Fijileaks
  • Home
  • Archive Home
  • In-depth Analysis
    • BOI Report into George Speight and others beatings
  • Documents
  • Opinion
  • CRC Submissions
  • Features
  • Archive

Part Four: SDL submission on national language and public sector jobs 

23/10/2012

9 Comments

 

1: Fijian language be the national language (lingua franca) of Fiji

In proposing that the Fijian language should be the national language of Fiji, the SDL submission told the Constitution Commission as follows:

Chapter 1, Section 4 of the 1997 Constitution provides that the English, Fijian and

Hindustani languages have equal status in the State. They will continue to be the official languages of Fiji. Every citizen has the right to use any of the three languages to do business with a government department, an office in a state service or a local authority.

Language is central to the culture of an ethnic community and it is important that the language of that community is promoted as a means of communication and preservation of a culture. In Fiji two immigrant languages have equal status with one
host language, the Fijian language, thus giving the effect/impression that the host language, if not, the attendant Fijian way of life, is being marginalised.

The English language is a very strong international language and there is no reason to believe that this strong position is likely to weaken, even in the long term. India has become a strong force in the global economy, politics and international relations. With over one billion people of Indian origin around the world, the Hindustani language will surely become a strong international language as well.

The intense promotion of Indian language, culture through Indian films and Bollywood is concerning as are the others, TV films, sponsorship in the Media etc. How do we expect the development of our own Fiji Hindi to grow out of his morass? I understand that some of our public institutions are being involved and I would suggest they pay some attention with their public funds and their time to the development of our own Fiji Hindi and Fijian for that matter.

But there are only about 600,000 Fijians in Fiji and around the world. If the Fijian language is not promoted, the future of the language and Fijian culture would be at risk. There are basically several arguments in support of this proposal. First, a national language, particularly if it is the host language, would become a strong unifying factor for a multicultural Fiji.

If every Fiji citizen is able to converse and communicate in the Fijian language it is likely that its impact on inter–personal relations, multiracialism, and national cohesion would be far– reaching. This is crucial in our national endeavor to forge a cohesive multi-racial Fiji. Successive governments have recognized this and have at various times advocated the learning of the Fijian language in educational institutions and many political commentators have agreed that it has proven to be a strong unifying factor.

Second, the Fijian language as the national language should be the language of our national anthem. And third, the use of the Fijian language as our national language will ensure its promotion and the protection of Fijian culture from extinction. If this proposal is accepted then it would be important to make it compulsory for all primary and secondary school children to learn and be conversant with the Fijian language.

Special provisions should be made, however, for those adult citizens who cannot converse in the Fijian language or who because of age or circumstances cannot learn to speak the language.

The University of Fiji, the Fiji National University and the University of the South Pacific should have courses dedicated to the learning of the Fijian language. It should be a requirement that teacher intake have training in the Fijian language. These would attest to the recognition of the importance of strengthening the Fijian language and its role in nation building and the creation of a national identity.

All these provisions will assist to abate the latent and inherent insecurity amongst Fijians that their culture and way of life including their language is under threat. This would subsequently make them more willing to embrace other cultures and other ways of life, as contributing to a vibrant, multi-cultural Fiji.

It is a well known fact nationally that in parts of Fiji (parts of Nadroga, Ba, Vanua Levu etc) where ethnic Indians have learnt to speak the local dialect they have enjoyed a more vibrant, tolerant and multi-cultural relation with their indigenous Fijian neighbors.

They have been known to participate in elaborate presentations of the “sevusevu” and the “qaloqalovi” in fluent local dialect. These examples of engaging in the local ethnic language has not in any way diminished their strong and proud adherence to their own Indian heritage and culture, it has to the contrary, made them more appreciative and more dedicated to its own survival and development. These pockets of cultural appreciation and tolerance are already showing the Fiji that we are all striving for.

Picture
Fijian culture dependent on survival of Fijian language
Picture
Bollywood's destructive power - Fiji Hindi under threat from Indian language and films in Fiji
Picture
Picture
University of Fiji, Fiji National University and University of the South Pacific should have courses to teach the Fijian language.
Picture
Picture
At the door of Fijian culture - Fijian language will unite Indo-Fijians further in Fiji
Picture
Fijians and Indo-Fijians in western Fiji are already leading the way
Picture
Narrowing the cultural divide: Understanding each other through the Fijian language

2: Fluency in Fijian pre–condition for entry into the Public Service

Picture
The colonial civil servants for example, were required to learn the Fijian language thoroughly as a condition of employment. These colonial public servants took these regulations seriously and evidence of their writings, lectures and their addresses show a high level of understanding not only of the language but also of the Fijian way of life.

Some such examples are Sir Ian Thomson, Sir Robert Sanders, GK Roth and Philip Albert Snow, Joseph W Sykes among others, as far back as the 1930s and 40s.

Recently graduate volunteers coming to Fiji to serve like the American Peace Corps, the Australian Volunteer Abroad and as well as the VSO from the United Kingdom, New Zealand (such as the NZ Scheme of Co-Operation in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s) and others were also able to learn the Fijian language with high level of proficiency within one or two years when there was a requirement set for them to speak and understand a local language.

Therefore, Fijian being propounded here as a national language is not an argument for cultural supremacy and being “racist” but for inclusivity and a glue, being the host language, to hold together the rich and diverse cultures of people who have chosen Fiji as their home. It also inculcates a sense of belonging and identity. We can speak freely with our neighbors and it takes away misunderstanding and suspicion. If we can all speak Fijian then we can truly feel nationalistic about our country. English as the present lingua franca will never inculcate the same sense of belonging. It is a foreign language to the islands and to the two dominant cultures.

The added advantage here is that if we all speak Fijian it will solidify its survival and development. No one would like the demise of the language of a unique race of people with their rich cultural heritage and proud history.

There is sufficient research to show that language is at the core of cultural identity and cultural preservation.


Picture
Once a culture loses its language, it loses a central pillar of its cultural ethos.

As a Pacific linguist, Dr Melenaite Taumoefolau,
once said to a Pacific Post Graduate Symposium:

“Our language is like a container; inside the container is a set of values and beliefs that make us what we are as a people.

Our behavior, customs, traditions, our ways of thinking ,our fa’a Samoa, our anga faka Tonga, are all package into this container called language.

We lose the container, we lose also the contents. We lose our language; we lose also our distinctive ways that define us to ourselves, and to the world.”

Picture
9 Comments

Part Three: SDL on common name - Fijian and Fiji Islander?

22/10/2012

0 Comments

 

Fijian must remain exclusive preserve of indigenous identity

Picture
What's in a name? It means everything.

It is not surprising, therefore, that SDL wants the name "Fijian" to be reserved exclusively to describe the indigenous peoples of Fiji.

In its submission to the Yash Ghai chaired Constitution Review Commission the SDL argues its position as follows:

The Regime has decreed that all Fiji citizens be called Fijians - the SDL is not against a common name. This has been an issue of national importance to build a cohesive Fiji. But this must be done with wider consultations especially with the concurrence of Fijians and of all communities.

This imposition by the Regime is unacceptable and objectionable to the Fijian people. It has completely trampled on the right of the indigenous people to be heard on such an important issue. It is common protocol and courtesy to request for a name you want to acquire from one who already has that name. This imposition of a national common identity is not the way to build a harmonious multicultural society for the future.

Contrary to some recent comments the word “Fiji” is a corruption of the word “Viti” by the Tongans who pronounced it “fisi” which was further modified by the early Europeans into “Fiji”. The islands were from then on referred to as Fiji and its inhabitants as Fijians.
Picture
Serevi: Fijian Icon
Picture
Rubgy associated with Fijians
Picture
Corporal Sefanaia Sukunaivalu - Victoria Cross hero from war in the Solomons
Picture
“i-Taukei” is is no substitute for the word “Fijian”
Picture
Picture
Trading identities to suit his own objectives
Picture
Inescapable past: Fijian identity, culture, language and history is unique
Picture
Fiji Islander should be name of other races in multi-racial Fiji
Joeli Baledrokadroka thesis
Picture
As far back as the 19th Century the word “Fijian” has been used to identify indigenous Fijians.“Fijian” is used in much legislation, including the 1997 Constitution.

In all these laws the word “Fijian” refers to indigenous Fijians. The indigenous peoples of Fiji are well documented in history and in other academic work as Fijians.

Their poetry, dances, works of art, tradition and culture are documented as Fijian. The indigenous Fijian people have molded through sports, active military participation, unique cultural heritage etc a Fijian identity which is recognized the world over.

Fijian is also increasingly becoming a highly acclaimed brand in the world market place and this is increasingly being used for art and art forms that depict tapa like products and patterns for clothing and for art and art pieces, music, chants and other indigenous compositions. Other products and commodities like Fiji Water and Pure Fiji and scented coconut oil and other fresh food products are being marketed on the strength of their association with Fiji and the Fijian brand.

Picture
Brand power: Fiji Water and Pure Fiji coconut oil etc marketed on the strength of the Fijian name.
Picture
Picture
In the world of sports especially in rugby sevens and 15’s a particular brand of open and running rugby is associated with the Fijians. The military skills, expertise and bravery, of Fijians tested in the jungles of the Solomon Islands and the tropical forests of Malaysia and the sandy and dry deserts of the Middle East has attracted attention world-wide and the demand for soldiers in the United Kingdom, United Nations Peace keeping troops and in private security operations in war torn areas all over the world, Fijians are in high demand.

There is therefore an emerging Fijian brand and world identity and this has taken a long time and a lot of work and effort to develop and cultivate. Then there is the multitudinous array of Fijian food and arts and craft. These have been developed and shaped mostly by the indigenous ingenuity of Fijians. The Fijians therefore have some justification to feel aggrieved when others have come in and exploited these for their benefits; and they feel it is their brand and their name.

We agree with Mr Baledrokadroka’s assertion that…… “Basically, an involuntary name change, especially involving a whole race, risks permanent generational and emotional resentment by such a race for what is basically, identity theft.”

A race of approximately 600,000 people needs this for cohesion and strength to survive amidst the onslaught of dominant cultures and its attendant propaganda machines. It gives them a sense of pride and security in a world of globalised culture. Just when they were beginning to feel a sense of “Fijian” being and identity on the world stage they were coerced to give it up.

Furthermore the Regime had decreed that the word “iTaukei” be used for indigenous Fijians. Taukei is a prefix meaning “owner of” for instance “taukei ni lori” (owner of a
vehicle) or taukei ni sitoa (“owner of a shop”). Indigenous Fijians are now called “owners of”, Of what? They have no idea! The indigenous Fijians feel that they have become a “prefix” rather than a substantive entity in their homeland.

Additionally, “……… there is an issue, however, with “i Taukei” if the intended name to mean what it represents. Taukei-ism has taken on a militant indigenous political meaning since the 1987 coups. The name sharpens instrumentalist views such as generated by the ethno nationalist “Taukei Movement” and will definitely inhibit political moderation. This possible untoward outcome is the exact opposite of the all racial new  “Fijian” civic- nationalism call of the . Unwittingly, the Taukei branding will by default also officially assign all other races in Fiji to perpetual Vulagi (guest) status.”52

The word “i-Taukei” is therefore is no substitute for the word “Fijian”. The word “Fijian” describes the indigenous Fijian aptly. The word cannot be identified with Fiji citizens from other ethnic communities. The issue of a common name for all Fiji citizens should be resolved through dialogue, consultation, and eventually by consensus. The common name “Fiji Islander” is contained in the Reeves Commission Report. If the common names 'Solomon Islander', 'Cook Islander' and 'New Zealander' can stick, there is no reason why “Fiji Islander” cannot.

The SDL Party is of the view that “Fiji Islander” is a good common name for all Fiji citizens and will require some marketing efforts abroad, especially to our Pacific neighbors.

It is also not clear whether other ethnic communities would like to be called Fijians. It is more likely that the majority of them would prefer that the world “Fijian” be reserved for indigenous Fijians. You really have to be an indigenous Fijian, speaking their language, living their way of life, dressing the way they dress and relating to others in the way they do to really appreciate the sense of loss in the removal of a name that identifies them with all these.

This is borne in a recent survey by the Citizen Constitution Forum (CCF) wherein the majority of respondents stated that they wanted the name Fijian to be reserved for Fijians.The Regime is virtually saying to all native Fijians to abandon their previous name “Fijian” and take on the new name “i Taukei” whether they like it not, including the
negative connotations.

For common names, for different ethnic communities whatever names are adopted there will be a need for publicity. The differentiation into ethnic groups is not racist or discriminatory. These are all essential tools for social justice programmes, special educational assistance or to tackle health problems for which certain ethnic genetic makeup may be susceptible to. There are problems that are particular to an ethnic group, due to circumstances, lifestyles, history or culture whether they are ethnic Indians, Fijians or Pacific Islanders. These need to be identified to effectively address them.

 



0 Comments

Part Two:  SDL Submission - Church and State Religion in Fiji

21/10/2012

0 Comments

 

Gospel truth about importance of Christianity to Fiji

Part A:

Since the 2006 treasonous coup, the overwhelming number of native Fijians are alarmed and disturbed at the "creep" of secular morality taking over the rationale of the law-making, and law-interpreting process in Fiji.

To halt the slippery trend, the SDL proposed to the Constitution Review Commission that the Republic of the Fijian Islands be a sovereign democratic Christian state.
 
SDL informed the CRW in its submission:


"No state is religiously neutral. Neither can they be. However conceived, the state is shaped by humans who are naturally religious in character, and who carry within them their historical, cultural and religious heritage. These accordingly define the parameters of the state. In Fiji’s case, this heritage is Christianity. The values and principles derived from the Christian religion over the past 177 years have not only shaped personal piety, but shaped our social, political and economic institutions, and the corresponding methods and requisite behaviours in each of these spheres.

By accepting Christianity, our ancestors accepted that their hitherto pagan (non- Christian, even anti-Christian) state would be Christianised into a Christian state. Through the influence of Christian martyrs and missionaries, and through the good order and institution-building of British colonialism, the Fijians made a willing submission to the Christian principle that the state is always under the sovereign authority of God.

Fijians accepted that their state would not be an autonomous instrument that would substitute pagan idolatry for the idolatry of human reason – as underlies many of the ideological apologies that have over the same period of Fiji’s existence defended the basis for a non-discriminatory (secular) state.

Nor did Fijians propose a state that elevated itself to supremacy above God. Rather, they understood that Fiji would be a state whose legislature, executive, and judiciary, are committed to establishing national life in all its spheres and varieties according to the values, assumptions, principles, and ethical guidelines that are Christian, Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, and
religious toleration are all foundational to such a Christian state.

They are not the inventions of any so-called secular state. Rather they were built up over 1500 years of Christian argument, protest and martyrdom – today we take them for granted.

According to the British Prime Minister David Cameron:

“Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgment on their behaviour. I think these arguments are profoundly wrong.

The SDL proposes that the Republic of the Fiji Islands is a sovereign democratic Christian state

Picture
Christianity's humble beginnings in Fiji
Picture
Still singing praise to the Al Mighty Lord in modern day Fiji
Picture
The future custodians of Christianity in Fiji
Picture
British PM Cameron
And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people……what we stand for……and the kind of society we want to build. First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths……simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France. Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all. Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgment on the behaviour of others……fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality……or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code."

The SDL, therefore, told the Commission:

"To honour our heritage; to guarantee our inherited liberties, rights and principles of justice; and to secure our national future under a sovereign God the Constitution should establish Fiji as Christian state."


Part B:

Continuing its position, SDL argues in its submission:

"A state religion is a religion officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy. A state religion is a government approved religion. It does not mean that the state is under the direct control of any established church. Nor does it mean that the religion is under the control of those enacting or representing the business of the state (whether elected or self-appointed).

The state and religion remain separate, but are free to exert a non-coercive influence on each other as befits Christian principles and practices that underlie modern democracies.

A state religion is neither a state-sanctioned nor state-subsidised denomination. It is religion understood in its broadest sense. It is religion as an ethos, a system of values and guiding principles to be confessed and adhered to. In this regard, it is generally accepted that there are five world religions – Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

Of these, State religions existed in many countries around the world centuries ago. In some instances they were written into the Constitutions of those countries. In recent times some countries have removed state religions from their Constitutions, as part of the process of separation of powers between state and religion.

In other countries the removal of state religion reflects the weakening of a country’s faith in God, our Creator. There are strong arguments in support of this proposal to establish a state religion. If Fiji adopts a state religion it will not be the first in the world.
Picture
Heavenly climb upwards - church and churchgoers cant be divorced from state religion
Picture
Staying power of State religion: Roman Catholicism in Costa Rica, and Christian values are present in many aspects of daily life
The following states recognize some form of Christianity as their state or official religion (by denomination): Catholic: Costa Rica; Liechtenstein; Malta; Monaco; Vatican City (theocracy).

A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal and Spain give a special recognition to Catholicism in their Constitution despite not making it the state religion.


Eastern Orthodox


Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their state religion are: Greece - Church of Greece, Finland - Finnish Orthodox Church.

Protestantism/Lutherism

Jurisdictions which recognise a Lutheran church as their state religion include: Denmark - Church of Denmark, Iceland - Church of Iceland, Finland - Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Sweden - Church of Sweden.

Reformed


Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their state religion: Scotland - Church of Scotland, Tuvalu - Church of Tuvalu.

Anglican


Jurisdictions that recognize an Anglican church as their state religion: England - Church of England
Picture
The Holy Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece

Conclusion:

Why “Christianity” as the state religion? There are several reasons in support of this proposal. First, our High Chiefs who ceded Fiji to Great Britain in 1874 wanted to secure “…the promotion of civilization and Christianity” alongside trade and industry, order and good government for the people of Fiji.

Second, “Christianity” was the first religious faith to be introduced, and accepted by Fijians in 1835. And third, more than half of the population of Fiji now is Christians, making Christianity the largest religious faith in the country.

These suggestions do not take away the right of every Fiji citizen to practise their religion and belief as contained in Chapter 4 - Bill of Rights of the 1997 Constitution.

The SDL will also be recommending later under the Presidential powers that the President would be the protector of religious freedom in Fiji

Picture
See also SDL's new website:
http://www.sdl.org.fj/index.html

0 Comments

 Part One: The Great Council of Chiefs 

20/10/2012

2 Comments

 

Trouble brewing for Chief Warwar of Malampma in Fiji as
submissions back Great Council of Chiefs

Picture
Cakobau - great repository of Fijian culture, rights and tradition
Picture
Sir Arthur Gordon - passionate defender of native Fijian rights
Picture
Governor Everard im Thurn - suspended BVL in 1905-1912
Picture
Last chief standing: Ro Kepa warns illegal Voreqe of dire consequences over BLV
Picture
Refusing to throw off his presidential hat in protest - signed anti GCC decree

Frank's diktat against BLV

The illegal leader Voreqe Bainimarama on seizing power had told the Fijian chiefs to go drink home-brew under the mango. tree. In March he abolished the Bose Levu Vakaturaga informing the nation:

"Good morning to you all.

The President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau has approved decrees that formally de-establish the Great Council of the Chiefs an institution created by the British during colonialism, and one that in modern times has become politicized to the detriment of Fiji’s pursuit of a common and equal citizenry.

The Great Council of the Chiefs is a product of our colonial past and Fiji must now focus on a future in which all Fijians are represented on the same basis.

If all Fijians are to have their say during the consultations for Fiji’s new constitution, we must ensure every voice is equally heard and equally represented.


In 1875, the British under colonialism created an elite body of iTaukei Chiefs known as the “Native Council” to directly and indirectly implement its rule over Fiji. The members of this body, which later came to be called the Great Council of Chiefs, held certain privileges.
Picture
Barking illegal orders against the Great Council of Chiefs - Frank Bainimarama, Chief Warwar of Malampma, Vanuatu
Picture
Uprooting chiefly privileges of Fijian past
Over the last 20 years the GCC, including its secretariat, became highly politicised, with its members having political affiliations and membership in political parties.

Unfortunately, this resulted in the GCC and its members unduly involving themselves in national politics and/or taking advantage of the GCC’s traditional role to assert personal or political agenda.

Fiji’s iTaukei heritage is a distinct and fundamental aspect of Fiji—this cannot be denied.

However, as an institution the Great Council of Chiefs perpetuated elitism and fed into the divisive politics which plagued our country. We must now look to our commonalities as citizens of the same nation, not to what separates us as individuals or groups.

In recent years, my government has done much to ensure that many of the challenges facing the iTaukei have been addressed—including equal distribution of land lease monies."

1: Fighting back BLV Decree: SDL gives Frank history lesson

But now chiefs, individuals and political parties are fighting back through their submissions to  Constitution Review Commission. Let us take the SDL's submission, which began with a history lesson of Fiji's chiefly past and their institution, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga.

The party told the Commission;

"From time immemorial, Fijians selected their chiefs on the basis of their ability to look after them and protect them from the ravages of war and natural calamities to enable them to live in peace with other neighboring mataqali (sub-clan), in the Yavusa (Clan). The expansion of the Yavusa led to the creation of Vanua, the largest Social Unit below the level of Matanitu or Confederacy16 which was the highest political unit that survived at the time of contact with Europeans and the outsiders, during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The running of these Yavusa, Vanua and Matanitu required alliances, meetings and settlement of disputes including major social intercourses in which the chiefs and their leading traditional advisers took pre-eminent roles. One such historical meeting recorded by indigenous researchers was the meeting of all the eight Vanua in Fiji where people had settled shortly after their arrival, and the initial
settlement of the three waves of migration of our ancestors, some 3500 years ago.

This was a national meeting called by Chief Lutunasobasoba at Nakauvadra. At this meeting, he was installed as the paramount Chief of the country and given the title (yacabuli) of Ratu. Other categories of Chiefs and craftsmen, skilled artisans, warriors and tillers of the land were also recognised. At this meeting, the Bete Levu Ni Kalou (the High Priest/or Spiritual Chief) was named; and acknowledged. This title was given to Degei No.218.

This historical meeting affected the lives of indigenous Fijians in their new homeland as it provided the basis for their social organisation, protocol and way of life which has persisted to this day. That meeting stamped the importance of the role of chiefs in the lives of the Fijian people in their new land. The Fijians maintained their system of consultation with relevant chiefs and their people up to the present time.

Since early settlement to the time of ceding Fiji to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, the chiefs have always had a voice in the governance of this nation. They are a national unifying factor and have contributed not only to the enhancement of Fijian aspirations but for the aspirations of all the people of this nation.

They have continued to do so and have had their role strengthened in the 1997 Constitution. Like all institutions, it is not perfect and has inherent weaknesses which required changes with time. The unilateral suspension of the BLV by the head of the Regime therefore was not an isolated incident; it was part and parcel of a bigger agenda to plunder Fijian resources by weakening the apex of Fijian institutions. It is not the first time, this is happening, but unfortunately, it is the first time after independence when we should be in control of our
country and our resources and it is being done presumably with the support of the Fijian military. The advice and the action taken represent the worst form of neo-colonialism in action in Fiji.

The BLV has been disestablished with effect from 2007, a period of some 6 years for no good reasons other than to weaken the Fijian control over their land to facilitate the exploitation of their land through the land decrees as pointed out above.

The earlier suspension of the BLV and the consequent land grab

The first time the BLV (then known as Native Council) was suspended was in 1905- 1912 by Governor Everard im Thurn following the approval of the Land Ordinance of 1905 which was drafted by Sir Arthur Gordon following the meeting of Native Council at Mualevu. This recognised the ownership of most lands by Chiefs and mataqali and left little room for the European settlers who were demanding more land for expansion of their plantations and businesses.

2: The SDL Party proposed that BVL be established under the Constitution

The Party also proposed that a BLV Act be passed by Parliament, setting out the role, functions, powers etc of the BLV.

The SDL submission told the Commission:


The BLV is established by Regulations under the Fijian Affairs Act. The BLV is the pinnacle of the Fijian social structure, and yet it does not have a stand-alone legislation for itself.
Picture
Provincial administrators of the past, some of chiefly ranks
It became evident to the European settlers that it was difficult to conduct the necessary transactions because of the cumbersome procedures that had to be followed. The Planters’ Association lobbied government that the sale and leasing of land could be better managed if government had complete control. A petition was sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his approval. The Fijian chiefs were alarmed at this development and wanted assurance from the Governor towards the protection of indigenous interests. In London, Sir Arthur Gordon, then Lord Stanmore was frequently consulted by the Secretary of State on policy matters, especially relating to the far flung colonies.

On 16 July 1907 he spoke strongly in the House of Lords against the sale of lands in Fiji and supported a motion to stop it. This he did, not only as former Governor but also in his capacity as a Fijian landowner, a Turaga i Taukei. In his speech in the House of Lords he said:

“I am a Fijian land-owner. Her late Majesty was graciously pleased, when I left Fiji, to allow me to accept a gift from the Fijian people of two small islands of no commercial value, but the possession of which was sufficient to give me the title of Turaga i Taukei, a land-owning chief in the country. It is therefore, as one of their representative, that I come before your lordships……Unless the protection of the state, which hitherto been afforded to them is continued, I see perfectly what the result will be. It will mean the end of the Fijian race”

In the course of the debate, the Secretary of State for the colonies, Earl Crewe, who was also a member of the House, outlined the evolving attitude of his office as being in line with that of Lord Stanmore, and the House approved the Bill. In July 1908 the sale of native land was stopped. In his communication with the Governor of Fiji, the Secretary of State for the colonies, Earl Crewe stated that “he was inclined to think that the course of events the last 30 years had rendered it impossible for the Government of Fiji to adopt any position other than that the waste lands of Fiji must continue to be regarded as the property of the natives as much as the occupied lands”.

With that experience, over 100 years ago, at the back of our minds, the recent disestablishment of the BLV can only be described as a major blunder which will take Fiji backwards some 30 years in our relationship in this country. And the way the BLV was summarily tossed out without courtesy of consulting the chiefs and their people, in Fijian protocol it represents the worse form of arrogance. All these concerns are to be taken in the context of the rapid pace of modern life, the pervasiveness of a global culture and economic growth and development based on the insatiable desire for more and more wealth at the expense of the powerless and disadvantaged with its subsequent deleterious effects on the environment and the rapid depletion of natural resources. Fijians are now required to sacrifice more and more of their land, their identity, their institutions, their “lotu” and sacred Christian beliefs, for the new global agenda.

All these have exacerbated Fijian insecurity and powerlessness. Such powerlessness has been exploited through manipulation by others as evidenced by the coups of 1987 and 2000. They need an anchor in the Constitution. Once their concerns are addressed in the supreme law of the land, with the consent of other communities through dialogue, we can dare to hope that we will indeed have a united and vibrant multi-ethnic Fiji.

In our endeavor to script a new Constitution and in consultation with other communities the fears and insecurities of Fijians must be addressed. Past leaders of various communities in Fiji have acknowledged these and have through several amendments to our Constitution have addressed the above concerns.

Picture
Fijian culture and tradition is fusion of old and new and must remain that way without disruption

Picture
The old practice of making fire with rubbing sticks - Bainimarama warned to stop playing fire with BLV destiny
Despite criticisms leveled against it over the years the BLV has continued to provide good leadership for the Fijian people. Also, the BLV has provided wise advice to previous Governments on matters affecting the nation generally and the Fijian people in particular. The BLV has been a unifying factor and a stabilizing influence during periods of uncertainties in Fiji.

The BLV is established by Regulations under the Fijian Affairs Act. The BLV is the pinnacle of the Fijian social structure, and yet it does not have a stand-alone legislation for itself. Despite criticisms leveled against it over the years the BLV has continued to provide good leadership for the Fijian people. Also, the BLV has provided wise advice to previous Governments on matters affecting the nation generally and the Fijian people in particular. The BLV has been a unifying factor and a stabilizing influence during periods of uncertainties in Fiji.

The establishment of the BLV under the Constitution will elevate the position of the BLV to its rightful position. This recognition under the Constitution will also reflect broadly the views, attitudes and acceptance of the BLV by different ethnic communities in Fiji. In addition, a stand – alone BLV Act will set out more clearly the role, functions, funding etc of the BLV.

The Act will also create the proper legal framework to commit the BLV to more accountability of its work, and to its readiness to initiate and/or embrace changes when they become necessary.
Picture
All steps lead back to the Great Council of Chiefs: FLP, NFP and UPP support retention of the august body in their submissions
Ro Kepa's warning letter
The Act to also stipulate the progression of the BLV towards the following objectives:

i) To provide financial independence and autonomy in relation to the operation and administration of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV).

ii) To provide funding for the undertaking, promotion and sponsoring programmes on Fijian language, culture and the study of ethno-history, and ethno-geography and epistemology ( (Fijian) knowledge and way of knowing).

iii) To provide funding to help develop the management, leadership and entrepreneurial skill of the indigenous Fijians and Rotumans

iv)To sponsor research into languages, art and culture of indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the better understanding and preservation of their heritage

• The SDL proposes that monies gathered from the leases delegated to extinct mataqali are not assigned to landowning units (Schedule A and B) be utilized for the establishment of the BLV and to fund all other worthwhile Fijian projects.

It is imperative that for the independence of the BLV, that its role is clearly defined and that it be apolitical. It should ensure that its resources are geared towards the protection of the cultures and traditions of Fijians. Of importance is to strengthen Fijian participation in business and commerce and to have oversight on indigenous resources and their sustainable use.

Editor: The most forceful warning was already given by the SDL patron Ro Teimumu Vuikaba Kepa in her letter dated 11 April 2012 to the illegal Prime Minister of Fiji:

"Voreqe, the Great Council of Chiefs and their role in society lives forever in the hearts of the people who have the interests of the welfare and good governance of our nation. You, together with those who made the decision to abolish the Great Council of Chiefs as well as your advisers have made a serious error of judgment in the governance of our beloved nation of Fiji."


2 Comments

Justice John Connors “fired” by Khaiyum for refusing to destroy livelihood of lawyer Cevalawa

5/10/2012

0 Comments

 
ILSC commissioner, and former Justice, John Connors said there could be no doubt that for a legal practitioner to practise without a practising certificate “flies in the face of the whole principle of the legal practitioners legislation and accordingly impacts on the community”. He said the dominant purpose of disciplinary proceeding was to protect the community as opposed to punishing the legal practitioner or other professional.
“I accept that in this instance, the failure of the respondent (Cevalawa) to lodge her application for renewal was the result of negligence, carelessness, behaviour and was not a deliberate act to practise without a practising certificate,” Connors said. The Commission dismissed counts nine and 10 in its ruling made on December 5.

Justice William claims in his affidavit:

Some time ago in about February 2012 Commissioner Connors was fired by the Attorney General. His crime seems to have been not accepting what the Attorney General and the Chief Registrar wished to do in the case of an employed solicitor, Ms Siteri Cevalawa, who did not pay for her certificate on time. Her employers were at fault. She was properly being disciplined and Commissioner Connors did not think that her default should prevent her from practice and her livelihood. So he asked the Chief Registrar to regularize her status in the mean time. This was refused.
Foolishly, Commissioner Connors issued an order to the Chief Registrar. It was foolish because he did not have powers within the Legal Practitioners Act. I had to stay the order. But the Commissioner was trying to deliver fairness and justice to the practitioner before him.
So for acting fairly and justly, but contrary to what the Attorney General and the Chief Registrar desired of him, he was fired.
0 Comments

Revengeful Khaiyum hounds father and son pair - from tax evasion to heinous crime of false rape

5/10/2012

0 Comments

 
Justice Marshall File:

The fourth irrational event involves the Attorney General acting to achieve the conviction for rape of one of his oldest enemies, one Rajendra Chaudhary. Last year there was a report that an alleged drug smuggler Ms Muskan Balaggan had been raped by her lawyer, Rajendra Chaudhary.  When an appeal against refusal of bail for Ms Balaggan came before the Court of Appeal on 15th September 2011 her allegations on the file were that the Attorney General had intervened and wished to assist her in convicting Rajendra Chaudhary. 

The Court ignored this.  But an Attorney General who does such things corruptly because he requires revenge and enjoys exercising personal power, is wholly unfit to hold office.  I produce the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Muskan Balaggan dated 15th September 2011 as Document No. 84.  Having discussed irrational use of power by the Attorney General there is a possibility that such conduct is related to a major decision in April 2009 to ensure that all judges would give judgments in favour of what the Attorney General wanted.

A permanent stay application will be filed on behalf of former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

Chaudhry faces three charges related to violation of tax laws.

In court (September 21), Chaudhry’s lawyer Rajendra Chaudhry said the application is based on a petition by former President of the Court of Appeal Justice Willliam Marshall.

He said the petition has been given to the military counsel and the Prime Minister two days ago. Chaudhry said the petition stated that the Attorney General was interfering in court processes and targeted political situations. He said QC Peter Williams instructed him to to apply for a permanent stay based on the petition.

Judge Justice Paul Madigan gave the defence 28 days to file an application for permanent stay. Chaudhry says he will seek further instruction from Williams who is in New Zealand. The matter has been adjourned to the 19th of October.
0 Comments

October 05th, 2012

5/10/2012

0 Comments

 
0 Comments
    Contact Email
    ​[email protected]
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012