followed by them to safeguard Fiji Government’s interests. He noted that ANZ had also made other loans to the Fiji Government.

Professor Wadan Narsey pointed out that the debate was being side-tracked into less important issues such as the cheaper loans available from the IMF (which was true) and whether the bond issue would be used for capital investment (highly debatable). Recent data showed higher government recurrent expenditure towards non-productive sectors like the military. He emphasised that the real issue was that the Fiji Government had been unable to pay the earlier bond, because of its refusal to curb unnecessary recurrent expenditure over the previous five years during which unauthorized military expenditures had escalated. He warned that the taxpayers (and the future generations) who were being asked to shoulder the burden of increased debt, did not know how their funds were being used, as the Fiji Government consistently refused to release any of the Auditor General Reports for the last four years.

The recent reports on the losses of public funds at Natadola and Momi have also not been released, nor the reports on the FNPF. The new bond was not only merely paying back the old bond, but the Fiji Government had borrowed another US$100 million in foreign exchange at the costly rate of 9% when much cheaper funds were available from the IMF and ADB.  Professor Narsey pointed out that even ANZ, despite its strong financial base, did not itself want to lend the US$250 million, but went on a road show to attract other lenders, suggesting that they themselves did not have confidence in the Fiji economy. Following the presentations, there was a vigorous session of questions and comments from the floor. 

The IMF (PFTAC) representative (Dr Yang) revealed that contrary to the impressions created that evening, the IMF had been willing to make the necessary loans at only 2% interest rate without many conditions except for those that normally apply to such loans. There were also questions raised on the appropriate exchange rate for Fiji as well as the impact of recent price control measures by the Commerce Commission. It was suggested that this mode of government control could further damage the investor confidence in the country.

The Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics, Professor Biman Chand Prasad closed the session by thanking all the participants, and the large audience which had packed the Marine Studies Lecture Theater to listen to the discussions. He also highlighted that it was important to look at ways to build confidence in the economy. He suggested an immediate start to an inclusive political dialogue that would create the kind of confidence that investors would like to see.

This news item was published on 7 April 2011 by USP Media Team

#‎Khaiyum‬’s record breaking appetite for DEBT… Only an idiot would say that he had saved money by redeeming his existing debt from more borrowed funds.

This is what Finance Minister Khaiyum told Parliament yesterday as he tried to explain the goings on in a secret sitting of Parliament last month.

Where is the saving that you are talking about, Mr Khaiyum? You are just borrowing more money to pay an existing debt – getting the nation deeper and deeper into debt. Your attempt to dupe the public is despicable, to say the least.

The simple facts of the matter are as follows:

#2006 - Qarase Government borrowed USD150m from the international Bond market at an interest rate of 6%, redeemable in 2011. The money was raised to finance the 2007 Budget deficit. Qarase was deposed in December 2006 and the entire sum was used by the Bainimarama regime.

#2011 - The regime had no money to repay so it rolled over the debt for a further 5 years at an exorbitantly high interest rate of 9%. But instead of borrowing USD 150m to pay off the 2006 debt, it borrowed USD 250 million. The additional $USD100m, it said was to be spent on capital works.

A detailed account of how this extra USD100m (($F200m) was spent has not been provided. The loan was brokered by the ANZ Bank which made a tidy sum as its commission/fees.

Fiji has so far paid USD112 million in interest alone on this loan. A further $66.20 million will have to be paid over the next 5 years on the new loan of USD200m ($F400) – a total of $USD178.70m in all.

#2015 - Redemption of the USD 250m ($F500m) Bond issue due in March 2016 was brought forward by 6 months to Sept 22 2015 by borrowing a further USD 200m ($F400m) at 6.62% and the balance of USD 50m ($F100m) was paid from the Sinking Fund which had been set up to discharge the debt when due but had insufficient funds as moneys had been withdrawn from it for other purposes.

The fresh borrowing of USD200m ($F400m) was sourced from the international Bond market at a rate much higher than that generally prevailing at the time for countries in the Asia/Pacific region. Countries with well managed economies are able to access 5 year loan funds from this facility for between 2.5-3.5%.

Fiji, on the other hand, has to pay almost twice the prevailing rate (6.62%) because of the country risk factor. So, there is no saving as Khaiyum claims. Indeed, the opposite is the case as the loan is to be repaid at twice the current prevailing rate of interest.

In the last 5 years, Fiji’s national debt has doubled from $F2 billion to $F4 billion and is still rising. Its external debt increased from $F545m in 2010 to $F1.25 billion in 2014.

Now the regime is negotiating another $F100m ADB loan facility for the transport sector. The World Bank is at its doorsteps with a loan offer of another $F100m for the so-called public sector reforms, we are told. Then there are several pending loan negotiations with Exim Banks of India and China for the sugar and infrastructure sectors.

The regime has dug its debt pit deep- it has developed an insatiable appetite for loans.

That sure is a ‘record breaking’ achievement in the art of living on borrowed monies, Mr Khaiyum!

By VICTOR LAL
(Edited version)

He began life as an ordinary midshipman on a paltry pay in 1975 but after his 2006 treasonous coup ordered Warrant Officer J. Degei, a low ranking officer in the military and the RFMF’s chief clerk, to hand over to him a cheque, authorised by his then illegal Finance Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, of $184,740. In total the military leader and self-appointed Prime Minister stole a whooping $205,147.29 from the taxpayers of Fiji under the guise of leave pay and other payments he claimed was due him for thirty years.

In order to make sense of his controversial and daylight robbery back pay, we need to look at his 2004 Terms of Employment Contract, and his own CV which he provided when he demanded that the then Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase re-appoint him as Commander of the RFMF in 2004.

As I noted in a previous instalment, the above documents are contained in the Cabinet files that were made available to me from inside the Military High Command at Queen Elizabeth Barracks shortly after the coup.

According to the documents, Bainimarama was born on 27 April 1954. He attended Marist Brothers High School in Suva. On 26 July 1975 he joined the Fiji Navy as a midshipman, an officer cadet or a commissioned officer of the lowest rank. He was twenty-one years old when he was put to sea. On 28 November 1977 he passed his Midshipman Fleet Board Certificate, which qualified him to become a commissioned officer.

Let us begin with the RFMF Leave Computation Form (RFMF LCF) in our possession titled “21915 Commodore J. V. Bainimarama PM/COMD RFMF – Last Tour Commenced from Date of Enlistment: 26 July 1975”. We will then compare with the other above-mentioned documents, also in our possession. His backdated leave pay begins in 1978 but there is no mention of the date or month in that year.

According to RFMF LCF, Bainimarama claimed the following for 78/79: Annual Leave: Total, 37 days, Taken, 16 days, Balance, 21 days. But what was this mediocre midshipman up to in the years 1978-79?  According to his CV, on 23 January 1978 he was attending a midshipman supplementary course in Australia. And, between January-June 1978 he was attached to HMAS Jervis Bay for Navigation Training. The following year between January and June 1979, he was attached to Le Esmeralda, the Chilean Navy Training Ship.

Esmeralda – The Ship of Death and Bainimarama’s sojourn on Board

As a digression, the above Chilean Navy ship has a brutal and bloody terrifying history. In 1973, in the aftermath of a bloody coup, supported by business leaders and the CIA, against the democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, the Chilean Navy helped the new military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet, to be used as a prison and torture chamber.  In 1979, Bainimarama had a taste of the ship of death.

Meanwhile, according to the RFMF LCF, Bainimarama earned 30 days Long Service Leave in 1980/1981, 56 days in 1983/984 and 56 days in 1987/1988. Amazingly, given that he joined the Navy in July 1975, he had already in thirteen years of service earned 142 days of LSL.

What was the dictator up to during these years? Again, let us turn to his CV. In December 1980 he passed his Second Mate Certificate Pacific Island Vessels; January 1981, Junior Command & Staff Course, RNZAF, NZ, October 1981 NBCD Course, NZ, March 1892, Completed Short Navigation Course, HMAS Watson, September 1983, attached to the United States Coast Guard Training Centre, New York, March 1984, EEZ Surveillance Familiarization, NZ.

As noted elsewhere, according to the RFMF LCF, Bainimarama did not take a single day’s leave in 10 years between 1983 and 1999, and again in the 8 years between 2000 and 2008.  What was Bainimarama doing up to 1999 before he took up the Commander’s post, which he did not deserve, according to highly classified Military and Cabinet documents? Let us, again, allow his CV to guide us.

Bainimarama: Promotions and Appointments, 1976 – 1999

On 9 August 1976, he was promoted Able Seaman, 12 December 1976, Appointed Midshipman, 1 November 1978, promoted Sub-Lieutenant, June-December 1978, Appointed Navigation Officer HMFS KIRO, June 1979 (NB: in 2008 he claimed annual leave at $263.77 per day for 21 days on so-called $96,276 per annum salary and throughout his career until 2008: what was his salary in 1979?), Appointed Executive Officer HMFS KIRO, August 1981, Promoted Temporary Lieutenant, 1 November 1984, Promoted Lieutenant, February 1985, Appointed CO HMFS KIKAU, 17 February 1986, Promoted Temporary Lieutenant Commander, September 1986-September 1987, Served with 2FIR [MFO], Sinai, as Company Second in Command [2IC], October 1987, took delivery of FNS LEVUKA, LAUTOKA from US Navy, 19 April 1988, Appointed Commanding Officer [CO] Fiji Naval Division, 4 October 1988 Promoted Temporary Commander, 1 November 1991 Promoted Substantive Lieutenant-Commander, January 1992, Resumed Command of Fiji Naval Division, 3 October 1994, promoted Acting Captain [Navy, N], 1 September 1995, promoted Temporary Captain[N], 10 November 1997, Appointed Acting Chief of Staff, 18 April 1998, Appointed Chief of Staff, RFMF, 1 March 1999, Appointed Commander, RFMF and promoted Commodore, on the recommendation of a co-kana loto Epeli Ganilau, his predecessor and raider of the RFMF Regimental Funds and the collapsed National Bank of Fiji.

Meanwhile, in 21 December 1990-21 December 1991, Bainimarama was attached to the Malaysian Armed Forces Staff College, October-November 1992, Maritime Surveillance Course, Warfare College, Newcastle, Australia, May-June 1993, Disaster Management Course 15, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, June-August 1994, Exclusive Economic Course, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, and January-June 1995, with the Australian Joint Services Staff College.

The Swindler’s Other Payments

The RFMF LCF reveal that Bainimarama collected another $29,139.11 in expense and ration allowance.  His service allowance came to $3,832.02, duty allowance was $23,013.92, gratuity for one year was $24,069 and for another 10 months was $20,057.50. The RFMF LCF shows a FNPF deduction of $20,406.71 which went directly into his FNPF account. What the RFMF LCF did not disclose was that the taxpayer had to fork out a similar amount ($20,406.71) to FNPF as the Employer’s contribution to Bainimarama’s account.

2004 Terms and Conditions of Salary and Other Allowances

We wonder if Chaudhry had enquired or had even seen the Terms and Conditions for the post of Commander that was signed between Bainimarama and the Government on 5 February 2004, before signing off the cheque to Bainimarama. As pointed out elsewhere, it is clear that simple arithmetic throws up glaring arithmetical errors in the RFMF LCF, let alone the justification of the entitlements. For instance in 1985/86 the schedule shows that Bainimarama used up all his leave but Degei allocated 8 days of outstanding leave, and Chaudhry turned a blind eye to it.

As noted above, Chaudhry said while some people criticised the payout they could not produce evidence there was some impropriety in the 698 days. Well, did he recall the Terms and Contract of Bainimarama’s appointment? The RFMF LCF of February 2008 states the following calculations: Basic salary, $96,276.000, Daily $263.77, Days 698, Gross $184,441.46; Service Allowance, $2003.05, Daily 549, Days 698, Gross $3,832.02; Duty Allowance, $12,034.50, Daily $32.97, Days 698, Gross $23,013.92; Gratuity (1yr) Annual $24,069.00, 10mths $20,057.50, Gross $44,126.50; Expenses Allowance, $12,5000, Daily $34.25, Days 698, $23,904.11, Ration Allowance, $2,737.50, Daily $7.50, Days 698, $5,235.00. Gross taxable $255,083.90, Tax (31%) $79,076.01, FNFP, $20,406.71 Net $155,601.18, Expenses Allowance 23,904.11 (Non-Taxable), Ration Allowance, $5,235.00 – Net Total: $184,740.29.

Like his own fraudulent tax returns to FIRCA, Chaudhry and other defenders of Bainimarama’s back pay of $263.77 for 678 days can not defend their position. Bainimarama’s basic annual salary is stated as $96,276.00 on 1 February 2008 in the RFMF LCF. And yet, on 5 February 2004, from his Terms and Contract, Bainimarama was hired on a basic fixed salary of $89,352 per annum. In four years, in 2008, his salary has jumped by $7,000. Even setting aside the sum, how on earth was Bainimarama paid a consistent amount of $263.77 per day for 678 days when his salary in 2004 was not $96,276? His CV also reveals his various positions in the navy – are we to believe that the midshipman’s salary in 1978 was $96,276? He was, after all, in that year, a navigation officer on the HMS KIRO. 
 
Again, from the RFMF LCF of February 2008, Bainimarama is cited as being owed annual leave of 29 days each for March 2004, April 2005, and May 2006, before the treasonous December coup. How, on earth, can those defending Bainimarama, including Chaudhry, claim that in March 2004, a month after he was appointed Commander, he was owed $263.77 per day for 29 days on a salary of $92,276 when Bainimarama had, on 5 February 2004, agreed to take command of the RFMF on a basic salary of $89,352.00.

Other Allowances in Bainimarama’s 2004 Contract

For the record, here is what other allowances Bainimarama had agreed to in February 2004. Ration Allowance of $2,737.50 per annum; Housing, a rent-free Government housing from the RFMF Institutional Quarters; Reimbursable Allowance: telecommunication, a telecommunication allowance of $1,200 per annum, Official Expense (An Official Expense Allowance of $1000 per annum), Professional Subscription (Professional Subscription Allowance of $1,000 per annum; Vehicle, a fully maintained vehicle for official purposes; Superannuation (A Superannuation contribution in accordance with the FNFP Act at the rate of 8% by the Employee and 10% by the Employer); Insurance, (1) A 50% Government contribution towards a life or medical insurance cover of the Commander’s choice subject to the insurer’s terms and conditions, (2) In lieu of overseas travel insurance cover the death of the RFMF Medical Scheme will apply to the Commander; Overseas Travel, A Business Class Overseas Travel package with a Per Diem of 10% loading on the United Nations prescribed and applicable rates. Local Travel: Hotel Accommodation, Hotel Meal Allowance and Subsistence Allowance.

As pointed out in an earlier story on Coupfourpointfive, Bainimarama had agreed to retire at the age of 55 when he signed the 2004 Terms of Contract with the Government of Laisenia Qarase. He was, however, reminded in no uncertain terms: “You are aware that in accordance with the Constitution and the RFMF Act, the Commander RFMF is responsible to the Minister in exercising executive command of the RFMF and in the proper management of public funds approved for the RFMF by Parliament.”   

The $44,126.50 Gratuity Payment on back of 2006 Coup

On 11 March 2004 Bainimarama acknowledged the letter of his appointment but he touched on the issue of a payment of gratuity and the required age to retire at fifty-five. “A common provision that has been provided to the Chief Executive Officers of Government Departments and Constitutional Office holders is a payment of gratuity, recognising the services of the office holder,” he wrote. “The position of Commander is much different in that, whilst other Constitutional Office holders or Chief Executive Officers are permitted to work until they reach the age of sixty, the Commander is required to retire at the age of five-five. We are of the opinion that it is only appropriate that the Commander be paid a gratuity at the end of his service the sum of two times his annual gross salary,” he stated in his letter.

In other words, he agreed to the terms and conditions regarding the retirement age as well placing himself under the control of the Minister and to properly manage public funds approved for the RFMF by Parliament. But four years later, in 2008, he not only refused to retire under the State Services Decree (exempting himself), but collected nearly $45,000 in Gratuity payments, while providing a park to the 55 plus whom he has thrown to the dogs....Fiji, The Way The World Should Not Be! Independence means FREEDOM.

Full story: http://www.coupfourandahalf.com/2010/10/biggest-pay-reap-off-in-fijis-40-years.html?m=1

FIJIAN ELECTIONS OFFICE

JOB DESCRIPTION:       PERSONAL ASSISTANT (A14)

CORPORATE INFORMATION 1.      

Position Level:    Officer (Ongoing, HQ Core Staff)

2.       Salary Range:             FJ$25,000 to FJ$40,000 per annum, full package

3.       Duty Station:              Suva, limited travel to provinces and districts required.

4.       Reporting Responsibilities;

a)      Reports To:                 Supervisor of Elections

b)      Liaises with:               FEO staff, Ministry / Government representatives, Election Commissioners, Stakeholders

c)       Subordinates:           Nil.

POSITION PURPOSE

The position supports the Supervisor of Elections in the day to day management of all aspects of office.

KEY DUTIES

The position will achieve its purpose through the following key duties.  Working with relevant staff, in accordance with legislative requirements and to meet the operational needs of the FEO:

1.       Manage and organise the administrative support to the SOE, including appointments, travel arrangements, diary management, email and other correspondence, communication with key stakeholders, filing of sensitive materials;

2.       Coordinate the quality control, compilation and sending of correspondence on behalf of the SOE and other areas of the FEO;

3.       Coordinate the submission of key reports and documents required for Electoral Commission meetings;

4.       Organise and take minutes of meetings as required;

5.       Provide input to key sections of the corporate and operational plans;

6.       Liaise with staff throughout the FEO to ensure effective communication across the office.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Performance will be measured through the following indicators:

1.       All sensitive records managed and filed in accordance with legislative requirements;

2.       SOE appointments, correspondence and administration managed effectively, courteously and efficiently;

3.       Meetings and travel organised effectively and to meet the needs of operational plans.

PERSON SPECIFICATION

The Knowledge, Experience, Skills and Abilities required to successfully undertake this role are:

Knowledge and Experience

1.       At least 5 years (post qualification, senior level) experience supporting the administration activities of senior staff;

2.       Sound knowledge of filing systems, information management, and diary management in support of senior officers;

3.       Understanding of the Fijian Constitution (2013) and applicable electoral laws of Fiji;

4.       Knowledge of Fijian culture and customs.

Form 6 Graduate or equivalent, with excellent results in English.  Post school training on administration, management or secretarial services would be highly regarded. 

Skills and Abilities

1.       Demonstrated ability to communicate with people from diverse backgrounds in order to ascertain information and reporting needs;

2.       Demonstrated organisational skills to assist senior staff to meet tight and immovable deadlines;

3.       Demonstrated ability to analyse and solve complex problems, in a resource constrained environment;

4.       Demonstrated ability to maintain confidentiality and neutrality, in a sensitive environment;

5.       Excellent typing skills and the capacity to utilise computer programs to support the operations of complex organisation;

6.       Service oriented approach, with a commitment to supporting the operational / corporate goals of the organisation.

Personal Character and Political Neutrality

All applicants for employment in the Fijian Elections Office (FEO) must be in sound health, with a clear police record and be politically neutral.  Applicants shortlisted will be required to provide a medical certificate and police clearance at their interview.

The Fijian Elections Office (FEO) operates in a politically sensitive environment.  Any person who is, and is seen to be, active in political affairs, and intends to publicly carry on this activity, may compromise the strict political neutrality of the FEO and cannot be considered for employment.  All applicants for employment must provide a statement that they are not and do not plan to be, politically active in Fiji.

Summary

Have experience in:
managing Human Resource dept including recruitment and selection, keeping record of staff leaves and other HR admin work.
writing of HR policy,
Coordinate logistics,
Managing of Events,
knowledge of accounting including preparation of simple budget, profit and loss account.
knowledge of using Ms Office programs.
Pratical knowledge on using MYOB,
Practical knowledge on use of Ms Navision.
Also experience in the operation of elections.

Experience

Personal Assistant

Fijian Elections Office
May 2014 – Present (1 year 5 months)

HR Officer & PA to Deputy Director
GMR Muhammed & Sons Ltd

November 2013 – May 2014 (7 months)

Properties Assistant

Fiji National University
June 2012 – November 2013 (1 year 6 months)

Volunteer Experience & Causes

Opportunities Afreena is looking for:

• Joining a nonprofit board

Causes Afreena cares about:

• Arts and Culture
• Economic Empowerment
• Education
• Environment
• Health
• Human Rights

Jason Robinson:
England must come out firing if they are to stop Fiji weaving their magic

My message to England for their opening World Cup clash with Fiji tonight is very simple — don’t freeze. 

This match is all about winning and then moving on. As the host nation, there will be massive expectation on the England players and it’s about handling that and, to be honest, a 3-0 win over Fiji would release at lot of the pressure.

While most of the Twickenham crowd will be cheering on England, it’s also true that around the world there will be a lot of support for Fiji.

With Pool A also containing Wales and Australia, we know there will be an upset at some point, but let’s make sure it’s not tonight.

You cannot help but love the Fijians. They are everyone’s second favourite team because they take a lots of risks. If it clicks for them they are a very difficult team to beat — they are like playing against the Barbarians.

I never faced them in union but did come up against Fiji in rugby league and they do exactly the same things with a ball in both codes.

I was always envious because the Fijians hold a rugby ball in one hand which is something I could never do because my right hand has two end fingers that are like twiglets — all over the place.

Niko Matawalu has to be one of the best attacking scrum-halves in the world and some of his tries are incredible. He will be real danger for England around the breakdown.

A key issue will be where England make Fiji play the game. If the Pacific Islanders are forced to keep playing out of their own 22 they will make mistakes and that will offer George Ford the chance to kick penalties — or we will be given turn-over ball and they will be strangled.

England have to come out of the blocks as they did at the start of the  21-13 win over Ireland, being physical with a lot of energy and not giving the opposition a sniff.

England have to be squeaky clean and if Ford kicks poorly, Fiji’s backs will seize on every chance to counter–attack — they will have a field day.

Fiji have some of the best attacking players in the world and while I expect England to win, it will be a victory that is secured in the second half. There will be two different styles of play and it’s all about England not panicking and sticking to their plan.

Play0:00/ 0:00FullscreenMuteShare England's possibly route to the final


England will be too clinical and structured and have strike players of their own in Anthony Watson and Johnny May and I am looking forward to them getting into the action early on in this match.

Watson is my first-choice England wing because he has been the most consistent since making the team. The tries he has scored at Test level have shown his great feet and speed and he is also hungry to get involved.

There is lots of talk about the match up between Watson and Nemani Nadolo, the Fijian wing who is 6ft 5in and 20st. They both have great strike rates and Nadolo is strong and powerful and he will take some stopping, but you have to manipulate the situation to your advantage. If you go low he will offload and if you go high he can bump you off.

If I was playing against him tonight I would cut down his space because if he builds up a head of steam, it will be so much harder to bring him down. 

The flip side is that because he is so big and Watson has such great foot work that if he can face Nadolo head on, that’s when you can get him.

Watson is quicker over the first 10metres and while they may be the same speed over 100m it doesn’t really matter if you cannot beat a man, one on one. We have to kick well and get Nadolo running back to collect the ball and then it will be a harder night for him. I would also give Watson the ball early in the game to let him have a go.

May is one of the fastest in the Premiership but sometimes the confidence hasn’t been there to bring the best out of his game.

There have been impressive examples of what he can do with that speed with his try against New Zealand last year the most obvious example. If you can burn All Blacks off on the outside then you really do have searing pace but at the highest level it is all about consistency and he has yet to find that in an England jersey.

Now we are seeing the work May has been putting in and he is much sharper and hungrier, looking for work and making a real impact. You thought “he’s a threat, give him the ball” and that is exactly what you want from a wing.

World Cups come down to who can deliver when it matters most and I expect England to do that tonight.


England vs Fiji: Five reasons hosts should be wary of Pacific Islanders

CHRIS JONES

Here, we bring you five reasons why the hosts should be fearful ahead of Friday's showdown

Not even the clinical All Blacks can boast the natural ability to turn defence into attack that Fiji possess. It is part of their DNA to pick up a ball and run and if the opposition are foolish enough to aimlessly kick away possession or lose the ball in contact, then it will be quickly seized upon and used to launch some of the most powerful and skillful players in the sport.

Physicality Players from the Pacific Islands take pride in the way they hit in the tackle. When you are naturally strong and quick, a tackle becomes an offensive weapon which cannot only dislodge the ball but also do real damage to the player carrying it. It is crucial that the Fijians get the timing of their hits right or they will be quickly reduced by yellow cards. Player safety is a key concern at this tournament and ensuring legal tackles are delivered, not high and using both arms, will be imperative.

Nemani Nadolo

The closest talent to another Jonah Lomu is looming on the wing for Fiji tonight. Nadolo is 6ft 5ins and 20st which sounds more like a second row forward than a flying winger. He was born Ratu Nemani Driu Nasiganiyavi but, thankfully for commentators, opted for his mother’s maiden name, becoming Nemani Nadolo while living in Australia. The cousin of former Wallaby Lote Tuqiri, he has scored 15 tries in 20 Tests and is also a proven goal kicker.

Nikola Matawalu

The scrum-half made such an impression with Glasgow Warriors that he earned a move south to Bath and that is where he will head after this tournament. Matawalu scored 22 tries in 59 appearances for the Scots and it is his ability to burst through holes around the breakdown that makes him such a potent threat. If England are sleeping, he will punish them. Keeping him shackled is key.

Leone Nakarawa

A lock forward who plays like a centre and possesses the speed and handling to convince anyone that that is his natural position is in the backs. He will be a real handful tonight and must be stopped before he gets his powerful frame moving.