Blog Archives

CENSORING CRITICISM OF FFP GOVERNMENT: Fiji Labour Party slams Fiji Times and other media for censoring portions of their press releases that are critical of Government, the latest on "VOTE BUYING" TACTICS!

31/10/2017

Fijileaks: We add another gripe from the reading public. They have accused Fiji Times of trying to fleece money out of them by running one or two sentences from press releases and statements, and calling on the readers to subscribe to Fiji Times E-Edition to read the full article

FLP: Free speech Fiji Style

Why is it that the media will run criticisms of everyone except the Fiji First Government?

Our experience at FLP is that whenever we criticize the government, it is either scrapped from coverage of our statement or so whittled down it loses its impact. Even the Fiji Times which is normally more courageous in providing fair and balanced reports, will usually slash parts of the statement that criticizes the government, its policies or certain ministers.

Case in point: FLP’s statement yesterday on vote buying tactics being employed by certain political parties ahead of the 2018 general elections. Fiji Times gave it a run on page 3 today but left out any mention of tactics at vote buying employed by the Fiji First government.

We mentioned the $1000 cheques that the government has been issuing to thousands of people around the country in the guise of helping finance small businesses. And called on the electoral authorities to investigate these practices.

We pointed out, quite rightly, that there was little transparency in the process and no follow up. It is an abuse of the Government of India funding which, we are certain, is not meant for political purposes.

What, we ask the Fiji Times, is your motive in slashing out criticism directed at the government while only highlighting the reference to NFP MP Parmod Chand’s offer of a free bus service to uniformed Police officers?

It makes for somewhat mischievous reporting because it renders FLP’s statement on this important issue as just political campaign wrangling between two opposition parties in the lead up to the 2018 elections.

The statement was focused on the issue of vote buying as part of the electioneering process. These are clearly vote buying tactics and need to be nipped in the bud. Similar tactics were blatantly employed in the weeks and months preceding the 2014 general elections by the then regime.

We all remember the notorious Agricultural Scam that surfaced just prior to the 2001 general elections. Well, it seems the $1000 cheque-scheme is a revived but somewhat more sophisticated version of the agricultural scam – the hardware merchants are once again the main beneficiaries as the cheques are made out to the various hardware or departmental stores.

Vote buying is an offence under the Electoral Act but despite strong criticism from opposition political parties, no action was taken against such practices in 2014. We now find other political parties resorting to similar tactics to influence voters.

It is a serious issue that must be checked now before it discredits our entire electoral process and becomes a pervasive corrupting influence in our general elections.

We intend to write to the Electoral Commission to investigate such practices as breaches of the Electoral Act.

As for the media, they are doing Fiji a great disservice by refusing to run fair criticisms of the government. How can our people make informed decisions, essential at election times, if they receive only one side of a story and are not exposed to differing viewpoints and critical assessments.

CENSORING criticism of FFP government has a long history and is regularly featured in various cartoons:

0 Comments

USP SEX PERVERT SCANDAL keep getting worse as VC Rajesh Chandra and his associates continue to shield Dr James Johnson who lied about his dismissal for sexual groping; female students warned of new sex pest

30/10/2017

0 Comments

Fijileaks: We have new evidence that former psychology staff at USP's Laucala campus were instructed to re-grade Johnson's 2014 course results because of a conflict of interest with a female student under Johnson's duty of care. Johnson's grades for the female student were revised down by staff members, the clear implication being that high grades could have been obtained in exchange for alleged sexual favours

BE CAREFUL OUT THERE: Ronna Lee of USP has raised the alarm

The University of the South Pacific (U.S.P.) has issued a warning to their students, especially females, to be alert.

The University has also lodged a formal complaint with the Ministry of Police.

Staff member, Ronna Lee (above) , took her concerns on social media.

It’s alleged that an Indian man approached two female students at the University and offered them $400, phones and job opportunities for an hour in a hotel room.

“The Indian man wears glasses and is believed to be above the age of 30, driving a metallic silver/grey sports car,” Ms. Lee said.

Ms. Lee told the Samoa Observer yesterday the matter had since been reported to the Police and they were now “hunting down this man”.

She said it was fortunate that one of the girls reported this immediately and the University faculty and staff members addressed the matter immediately.

“This predator left before we were able to I.D. his car, but we have reported it to the police and will issue a warning to all students to stay alert and be cautious."

“Parents and families please stay alert and keep our girls safe from these predators,” said Ms. Lee.

One of the female students pointed out on social media that she saw this person on school campus.

“He drove in front of the bookshop."

“I’m pretty sure that’s him cos (sic) he kept on looking in the room where I was and then turned again and leaves after minutes of parking there and just staring in the room where I was and yes he was driving a silver car.”

She said the students were urged to file a formal report with the security.

Ms. Lee has issued warning and also urging the public to report him if they see someone matching the description.

Efforts to get comments from the Ministry of Police have been unsuccessful as of press time yesterday.

Fijileaks: Recently, we provided the full letter regarding Johnson's dismissal to VC Chandra and other senior USP administrators, including a copy to the acting Minister of Education Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, and to USP Dean Dr Akanisi Kedrayate – Senior Lecturer in Education - but no action has been taken against Johnson, who can be dubbed
USP's own "Harvey Weinstein" roaming around the campus

We forwarded the full letter to the following:

Senior Management Team
Vice-Chancellor and President

Professor Rajesh Chandra, BA GCEd MA S.Pac., PhD Br.Col.
Phone: (679) 3232312
Fax: (679) 3231550
Email: [email protected]

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Learning,Teaching & Student Services)

Professor Richard Coll, BSc, PhD Canterbury, ScEdD Curtin
Phone: (679) 323 2053
Fax: (679) 323 1502
Email: [email protected]

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research, Innovation & International)

Professor Derrick Armstrong, BPhil Lond, MEd, PhD Lanc
Phone: (679) 3232247
Fax: (679) 3231504
Email: [email protected]

Vice-President (Regional Campuses Property and Facilities)

Dr Giulio Masasso Tu’ikolongahau Paunga, BA Wesleyan,MA, PhD Daito Bunka
Phone: (679) 3231684
Email: [email protected]

0 Comments

PROVOCATIVE or POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING: As NFP's Parmod Chand, Bainimarama's "Little Coward" who hid under the bus in 2000, barks again at RFMF, Colonel Kalouniwai questions Chand's MOTIVE!

30/10/2017

0 Comments

“I just want to raise concerns about the continuous comments the Honourable Member of Parliament Parmod Chand keeps making. He is always bringing in the RFMF in his political remarks and we are questioning his motive and the question I ask myself is what is he trying to prove. Mr Parmod Chand’s comments about the RFMF is for political leverage, to gain popularity and votes for elections. The race card is out of the window so his focus has become the Prime Minister and the RFMF. This shows his political immaturity” -
RFMF Chief of Staff, Colonel RATU Jone Kalouniwai

Fijileaks: This NFP barking motormouth will FLEE and HIDE, like the former deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, under one of his many buses the day RFMF, led by Kalouniwai, strikes back to stop Fiji falling into the hands of the likes of Parmod Chand, Sitiveni Rabuka, and many hardcore racist and nationalist former military men who have infiltrated SODELPA with Rabuka, and are shaping the party's militant agenda for 2018, manipulating Qarase and his status for their own gains. Qarase must not allow himself to become the Coupist Rabuka's GOOSE!

RFMF HITS BACK

From The Fiji Sun, 30 October 2017

Republic of Fiji Military Forces chief of staff Colonel Jone Kalouniwai has questioned the motives of National Federation Party parliamentarian Parmod Chand behind his incessant comments made in the political arena about the security force.

And, he has reminded Mr Chand that RFMF has done a lot for the country and has sacrificed a lot for the Fijian people.

During a rally in Labasa on Saturday, Mr Chand said he feared no one, not the Government and not the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.

Colonel Kalouniwai said this may be a matter of political survival for Mr Chand but for the RFMF, the institution was here to stay.

“I just want to raise concerns about the continuous comments the Honourable Member of Parliament Parmod Chand keeps making.

“He is always brin[g]ing in the RFMF in his political remarks and we are questioning his motive and the question I ask myself is what is he trying to prove.

“Mr Parmod Chand’s comments about the RFMF is for political leverage, to gain popularity and votes for elections.

“The race card is out of the window so his focus has become the Prime Minister and the RFMF. This shows his political immaturity,” Mr Kalouniwai said.

In reminding Mr Chand and the Fijian people what RFMF has done for the country, Mr Kalouniwai said Mr Chand cannot come close to contributing to this nation what RFMF has. He said there was no comparison between RFMF’s contribution to nation building and Mr Chand’s contribution, if any.

“No matter how much he barks at the RFMF, the institution has done a lot and sacrificed a lot for the country but for him this is a matter of political survival.”

Mr Kalouniwai has also advised Mr Chand to stick to ‘bread and butter’ issues of the Fijian people and not drag this country through the muck.

Mr Chand has also previously been very vocal about the RFMF in Parliament following which RFMF had released a statement clarifying some of Mr Chand’s remarks.

Fijileaks: As we pointed out last week, yesterday's VICTIMS like Laisenia Qarase, whom our founding Editor-in-Chief VICTOR LAL had supported to the hilt, are now back - shaking hands with RABUKA, 'THE DEVIL'. In fact, in 2001 Lal had advised Qarase to go it alone, resulting in the formation of the SDL party which defeated Rabuka's former SVT party. Fiji is full of LIU MURI politicians. Cry The Beloved Country!!!!

The History Notebook, from The Fiji Sun, 31 October 2008:

BY VICTOR LAL

In the days leading up to the 5 December 2006 coup the cat and mouse chase forced Laisenia Qarase, at the time the duly elected Prime Minister of Fiji, to finally flee to the safety of his home in Mavana in Vanuabalavu. He remained there and only returned to Suva to prepare for his court case against his deposers.

The question that the recent High Court judgment did not address, and I accept that it was not asked to consider, was whether the military, in confining Qarase to Mavana, was acting on the supposed and invisible “reserve powers” vested in the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo.

And if the military was acting on the “reserve powers”, where did the military, through the President, get that power to confine the deposed Prime Minister in Mavana?

In a series of articles I will be arguing, based on the availability of new evidence as contained in the various court affidavits and other reliable sources, that the President’s constitutional powers ended the moment he allowed Commodore Frank Bainimarama to “step into his shoes” and all acts performed by the military afterwards in the President’s name, with or without his consent and blessing, has no basis in constitutional law.

In fact, the President did not have the reserve powers to perform the series of acts in the manner he did following the 2006 coup.

Meanwhile, I disagree with the Interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s warning to the media that he would not tolerate any contempt of court and comments on the recent judgment and anybody bringing the judiciary or the administration of justice into contempt will be called to account for their actions.

I presume he knows better as a student of law that the conduct of the judges and their judgements are open to scrutiny once a judgement has been delivered by a court: In Attorney General v Butterworth [1963] 1 Q.B. 696 it was held that at common law, “a contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.”

He must remember that the High Court has already delivered its verdict.

His constant threats to the media only re-enforce “the all-too-common tendency to view the attorney-general and his department as no more than the law firm that is always on call to serve the interest of the political party that is in power at the time”.

The A-G, despite his political role, and as supporter and adviser to the government, is meant to wear an apolitical hat in his parens patriae role as guardian of the public interest. The judiciary and the media are also guardians of the public interest.

In his fifth edition of Media Law (2008) Geoffrey Robertson QC, who successfully argued the Chandrika Prasad case before Justice Gates, writes on the issue of scandalising the court:

“Scandalising the court was invented in the eighteenth century to punish radical critics of the establishment, such as John Wilkes [In the context of 18th century politics it was an attempt to protect Lord Mansfield from reasoned criticism of his oppressive judicial behaviour towards Wilkes and other critics of the Government]."

Despite its apparent breadth, scandalising the court should not prevent criticism of the judiciary even when expressed in strong terms. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue” a senior Law Lord (Lord Atkin, Ambard v Att-Gen for Trinidad and Tobago, 1936), once said, and comment about the legal system in general or the handling of particular cases once they are over sometimes deserves to be trenchant… Scandalising the court is an anachronistic form of contempt.

Lord Diplock (Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1985) has described it as “virtually obsolescent in the United Kingdom” and it has not been used here for 60 years.”

In their ruling in Qarase and Others v Bainimarama and Others, the three judges, acting Chief Justice Anthony Gates and Justices John Bryne and Davendra Pathik barely touched on Qarase’s enforced confinement on Mavava, but noted:

“In his pleadings Mr Qarase stated, ‘The next morning the Prime Minister escaped from Suva’. The defendants claim he left Suva that day, 6th December 2006, only to return to Suva on 4 October 2007. In his evidence Mr Qarase said he returned on 1 September 2007."

I must confess that academic lawyers (and practising lawyers and judges) not familiar with the events of 5 December 2006 will not be a position to do a thorough and just critique of the High Court judgment because Qarase’s legal arguments are woefully absent in the judgment.

Also, unlike Qarase who agreed to testify, both the President Ratu Josefa and Bainimarama (who flew all the way to New York to explain his actions to the UN General Assembly), chose not to appear before the High Court and to be cross-examined about their roles in the events prior to, during, and after the 2006 coup.

According to Qarase’s affidavit to the High Court of 24 September 2007, the following chain of events occurred:

(1) That since 6 December 2006, my freedom of movement was confined to my home island of Vanuabalavu in the Lau Group. My wish to return to Suva was prevented by threats against my safety and liberty regularly announced publicly by the First (Bainimarama) and Second (RFMF) Defendants in the local media. The only airline that services my island, Air Fiji, was reluctant to transport me out of Vanuabalavu for fear of Military reprisals. On 4 January, 2007 I received a telephone call from a person who identified himself as a Major Sitiveni Qilio in the Second Defendant warning me that I would be arrested by the Second Defendant, if I returned to Suva.

(2) That my application to this Court, through my lawyer, for orders to direct the First and Second Defendants not to impose restrictions on my freedom of movement guaranteed under the Constitution was opposed by the First and Second Defendants, and I crave leave to refer to their affidavit thereon sworn by one Major Sitiveni Tukaituraga Qiliho on 2.5.07, but this Honourable Court granted that order on 11.6.07, and I crave leave to refer to the said order.

(3) That despite the order of this Court described in paragraph 5 herein, and despite the fact that there was no state of emergency then existing, and despite the fact that there was no other legal restriction imposed upon me, the Chief Executive Officer of Air Fiji informed me by telephone on 28.8.07 that his airline was unable to transport me to Suva by a chartered flight on 29.8.07 as planned, because Air Fiji was warned by the Second Defendant not to transport me from Vanuabalavu.

There was wide local and international publicity about and condemnation of these continuing efforts by the Second Defendant to restrict my freedom of movement, in particular regarding my return to Suva to help prepare for my case.

I can understand why the Chief Executive of Air Fiji has denied his telephone confirmation to me that he was instructed by the Second Defendant not to transport me to Suva.

I was to charter one of their aircraft, and his Company needed the business, and this made his initial confirmation about his inability to transport me to Suva more credible, i.e. out of fear of possible military reprisals.

(3) That I also received a phone call on 28.8.07, in which a person who identified himself as calling from the Fiji Military Forces Camp threatened that I would be killed on arrival, if I returned to Suva.

The First and Second Defendants have denied and continue to deny any role in restricting my freedom of movement and the threats against my safety and liberty conveyed to me by telephone.
Strangely, coincidentally, Fiji Air’s reluctance to accept our request to charter one of their aircraft to transport me to Suva was refused on the same day.

I sincerely believe that the Second Defendants have had difficulty not only in denying that these events did take place, but more importantly in denying that they knew.

Moreover, the silent majority of the public of Fiji are familiar with this tactic of denials by the First and Second Defendants about their regime of violations of human rights since 5th December, 2006.

(4) That as a result of these difficulties, I did not manage to return to Suva by chartered flight until 1.9.07.

However, immediately before and since returning to Suva, incidents which continue to demonstrate the Second Defendant’s determined effort to restrict my freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and other human rights principles enshrined in the Constitution.”

In its judgment the High Court relied on the invisible powers of the English kings on the question of prerogative in sanctioning the President’s actions.

But we might want to recall that in the Magna Carta there is a ringing expression of freedom for mankind in the world over:

“No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgments of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW

A COUPIST IS A COUPIST: If we want to end the coup culture, we cannot condemn Bainimaramara who overthrew the Qarase government and allow Qarase to embrace Rabuka who overthrew the Bavadra government. Are these two playing into the hands of Kalouniwai?

From Fijileaks Archive, 8 October 2017:

Rabuka at the Fiji High Court where he was cleared of two charges of inciting a bloody mutiny at the nation's main military barracks in 2000.

During the mutiny trial, Shane Stevens at one point had claimed that Sitiveni Rabuka was behind the bloody 2 November 2000 mutiny. Rabuka denied the claim and he was subsequently acquitted of two counts of inciting mutiny after a jury panel of five civilian assessors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The assessors had delivered a split, non-binding decision. Two assessors thought Rabuka had been guilty of both counts. One found him innocent of both counts. The final two found he was not guilty of the first count but guilty of the second.The Fiji Court of Appeal, led by Justice Gordon Ward, upheld the verdict of Justice Gerard Winter of the Fiji High Court. Under the laws of Fiji, judges can disregard the findings of the assessors

Outside the Fiji High Court, a smiling Rabuka after he was acquitted of the mutiny charges, said he was retiring from public life to set up a
water bottling business to be called "Silk Tail".
In 1987, he was also SMILING after executing his two COUPS. Now, SODELPA, while wrapping itself in Rabuka's TAIL, is telling us the two racially motivated Rabuka coups are all water under the bridge.
Whatever happened to the promised SILK TAIL water bottling business?

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/standing-between-calm-and-chaos-rfmf-chief-of-staff-ratu-jone-kalouniwai-tell-his-supporters-to-fijileaks-was-one-of-the-key-targets-of-the-2000-mutineers-where-he-was-held-as-a-hostage-at-the-rfmf-camp

The Australian lawyer MARK TEDESCHI who prosecuted Rabuka in 2006
"Despite everything that was happening at the Queen Elizabeth barracks, Rabuka remained at the Sun Insurance lunch until around 5 p.m. when he finally left the Sun Insurance building with his driver and bodyguard and went to the apartments where he lived. It was alleged that the reason for him going home was to pick up his uniform as a Major General in the Army Reserves. He then went to the Queen Elizabeth barracks, armed with his uniform so that if called upon he could assume the role of Commander. When he arrived in his vehicle at the barracks sometime around 5.30-5.45pm, Rabuka was sitting in the front passenger seat of his red four wheel drive vehicle. His bodyguard was in the back seat. Various soldiers at the barracks, both loyalists and rebels, noticed that there was a senior officer’s uniform hanging in the back of the car. At that stage, the Lieutenant Colonels commanding the loyal soldiers were planning a counter-attack which was due to commence at 6 p.m.. When Rabuka found out about the planned counter-attack, he was horrified. It was alleged that he wanted a stalemate from which he could take some advantage, not a fierce fire-fight in which the rebels would most likely be decimated. Neither, it was suggested, did he want the rebels to surrender, because one cannot bargain from a position of surrender. It was alleged that Rabuka attempted to convince the senior officer in command of the loyalist soldiers to negotiate with the rebel soldiers, rather than launching a counter-attack, but the senior officer refused. Major General Rabuka was unceremoniously placed sitting on the floor in a secure room and then moved to another part of the barracks where he was out of the line of fire during the counter-attack. At one stage, he was chastised for using his mobile phone, and eventually his mobile phone was confiscated. At 6 p.m., the counter-attack commenced and by 6:45 p.m. the rebel soldiers had been completely defeated. Some of the rebel soldiers surrendered at the barracks, while some of them, including Lt Charles Dukuliga, literally ran away from the barracks in fear of their lives. Many of those who ran away were hunted down over the next few days and taken into custody. Five of these captured rebel soldiers were taken back to the barracks where they were bashed to death. This was the subject of later police investigations, but at the present time no one has been charged with these killings and the investigation has recently been terminated. Lt Charles Dukuliga was bashed into unconsciousness, but remained alive.
Many of the loyalist soldiers were convinced that Major General Rabuka had played a role in assisting the mutiny. After the rebels had been defeated, some of the loyal soldiers wanted to summarily execute Rabuka where he had been sheltering during the counter-attack, but a middle-ranking officer (now a senior legal officer in the DPP Office) refused to allow them to do so, largely because he could not establish the identity of the officer who had given the order to kill Rabuka. Later that evening, as Rabuka was leaving the QEB, he allegedly rang Seruvakula again and said "There has been a setback in what has happened. It has failed, and some lives have been lost. I'm going out to drink yaqona]." It was alleged by the prosecution at the trial that what had failed was Rabuka's grand plan to replace the Commander [Bainimarama].
On 11th December 2006, the five Assessors returned with their recommended verdicts. By a majority of three to two, they recommended that Rabuka be acquitted on the first charge. By a majority of four to one, they recommended that Rabuka be convicted on the second charge (the conversation with Seruvakula during the mutiny). When Justice Winter retired to consider his verdicts, it never seriously occurred to me that he might depart from the recommendations of the Assessors. The five Assessors came from a broad spectrum of the Fijian community as a whole and I was of the view that it was highly unlikely that an expatriate New Zealander who had only been a local judge for a little over 18 months would depart from the views of these representatives of the community. However, when Justice Winter returned about an hour later, he announced the acquittal of Rabuka on both charges. As required by law, he provided his reasons.
He stated that he was of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case on either count beyond a reasonable doubt.

0 Comments

MICK BEDDOES, JONE DAKUVULA and Rabuka's IMMUNITY: 'Dakuvula and the like believe that because our elected leaders dealt with the 1987 coup as they did, we should just accept. Well I for one do not' - Beddoes

28/10/2017

0 Comments

VINAKA VAKALEVU to all our old and new readers who visited FIJILEAKS last week:

"The penalty for TREASON in all Commonwealth countries is DEATH, and if this is to be my destiny I will accept it"
Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, 19 May 1987.

Sadistically, after having walked away from the HANGMAN's NOOSE, he did not hesitate to start "NOOSING" Indo-Fijians who dared to set fire to his racist, feudalistic, and unconstitutional 1990 Constitution of Fiji

But the coward (lamu sona) conferred upon himself and his co-conspirators IMMUNITY which was included in the 1990, 1997, the Draft Ghai Constitution 2012, and the 2013 Constitution of Fiji

BY MICK BEDDOES

First up, I am not sure what my forgiveness or non-forgiveness of Mr Rabuka for committing treason in 1987, orchestrating his immunity from prosecution, being rewarded for his wrong doing by being allowed to contest an election and become Prime Minister has to do with anything?

I have no sway over Mr Rabuka, he does not need my forgiveness or anyone elses for that matter, he is after all ‘immune’ from prosecution, so the law [for now] can’t touch him. But I suspect his conscious can.

Mr Dakuvula and the like believe that because our elected leaders dealt with the 1987 coup as they did, we should just accept. Well I for one do not!

Our system of Justice is supposed to allow anyone found guilty of a crime and sentenced to jail the right to ‘appeal’ to, or seek review by, a higher court [Sec 14 (2) (o)], just as if new evidence is uncovered that proves a citizen who was found guilty and jailed is in fact innocent, then surely as a civilized society we would want to ‘correct the wrong’ that was done and free the person wrongly convicted and at the same time seek out and bring to account the guilty person.

But sadly, that rule only applies to the ordinary folk like you and me. The way our elected leaders have chosen to handle the coups is to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened and hope like hell it goes away. Well it has not and it will not and until the leaders we elect acquire the moral integrity and political will to ‘do what is right’ for our people, and stop ‘rewarding the wrong doers’ coups will continue to plague us in the future, because immunity acts as an incentive to any other military officer looking for a ‘get rich quick’ opportunity.

All three individuals committed the exact same capital crime Mr Dakuvula, but you completely disregard the 2000 Speight coup and jump right to the 2006 coup and its immunity provisions, suggesting the 2006 coup remains open and unresolved? It’s also clear that you are among those who think it’s fair and just that the perpetrators of the 1987 and 2006 coups receive immunity for their capital crimes, and can enrich themselves, while the 2000 perpetrators do time for the same crime? There is nothing fair or just about this.

Until we deal comprehensively with the coups of 1987, 2000, 2006 and bring to account all those involved, allow due process to be applied equally to all citizens, establish the guilt or innocence of all those rightly or wrongly accused, allow the families of all coup victims to have their day in court where we establish absolutely the facts in all three coups, we cannot proceed with a reconciliation process that will finally allow us as a nation to have closure.

But once those seeking forgiveness have had their wrong doing properly determined through ‘a court of law’ and they show genuine remorse for their wrong doing, I have no doubt that our citizens will show compassion and be ready forgive them.

‘Rabuka had already learned the art of political double speak (what we in Fiji call aage pichie or liu muri) and was prepared to walk a precarious path to stay in power’ - Rabuka's official biographer John Sharpham in Rabuka of Fiji

The 1992 Elections: Rabuka fighting and betraying to remain Prime Minister

By VICTOR LAL
Fiji's Daily Post, 2001

The new 1990 Constitution was overtly racist and biased in favour of Fijians. In the new 70 seat Parliament, Fijians were allocated 37 seats, Indo-Fijians 27, General Voters 5 and Rotumans 1. The Senate had 24 seats for Fijians, 9 for other races and 1 for Rotumans. In addition, all the key government posts-the presidency, prime ministership and heads of the judiciary, military, public service-had to be held by Fijians. A quota of at least 50 per cent Fijians was set for new recruitment into the public service.

Another important feature of the distribution of Parliamentary seats was the gerrymandering of the 37 Fijian constituencies because many urban Fijians had voted for Bavadra’s government in the 1987 elections. Thus rural Fijian voters were given 32 constituencies with the remaining 5 going to urban Fijian voters.

With the new racist 1990 Constitution promulgated and Fijian political supremacy guaranteed, the first general election was held in 1992. The principal parties that entered the election contest were: SVT, FLP, NFP, General Voters Party (GVP) and the Fijian Nationalist United Front (FNUF). Meanwhile, the NFP-FLP Coalition had split up following the death of Dr Timoci Bavadra. The FNUF, led by the late Sakiasi Butadroka, was a coalition of extremists from Fijian nationalist party (FNP) and SVT, which was formed in March 1991 with Rabuka as its political leader. The SVT had the backing of the Great Council of Chiefs. The SVT was not necessarily a unified political group and the real issue for the party was who was to become Prime Minister after the election: the ‘Father of the Coups’ Sitiveni Rabuka or the reliable, safe, moderate but right-wing Josevata Kamikamica? .

The political divisions within the Indo-Fijians, who are ‘All Chiefs and No Indians’, was not surprising. As the old coolie saying goes: ‘You put two Indians on a desert island and on your return next day to pick them up, you will find they have become three Indians.’ The FLP, led by Chaudhry, initially threatened to boycott the elections, stating that taking part would be tantamount to endorsing the 1990 ‘racist constitution’. However, at the last minute, the FLP leaders changed their stance and contested the election. The result of the 37 Fijian seats were as follows: SVT 30, FNUF 5 and the last 2 went to Independents. The 27 Indo-Fijian seats were equally shared: the NFP won 14 and the FLP the other 13. The GVP won the 5 seats. The election results created the inevitability of a Coalition government.

Although the SVT was theoretically in a position to form a coalition government, Rabuka was not assured of the coveted Prime Ministership. Some newly-elected SVT parliamentarians had thrown in their lot with Rabuka’s arch political rival, Josevata Kamikamica, a former Finance Minister in the pre-election Interim Government.

Rabuka appeared to have 18 votes with Kamikamica only two, Filipe Bole four, and Ratu William Tonganivalu three. However Bole, Rabuka’s former teacher, freed his votes to allow them to support the majority-holder, in this case Rabuka who needed 36 confirmed votes from those who now held seats in the new House to grab the post of Prime Minister. He went to the Government House asking President Ratu Penaia Ganilau to appoint him as Prime Minister, declaring that he had 42 votes. Ganilau asked Rabuka to demonstrate his support with accompanying signatures to confirm the numbers. Ganilau also was acutely aware that that another high-ranking chief, Ratu Mara, and a number of SVT personalities had been backing Kamikamica.

In a cruel twist of irony, both the rival factions of the SVT began to court support from the NFP and FLP, the very parties deposed to ensure Fijian political supremacy in perpetuity. The SVT, formed to unify the Fijian people, could not agree on who should be its parliamentary leader. Rabuka was shocked to learn that Kamikamica had cut a deal with the veteran Indo-Fijian lawyer and politician Jai Ram Reddy and the NFP, and as a result Kamikamica had 30 votes to Rabuka’s 26.

In desperation, the desperately power-hungry Rabuka, who had imprisoned Mahendra Chaudhry twice, and had terrorised him and his family since 1987, shamelessly turned to the FLP leader for his political survival. But first Rabuka had to be humbled and humiliated, and reminded that power flows from the fountain of a ball point pen and not from the barrel of a Fiji Military Forces gun with a sticker reading, ‘God Loves You’. So Chaudhry and the FLP laid down the conditions for their support for Rabuka: a review of the Constitution; repeal of several controversial labour decrees, scrapping of the Value Added Tax (VAT) and land tenure reforms.

The so-called Methodist preacher, a decorated solider, and a cynically pragmatic Fijian nationalist Rabuka, who desperately needed Chaudhry’s 13 historical votes, agreed to sign a letter committing himself to a deal with the FLP. The letter read: ‘I acknowledge the proposed outlined in your letter (2 June) delivered this morning. I have considered your proposals favourably and agree to take action on these issues, namely the constitution, VAT, labour decree reforms and land tenure on the basis suggested in your letter. I agree to hold discussions on the above issue in order to finalise the machinery to progress the matter further.’ In return, he got Chaudhry’s 13 votes to take him well in excess of his required 36 for the post of Prime Minister. The FLP however informed Rabuka that it would not be part of the governing coalition. Desperate to remain Prime Minister, Rabuka had accepted all the conditions in writing, only to dishonour them on resuming power. He had managed to secure the support of the GVP, the Rotuman representative Paul Manueli, his former army commander, and 2 independents.

Now he had the numbers and the prime ministership in his sulu, Rabuka backed away from the agreement with the FLP. A spokesman of his insisted that all Rabuka had agreed to do was to discuss the issues that had been raised. There was, he stated, no agreement to do any more than this. As his official biographer John Sharpham recently put it, ‘Rabuka had already learned the art of political double speak (what we in Fiji call aage pichie or liu muri) and was prepared to walk a precarious path to stay in power’.

King Maker makes ‘Deal with the Devil’

What about Chaudhry who had done a deal with Rabuka and delivered him and a faction of the SVT the prime ministership? When Chaudhry was asked if he had done ‘a deal with the devil?’ he responded: ‘No, there was no deal; the fact is we laid down conditions’. He also acknowledged the irony of the situation between the jailed and the jailor. ‘Oh, yes’, he responded when asked, ‘we hope we can enjoy that type of irony, which does not happen very often’.

Chaudhry clearly relished the role of king-maker where an Indo-Fijian was called upon to arbitrate and settle question of leadership in the chiefly sponsored SVT. It is surprising that the SVT had not run to the Great Council of Chiefs, whom they have recently elevated as the guardians of Fijian political aspirations, to settle the question of political leadership within their own ranks.

Meanwhile Kamikamica continued, in a typical Fijian fashion, to harbour his political ambitions against Rabuka. He refused to enter the post-1992 election Rabuka Cabinet, feeling that he would have been a better Prime Minister. Rabuka’s political woes however continued to shadow him in office, notably the ‘Stephen Affair’. (We will write about the Stephen Affair soon)

Rabuka managed to ward off Chaudhry and his colleagues threatened withdrawal of Labour’s support for him by forming an inter-parliamentary committee to recommend appropriate machinery for considering changes to the 1990 Constitution.

On the Indo-Fijian political front, the rivalry between the NFP and FLP intensified to the benefit of the NFP. In October 1993 the NFP candidates had roundly defeated their FLP Indo-Fijian candidates in the municipal elections. The FLP had also fallen out with Rabuka in 1993 when he did not honour his promises in return for the FLP’s support for the premiership in 1992.

On the Fijian political front, politics essentially still revolved around Rabuka and his political foe, Kamikamica. Rabuka’s critics seized the adverse aspects of the Report into the ‘Stephens Affair’ and called for his resignation. Rabuka brushed aside the resignation calls and even survived a motion of no-confidence in him. However, six Fijian MPs including Kamikamica, and David Pickering from the GVP, finally succeeded in their dogged pursuit to get rid of Rabuka when they voted with the Opposition against his budget 36-33 (with one abstention). The dissidents had hoped that Mara might either appoint Kamikamica or Ratu William Tonganivalu to form a new government.

Instead, Rabuka exercised his constitutional right to dissolve his government and call for new elections.

"The irony is that Indo-Fijian political leaders had become power brokers in the face of Fijian disunity [in 1994]. The newly-elected Prime Minister Rabuka could not ignore their demands for constitutional change in the light of political and ‘kama sutra’ scandals hovering over his head. But he could find refuge in the constitutional process, and he was forced to initiate negotiations between Reddy and Chaudhry culminating in the setting up of the Constitutional Review Commission (The Reeves Commission)."- VICTOR LAL, 2001, in Fijis The Daily Post

The 1994 Elections and Native Fijian Divisions

By VICTOR LAL
Fiji's Daily Post, 2001

It was the second general election under the new racist Constitution promulgated in 1990 after the two military take-overs in 1987 by Sitiveni Rabuka. The election was notable for the fact that the incumbent Prime Minister Rabuka was not expected to do well as dissidents in his party had broken away to form new political parties to challenge his rule. Fiji had undergone several changes prior to the 1994 elections. The President, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, had passed away, and the Great Council of Chiefs had elected Ratu Mara as his successor.

The 1994 election campaign was dominated by intra-ethnic instead of inter-ethnic issues and conflicts and debates centred around communal issues because each group was fighting for communal seats. For the Indo-Fijians, the central issue of the racially biased constitution took a back seat to FLP/NFP rivalry, most of it at a personal level between Mahendra Chaudhry and Jai Ram Reddy. Chaudhry and the FLP were repeatedly taunted by the NFP for their support for Rabuka in the aftermath of the 1992 election. The NFP claimed that the support had yielded nothing.

The FLP, on the other hand, accused the NFP for being too close to Rabuka, who unwittingly reinforced this image when he announced that he planned to set up a government of national unity with Reddy after the elections. FLP also attacked NFP for being an ‘Indian’ party as opposed to FLP’s multi-racial character.

On the Fijian side, Josevata Kamikamica hastily launched a new political party, Fijian Association Party (FAP) to challenge Rabuka and the SVT. The FAP had the tacit support of the President Mara who had openly expressed his support for Kamikamica for the premiership at the Great Council of Chiefs but he was outvoted, in part by Rabuka’s politicised nominees on the Council. The SVT also condemned Kamikamica of helping to hand political power back to the Indo-Fijians. Kamikamica, on the other hand, played right into the hands of SVT nationalists when he made the strategic mistake of announcing that he would form a coalition government with the Indo-Fijians if he won the 1994 elections. He had promised to restore integrity and dignity to Fijian leadership.

Tora-Adi Kuini Join Fray

The already fragmented Fijian populace had the spectre of dealing with two other political entrants in the election-Apisai Tora and Adi Kuini Vuikaba-Speed, widow of the deposed premier Bavadra, and the remarried wife of the Australian political consultant Clive Speed. Tora, who has been a member of every political party in Fiji, this time formed his own All National Congress(ANC), which did not win a single seat in the 1992 election. He solicited votes on a platform of multi-racialism (yes!) and the exclusion of the Great Council of Chiefs from politics. At his political side was Adi Kuini. Earlier she had announced her retirement from active politics but she attempted a comeback as a candidate for the ANC. Another candidate for the ANC was David Pickering, who had defected from the GVP. At the end of the day the issue among the Fijians and Indo-Fijians revolved around leadership: did they want Rabuka over Kamikamica and Reddy over Chaudhry?

The election results were interesting. The NFP won an extra 6 seats to increase its MPs to 20. There was also an increase of 5% of Indo-Fijian vote for it. The FLP only managed to win 7 seats. The results suggested that Indo-Fijians preferred Reddy’s cautious and moderate approach to Chaudhry’s often confrontational approach. The Indo-Fijian voters were also not ready for Chaudhry’s politics of multi-racialism.

Among the General Voters, the GVP managed to retain the four seats with the fifth going to Pickering. Tora and Adi Kuini were comprehensively beaten at the polls.

The SVT and Rabuka managed to hold on to power by one seat, increasing their seats to 31. In terms of voting percentages, SVT’s vote actually dropped 4%. The SVT’s Deputy Prime Minister, Filipe Bole, lost his seat to FAP’s candidate Ratu Finau Mara in the Lau constituency, where his father is the hereditary chief of Lau.

The FAP only managed to win 14 % of the Fijian vote which translated into 5 constituencies (3 in Lau and 2 in Naitasiri). The SVT had the upper hand because of the wide gulf between urban and rural Fijians and the fact that rural Fijians were allocated more seats. The military and significant members of the Methodist Church bloc-voted for the SVT boosting its overall win. Kamikamica’s announcement that he would form a Coalition with Indo-Fijians also robbed him of crucial Fijian votes. Kamikamica lost his own seat.

Ratu Mara had no choice but to ask Rabuka and the SVT to form the next government. Rabuka had the support of 37 MPs (31 SVT, 4 GVP, one independent and Rotuma’s Manueli). He did not have to rely on Indo-Fijian MPs. His main critics now nested in the rival FAP political bure. The indigenous Fijian political elite had embarked on an uncertain journey of political rivalry in the future.

The only thing the 1994 election resolved was which Fijian was to become Prime Minister and the answer was Rabuka and not Kamikamica.

The irony is that Indo-Fijian political leaders had become power brokers in the face of Fijian disunity. The newly-elected Prime Minister Rabuka could not ignore their demands for constitutional change in the light of political and ‘kama sutra’ scandals hovering over his head. But he could find refuge in the constitutional process, and he was forced to initiate negotiations between Reddy and Chaudhry culminating in the setting up of the Constitutional Review Commission (The Reeves Commission). The recommendations of the Commission provided the basis on which the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee (JPSC) made its recommendations to Parliament.

The end result, as we know, was the new electoral system, accountability, and multi-party government concept in the 1997 Constitution of Fiji. Fijileaks: To be continued, and how the very 1997 Constitution led to Mahendra Chaudhry's downfall in 2000

In 1999, the VOTERS of all RACES, BOOTED HIM out of PARLIAMENT, and now, in 2017, SODELPA has brought this BOGUS NATIONALIST back to lead the party into the 2018 general election.
Cry, the Beloved Country

0 Comments

Dakuvula on Immunity: 'People like Victor Lal or Mick Beddoes can choose to still not forgive Rabuka...but elected representatives in 1997 had decided to deal with Fiji's political history in that way, re Immunity

27/10/2017

0 Comments

Fijileaks: We have reproduced Dakuvula's comment which he had posted in response to our story of 20 October 2017 on Rabuka's Immunity:

Dakuvula

There is one thing that the above quotation from the Immnunity [Immunity] provision of the 1990 Constitution omits. The provision under Section 195(2) (a) of the 1997 Constitution: "Chapter XIV of the 1990 Constitution continues in force in accordance with its tenor"

This means that both Houses of Parliament who passed the 1997 Constitution unanimously had legalised and morally agreed to the immunity of the perpetrators of the 1990 [1987] coups as a a vital part of the reconciliation and constitutional settlement of 1997.

People like Victor Lal or Mick Beddoes can choose to still not forgive Rabuka for the coups and events of 1987 but the elected representatives of the people of Fiji in 1997 had decided to deal with that part of Fijii's [Fiji's] political history in that way.

This is in contrast to the immunity provisions of the 2013 Constitution. This part of Fiji's coup history remains open and yet to be resolved.

THIS is not the first time Jone Dakuvula and I have found ourselves on the opposite spectrum of Fijian history. Like previously, I disagree with Dakuvula, while acknowledging that the Immunity in the 1997 Constitution was passed by both Houses of Parliament. Dakuvula questions the Immunity provisions in the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.

In my previous article I had questioned the validity of the Immunity that Sitiveni Rabuka had granted to himself and his co-conspirators in the racist, feudalistic, and undemocratic 1990 Constitution of Fiji. I am on record condemning both, the then NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy and FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry, for crying wolf over the 1990 Constitution, while taking part in the 1992 and 1994 elections under that very racist Constitution. I told them: PUT UP or SHUT UP and GET OUT OF PARLIAMENT.

In my Opinion Columns in the Fiji Sun and Daily Post newspapers, I had not only branded these two Indo-Fijians as traitors to their community but political opportunists par excellence. Basically, I argued that they cannot be sitting in Parliament under the 1990 Constitution while condemning the very racist Constitution, and collecting parliamentary salaries. Worst, they had agreed to grant Rabuka immunity in exchange to remain relevant in politics.

Reddy went further: he was willing to be Rabuka's house girl (Deputy Prime Minister) in the event of SVT-NFP forming the next government after the 1999 election. Chaudhry, in 1992, had already given FLP votes to Rabuka, for him to become Prime Minister

Similarly, I recently condemned SODELPA MP Niko Nawaikula and told him that if he finds the 2013 Constitution objectionable, he should get out of Parliament. You cannot have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
It is one of the most nauseating feature that is played out day in, day out, that began with the 1990 Constitution.

What about the Immunity provision in the 2013 Constitution of Fiji?

Lets face it. All politicians from different racial and political divide were in Parliament under the 1990 Constitution for seven long years until the promulgation of the 1997 Constitution, and the holding of the 1999 general election which saw Rabuka booted out of Parliament.

Applying the same arguments, we could argue that since all political parties and their leaders participated in the 2014 general election under the 2013 Constitution, and are gearing up to fight the 2018 election, they are now party to the 'Khaiyum Constitution'.

The racist 1990 Constitution was in place until the 1997 Constitution was promulgated.

The 2013 Constitution is four years old. It still has three more years to catch up with the 1990 Constitution.

The only way to demonstrate abhorrence for the "2013 Khaiyum Constitution" is not to SHOUT from the roof top but to SHUT yourselves out of Parliament - by refusing to take part in the 2018 general election. Take a leaf from the Kenyan election, where the Opposition, true to its words, boycotted the re-run of the presidential election.

For too long, the ordinary Fijians of all races have been taken for a ride by brazen political opportunists, who will shout against the Constitution of Fiji but at the same time SUCK every benefit they can squeeze out of it. We already see how ordinary citizens are abusing each other on social media on behalf of the different political parties and their leaders. These politicians are demagogues and rogues who don't care what happens to Fiji, as long as they can get into Parliament - by hook, crook or coup.

In my own experience, while I stood up for Jai Reddy, Mahendra Chaudhry, and even Laisenia Qarase, at the end of the day they betrayed me to "SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL" - whether it was with Sitiveni Rabuka, George Speight or Frank Bainimarama. We become enemies, and they become friends with the DEVILS.

As for Mick Beddoes, it will be his call, whether to reply or not, to Dakuvula's position on IMMUNITY

22 June 2016:
Mick Beddoes: 'I will leave if Rabuka is chosen to lead SODELPA Party"

"Everyone born in 1987 will be 31 in 2018 and those born in 2000 will be become eligible to vote in 2018, so we have arrived at the time when the majority of our people will have never experienced real democracy, they have grown up under the shadows of coups, oppression and threats and although it’s been 29 years since the first coup that began all our problems, it’s never too late to start saying NO. Some coup leaders in other countries are finding out that, the ‘arm of the law is long’ so while the usurpers of our democracy and their aiders and abettors may well succeed for now in ‘delaying’ their day in court, ultimately that day will come. It’s not a matter of if, but when!" - Beddoes

MICK BEDDOES REPLIES TO JONE DAKUVULA

TO FORGIVE OR NOT TO FORGIVE:

First up, I am not sure what my forgiveness or non-forgiveness of Mr Rabuka for committing treason in 1987, orchestrating his immunity from prosecution, being rewarded for his wrong doing by being allowed to contest an election and become Prime Minister has to do with anything?

I have no sway over Mr Rabuka, he does not need my forgiveness or anyone elses for that matter, he is after all ‘immune’ from prosecution, so the law [for now] can’t touch him. But I suspect his conscious can.

Mr Dakuvula and the like believe that because our elected leaders dealt with the 1987 coup as they did, we should just accept it. Well I for one do not!

Our system of Justice is supposed to allow anyone found guilty of a crime and sentenced to jail the right to ‘appeal’ to, or seek review by, a higher court [Sec 14 (2) (o)], just as if new evidence is uncovered that proves a citizen who was found guilty and jailed is in fact innocent, then surely as a civilized society we would want to ‘correct the wrong’ that was done and free the person wrongly convicted and at the same time seek out and bring to account the guilty person.

But sadly, that rule only applies to the ordinary folk like you and me. The way our elected leaders have chosen to handle the coups is to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened and hope like hell it goes away. Well it has not and it will not and until the leaders we elect acquire the moral integrity and political will to ‘do what is right’ for our people, and stop ‘rewarding the wrong doers’ coups will continue to plague us in the future, because immunity acts as an incentive to any other military officer looking for a ‘get rich quick’ opportunity.

All three individuals committed the exact same capital crime Mr Dakuvula, but you completely disregard the 2000 Speight coup and jump right to the 2006 coup and its immunity provisions, suggesting the 2006 coup remains open and unresolved? It’s also clear that you are among those who think it’s fair and just that the perpetrators of the 1987 and 2006 coups receive immunity for their capital crimes, and can enrich themselves, while the 2000 perpetrators do time for the same crime? There is nothing fair or just about this.

Until we deal comprehensively with the coups of 1987, 2000, 2006 and bring to account all those involved, allow due process to be applied equally to all citizens, establish the guilt or innocence of all those rightly or wrongly accused, allow the families of all coup victims to have their day in court where we establish absolutely the facts in all three coups, we cannot proceed with a reconciliation process that will finally allow us as a nation to have closure.

But once those seeking forgiveness have had their wrong doing properly determined through ‘a court of law’ and they show genuine remorse for their wrong doing, I have no doubt that our citizens will show compassion and be ready forgive them.

0 Comments

WORLD BANK'S GREEN BOND contravenes Fiji Finance Act. FLP says FFP Government's $100milion Green Bond aimed at raising millions for CLIMATE CHANGE related projects is in contravention of the Finance Act

26/10/2017

0 Comments

GREEN WITH ENVY!

As indicated previously, we will bring to you the inside story regarding the fall of Robin Nair as Foreign Secretary during the run-up to COP23 meeting in Fiji, and over the preparatory Climate Change conference now being held in Bonn, Germany. Those criticizing Frank Bainimarama have been branded 'green with envy', and refusing to acknowledge the long-term environmental benefit of Fiji's COP23 presidency. After all, the Green Bond is an innovative and alternative source of funding projects that would reduce emissions and provide robust climate infrastructure needed in Fiji. Our only gripe is the alleged $3,000 daily travel allowance that Bainimarama is reportedly depositing into his bank account. We must, however, ensure that unsuitable projects are not financed through green bonds, not to mention financial mismanagement, but only a bond for which the issuer can demonstrate measurable environmental benefits, certified by an independent party, should qualify as a green bond. In conclusion, environment, climate change and social sustainability are of priority interest to all Pacific Island nations. Given the observed performance shown by the green bond market, it is important for Fiji and other Pacific island nations to embrace it as an innovative and alternative way of raising finance from both domestic and external sources for sustainability-driven investments

“Parliamentary approval has not been obtained for the $100m to be borrowed under this scheme. Paying the proceeds from the Bonds into the consolidated fund will put it at risk of being used for government's operating expenditure. Money's raised for specific purposes must be credited to a Trust Fund and not the consolidated fund.” - FLP

Govt’s $100m Green Bond contravenes Finance Act: Chaudhry

The Government yesterday launched its sovereign Green Bond issue aimed at raising $F100m for projects aimed at mitigating and adapting to problems created by climate change.

But Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry warned the Bond had been issued in contravention of the Finance Act.

“Parliamentary approval has not been obtained for the $100m to be borrowed under this scheme,” said Mr Chaudhry.

The Labour Leader was also critical of the fact that the proceeds from the Bond was to go into the Consolidated Fund, raising suspicions that it was just another borrowing mechanism for the debt-ridden FF government.

“Paying the proceeds from the Bonds into the consolidated fund will put it at risk of being used for government's operating expenditure. Money's raised for specific purposes must be credited to a Trust Fund and not the consolidated fund,” Mr Chaudhry said.

Meanwhile, Reserve Bank Governor Ariff Ali expressed high optimism, based on initial feedback, that the first issue of $40m would be over-subscribed.

The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among the pioneers of the Green Bond market, provided technical assistance to the RBF in issuing the bond.

Fijileaks: The Paris Agreement has an often-overlooked yet critical provision: one of the aims of the agreement, outlined in Article 2, is “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”
Green bonds are like regular bonds, with a slight difference — they can only be used to fund projects that have been identified to have environmental benefits, with their contribution to emissions reduction clearly articulated

GREEN BONDS are fixed income, liquid financial instruments that are used to raise funds dedicated to climate-mitigation, adaptation, and other environment-friendly projects. This provides investors an attractive investment proposition as well as an opportunity to support environmentally sound projects.

At the request of Fiji’s Reserve Bank, the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group focusing on private sector, provided technical assistance to assist the government in issuing a sovereign green bond.

This collaboration took place under a broader, three-year Capital Markets Development Project supported by the Australian Government. Through this partnership, Australia and IFC are helping stimulate private sector investment, promote sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty in the Pacific.
Projects financed from the Fiji green bond will follow the internationally developed Green Bond Principles, and will focus primarily on investments that build resilience against the impacts of climate change.

Sustainalytics US (Sustainalytics), a provider of environmental, social and governance research and analysis, evaluated Fiji Sovereign’s green bond transaction and its alignment with the Green Bond Principles.

Fiji will also use bond proceeds for projects supporting its commitment to achieve 100% renewable energy and reduce its CO2 emissions in the energy sector by 30% by 2030.

Fiji Green Bond Summary Terms and Conditions

Issuer: Government of Fiji

Amount: 100 million Fiji dollars

Pricing date: 1 November 2017 – May 2018

Settlement date: 1 November 2017 – May 2018

Maturity date: 1 November 2022 and 1 November 2030

Issue price: 100

Coupon: 5 years: 4.00%; 13 years: 6.30%

Denomination: Fiji Dollars

Green Projects from Around the World

World Bank Green Bonds support projects selected by World Bank environment and other sector specialists that meet specific criteria for development activities that help lower global carbon emissions.

World Bank green projects, like all World Bank projects, are designed to reduce poverty and improve local economies. But they specifically focus on tackling climate change issues that directly impact developing countries.

Eligible Projects may include projects that target (a) mitigation of climate change including investments in low-carbon and clean technology programs, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and projects ("Mitigation Projects"), or (b) adaptation to climate change, including investments in climate-resilient growth "Adaptation Projects").

The following list are “green” projects which are funded in whole or in part, by World Bank Green Bonds. These projects promote the transition to low-carbon and climate resilient growth in the recipient country, as determined by IBRD. (http://treasury.worldbank.org/cmd/htm/MoreGreenProjects.html)

What are World Bank Green Bonds and the Implementation Guidelines:

http://treasury.worldbank.org/cmd/htm/WorldBankGreenBonds.html

The Independent (London): 10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn't believe in climate change

A group of emperor penguins face a crack in the sea ice, near McMurdo Station, Antarctica

Amid a flood in Islampur, Jamalpur, Bangladesh, a woman on a raft searches for somewhere dry to take shelter. Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable places in the world to sea level rise, which is expected to make tens of millions of people homeless by 2050.

Click the following link to see the other eight photos:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html#gallery

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html

PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY:
"Bainimarama rewriting history, telling lies, pretending to be a greenie"

(17 October 2017

By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY

Not too long ago, intrepid Fiji Sun journalist, Jyoti Pratibha, reported from New York (8 June 2017) that Prime Minister Bainimarama had announced to the world, “I repeat: no development on land or at sea in Fiji takes place if there is any risk to the environment”.

Just yesterday, Bainimarama was again reported to have claimed in Sydney to adoring fans (Fiji Times 16 October 2017 “”No development in Fiji under my Government has taken place at the expense of the environment, and none ever will.”

Oh dear me.

Read read this 2013 Letter to the Editor by me, actually published in the Fiji Sun itself.

http://fijisun.com.fj/2013/05/10/mangrove-destruction-3/

Read this Letter to the Editor

https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/green-sustainable-development-strategy-in-fiji-and-mangroves-letter-to-editor-16-june-2014/

Read this article (FT June 21 2014)
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=272094

People in Fiji know that all over Fiji, mangroves have been destroyed by businessmen who were supported by government officials, no doubt on the orders of those higher up, usually Bainimarama or Khaiyum.

When someone makes a statement that he knows is false, it is not just inaccurate but a fat lie.

It seems that Fiji’s Prime Minister believes that if he repeats a false statement often enough, people will believe him.

Certainly it is possible for the Qorvis spin to be believed in New York and even in Sydney. But do people in Fiji believe these lies?

Or even if they do not believe them, do they even care that their Prime Minister is lying through his teeth, as long as they get their freebies?

Where are the leaders in Fiji, the environmentalists, who have the courage to call out these lies which I am sure they all talk about privately?

0 Comments

POLITICAL party membership will disqualify you for a job at the Fiji Elections Office. FLP claims candidates for jobs are told to severe party membership: 'This is violation of their right to freedom of association'

25/10/2017

0 Comments

Fijileaks: What if you are related by blood to the Minister for Elections Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum: Shouldn't you also resign as Election Supervisor?

“We have started receiving these [resignation] letters – about a dozen of them have already come in. They clearly state that they are resigning their party membership so that they can be employed at the Fijian Elections Office for the 2018 general elections. These people are not active members of the party so why are they being forced by the Elections Office to withdraw their party membership?" - FLP statement

FEO tells job applicants to resign from membership of political parties

Fiji Labour Party is questioning why people who apply to the Fijian Elections Office for jobs are being forced to resign as members of political parties.

“This is clearly a violation of their right to freedom of association and their political and civil rights, said Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

“We have started receiving these letters – about a dozen of them have already come in. They clearly state that they are resigning their party membership so that they can be employed at the Fijian Elections Office for the 2018 general elections.

“These people are not active members of the party so why are they being forced by the Elections Office to withdraw their party membership?

It seems that the FEO is making it mandatory for those who apply for jobs with the Elections Office to resign any party affiliation.

“This is absolutely wrong and a violation of their rights. No employer has the right to demand that an employee be apolitical. These young people have a right to vote and a right to associate with a party of their choice,” Mr Chaudhry said.

“It is preposterous and unheard of. Fiji has never had any such requirement before. We call on the Elections Office to confirm whether it is a requirement that applicants withdraw their membership of political parties to qualify for jobs at the FEO.

“If so, the requirement is both unlawful and a form of blackmail,” said Mr. Chaudhry

0 Comments

SWITCHING party allegiance: Has Lautoka lawyer and ex PDP general secretary Aman Ravindra Singh crossed over to the Fiji Labour Party?

24/10/2017

1 Comment

WHAT PLANET was this Oxymoron inhabiting when Fijileaks Founding Editor-in-Chief Victor Lal, his family, friends, and acquaintances were cyber bullied, the like of which Fiji has never seen - and not a peep squeak from this Ashiwn Raj? We did not expect any response from him, for after all, the person accused of hacking Fijileaks is Ashneel Sudhakar, Government Whip and chairman of Human Rights and Justice Committee

1 Comment

INFLATING the impact of pay rise?: Khaiyum says call by trade unions to increase wage rate from $2.68 per hour to $4 for unskilled workers will hit inflation; what about Bainimarama's $3,000 per day TRAVEL allowance?

23/10/2017

8 Comments

Fijileaks: If Frank Bainimarama, as Prime Minister, wants to run around the world everyday of the year, he should pay from his own pocket or demand from the host country to pay for his expenses, given that Fiji is too 'POOR' to pay $4 an hour minimum wage to its hard-working citizens. Why does he need $3,000 per day in allowance if all his expenses, hotel bills and food is taken care off? - For SHOPPING every day?????????

And Aiyaz Khaiyum and his 12 Bodyguards should take a bus to his "ROAD SHOWS" and other engagements, for it will save taxpayers thousands of dollars in TRAVELLING EXPENSES. Khaiyum and his bodyguards could buy seasonal E-Ticket Bus Travel Cards (or even walk from Parliament to the city centre for a cup of coffee or hair cut).
HAIR-RAISING FLIGHT: We have suggested that Khaiyum and his bodyguards should take the bus based on an episode some time back when he was flying with Fiji Airways. A well-know Indo-Fijian family was transiting via Hong Kong to _________(country withheld for fear of persecution) when they were told that they could not occupy the seats behind the RESERVED seats. The family protested saying they had paid for those seats. Not long afterwards, to their horror and disappointment, they saw Khaiyum and his family take up those reserved seats, and the seats immediately behind the Khaiyum family (which was for the other family) was now ordered to be EMPTY. The other family lately told our Founding Editor-in-Chief VICTOR LAL in London: "First, the plane did not belong to Khaiyum but to Waqavuka Ltd in Ireland. Secondly, was he afraid of his coiffured hair-do, as if we were going to lean over and pull it from behind the seats we had paid for but were denied to occupy by Fiji Airways? He reminded us of an African dictator. Ironically, when he used to travel overseas economy class, he used to come and stay at our place. He pretended he
did not recognize us when he took up the RESERVED seats on Fiji Airways."

ATTORNEY-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has called on trade unionists calling for an increase in the minimum wage rate from $2.68 per hour to $4 to consider the inflation impacts of such an increase.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said trade unionists should understand that the minimum wage of $2.68 per hour was for unskilled workers and not for other category of employment. He said free services provided by Government for low-income earners played an important role in determining the minimum wage rate for unskilled workers.

"Now, when we assess minimum wage, you need to take into account, the cost of living, the various everyday utility cost that people have to meet and that is how minimum wage is determined," Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said. Source: The Fiji Times, 23 October 2017

Felix Anthony addressing the crowd at a rally organised by the Fiji Trade Union Congress at Ratu Sukuna Park in Suva on Saturday.

NFP stands by $5 pay proposal: Party leader Biman Prasad, in a press statement, says the NFP is adamant that a living wage of five dollars an hour for workers is needed to offset inflation
Fijileaks: If you are so adamant, why were you absent at the PUBLIC rally to explain your position, instead of 'talking' through a PRESS release? We are sure like Rabuka, Prasad will come up with the b******t - 'prior appointments'

JOINING FORCES: Anthony, Chaudhry and Singh marching for $4 minimum pay for workers

NFP leader Biman Prasad and 6 other party officials visiting victims who lost everything during Diwali fire to their dwellings

Note:

Tier 1

Minimum wage rates are determined by factors such as poverty threshold, prevailing wage rates as determined by the Labor Force Survey, and socio-economic indicators (i.e. inflation, employment figures, Gross Regional Domestic Product, among others), which insures better workers protection.

Tier 2

Over and above minimum wage is the voluntary productivity-based pay, which encourages workers and enterprises to become more competitive and productive by rewarding employees supplementary pay based on the quality of their performance.

How is the mandatory minimum wage set? There are four factors that influence the fixing of minimum wage, namely:

1. Needs of workers and their families

Demand for living wage
Wage adjustment vis-à-vis Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Cost of living and changes therein
Needs of workers and their families
Improvements in standards of living

2. Capacity to pay

Fair return on capital invested and capacity to pay of employers
Productivity

3. Comparable wages and incomes

Prevailing wage levels

4. Requirements of economic and social development

Need to induce industries to invest in the countryside
Effects on employment generation and family income
Equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of economic social development

We call on Aiyaz Khaiyum to make public the '2007 Report'
From Fijileaks Archive, 23 January 2015:

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/behind-the-tall-facade-tappoos-boast-they-have-bought-out-fnfp-investment-ltds-51-share-in-penina-and-taken-over-37m-commercial-loan-was-there-any-valuation-and-tender-and-what-about-the-lease-deal

8 Comments

THE OLD WORKERS WARRIOR pours oil on political fate of FFP: FELIX ANTHONY re-emerges at his fighting best as he slams the 'Minister of Everything' - Khaiyum- with an expletive from the audience 'F**K HIM'

22/10/2017

6 Comments

And FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry joins FTUC rally, a reminder of the vanished past, when these trade unionists took Rabuka head-on in 1987. If only the two - Anthony and Chaudhry - had not rushed and joined the Bainimarama coup, who knows what the fate of Fiji would have been, for historically it was the trade union movement that had become the voice of the silent majority after the coups - cutting across race, religion, ethnicity and class in Fiji. The SODELPA and NFP leaders, Sitiveni Rabuka and Biman Prasad, were conspicuously absent from the crowd. In any case, Rabuka is the last person these unionists must be seen with, for it was he who began the emasculation of trade unionism in Fiji

Khaiyum: Political losers (Anthony, Chaudhry et al trying to revive their political careers, "If there was a huge outcry from workers, there would have been thousands on the streets"
Fijileaks: How could thousands be on the street when
Police permit limited the numbers to 5000 marchers?

ATTORNEY-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum took a swipe at politicians who were part of the Fiji Trades Union Congress (FTUC) march in Suva yesterday.

Fiji Labour Party (FLP) leader and Mahendra Chaudhry, People's Democratic Party (PDP) leader Lynda Tabuya, Fiji United Freedom Party (FUFP) leader Jagath Karunaratne and unionist Felix Anthony were all part of the march.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said these people were trying to revive their political career.

"Felix, Mahendra Chaudhry and Lynda Tabuya, these people are now trying to resuscitate their political careers. They have been in political oblivion, that's the point," Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said.

"These people do not even make the five per cent. They are using the workers, the few hundreds of workers that turned up today (yesterday) on their backs to again launch their political careers, it has nothing to do with the workers."

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said if there was a huge outcry from workers, there would have been thousands on the streets.

Aiyaz Khaiyum: These people do not even make the five per cent [of the threshold I set in my Political Parties Decree in the 2014 general election]

Fijileaks: Excuse us, they got more VOTES compared to Fijileaks hacker and Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar, and other FFP MPs and Cabinet Ministers who entered Parliament clinging to the sulu of Bainimarama under the D'Hondt Electoral System
From Fijileaks Archive, 2014

From The Fiji Times, 22 October 2017

MEMBERS of the Fiji Trades Unions Congress took to the streets in their hundreds yesterday in a protest march demanding the restoration of their rights.

Cheers erupted from the large crowd gathered at Ratu Sukuna Park, in Suva when FTUC national secretary Felix Anthony spoke on the five issues union members and unionists had been tirelessly fighting for.

Mr Anthony said the five main reasons behind the march were collective bargaining/individual contracts of civil servants, right to secret ballot/right to strike, minimum wages, review of labour laws in the country and public holiday pay for workers under the Wages Council.

Mr Anthony said the individual contracts "imposed" on civil servants and workers in Government owned entities must be removed and the collective bargaining process returned.

He said the FTUC, Government and the Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation had signed an agreement that workers' rights in this country would be respected.

"We want the Government to respect that agreement, to respect what they signed with us, the word they have given to the International Labour Organisation that they will respect collective bargaining," Mr Anthony said.

"Collective bargaining is a critical part of the Employment Relations Act, a legislation that this Government must respect. Collective bargaining is an integral part of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, Section 20."

6 Comments

<<Previous

Fijileaks: We add another gripe from the reading public. They have accused Fiji Times of trying to fleece money out of them by running one or two sentences from press releases and statements, and calling on the readers to subscribe to Fiji Times E-Edition to read the full article

CENSORING criticism of FFP government has a long history and is regularly featured in various cartoons:

BE CAREFUL OUT THERE: Ronna Lee of USP has raised the alarm

The History Notebook, from The Fiji Sun, 31 October 2008:

From Fijileaks Archive, 8 October 2017:

VINAKA VAKALEVU to all our old and new readers who visited FIJILEAKS last week:

"The penalty for TREASON in all Commonwealth countries is DEATH, and if this is to be my destiny I will accept it" Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, 19 May 1987.

Sadistically, after having walked away from the HANGMAN's NOOSE, he did not hesitate to start "NOOSING" Indo-Fijians who dared to set fire to his racist, feudalistic, and unconstitutional 1990 Constitution of Fiji

But the coward (lamu sona) conferred upon himself and his co-conspirators IMMUNITY which was included in the 1990, 1997, the Draft Ghai Constitution 2012, and the 2013 Constitution of Fiji

‘Rabuka had already learned the art of political double speak (what we in Fiji call aage pichie or liu muri) and was prepared to walk a precarious path to stay in power’ - Rabuka's official biographer John Sharpham in Rabuka of Fiji

In 1999, the VOTERS of all RACES, BOOTED HIM out of PARLIAMENT, and now, in 2017, SODELPA has brought this BOGUS NATIONALIST back to lead the party into the 2018 general election.Cry, the Beloved Country

Fijileaks: We have reproduced Dakuvula's comment which he had posted in response to our story of 20 October 2017 on Rabuka's Immunity:

22 June 2016:Mick Beddoes: 'I will leave if Rabuka is chosen to lead SODELPA Party"

GREEN WITH ENVY!

What are World Bank Green Bonds and the Implementation Guidelines:

The Independent (London): 10 photographs to show to anyone who doesn't believe in climate change

Click the following link to see the other eight photos:www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html#gallery

PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY:"Bainimarama rewriting history, telling lies, pretending to be a greenie"

Fijileaks: What if you are related by blood to the Minister for Elections Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum: Shouldn't you also resign as Election Supervisor?

We call on Aiyaz Khaiyum to make public the '2007 Report'From Fijileaks Archive, 23 January 2015:

Khaiyum: Political losers (Anthony, Chaudhry et al trying to revive their political careers, "If there was a huge outcry from workers, there would have been thousands on the streets"Fijileaks: How could thousands be on the street whenPolice permit limited the numbers to 5000 marchers?

Aiyaz Khaiyum: These people do not even make the five per cent [of the threshold I set in my Political Parties Decree in the 2014 general election]

Fijileaks: Excuse us, they got more VOTES compared to Fijileaks hacker and Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar, and other FFP MPs and Cabinet Ministers who entered Parliament clinging to the sulu of Bainimarama under the D'Hondt Electoral SystemFrom Fijileaks Archive, 2014

Archives

"The penalty for TREASON in all Commonwealth countries is DEATH, and if this is to be my destiny I will accept it"
Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, 19 May 1987.

In 1999, the VOTERS of all RACES, BOOTED HIM out of PARLIAMENT, and now, in 2017, SODELPA has brought this BOGUS NATIONALIST back to lead the party into the 2018 general election.
Cry, the Beloved Country

22 June 2016:
Mick Beddoes: 'I will leave if Rabuka is chosen to lead SODELPA Party"

Click the following link to see the other eight photos:
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-worse-water-temperature-reading-scientists-global-warming-ice-melt-weather-a8020696.html#gallery

PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY:
"Bainimarama rewriting history, telling lies, pretending to be a greenie"

We call on Aiyaz Khaiyum to make public the '2007 Report'
From Fijileaks Archive, 23 January 2015:

Khaiyum: Political losers (Anthony, Chaudhry et al trying to revive their political careers, "If there was a huge outcry from workers, there would have been thousands on the streets"
Fijileaks: How could thousands be on the street when
Police permit limited the numbers to 5000 marchers?

Fijileaks: Excuse us, they got more VOTES compared to Fijileaks hacker and Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar, and other FFP MPs and Cabinet Ministers who entered Parliament clinging to the sulu of Bainimarama under the D'Hondt Electoral System
From Fijileaks Archive, 2014