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

SEVEN YEARS LATER HE IS STILL FLOURISHING: Aunty Nur Bano Ali's lawyer against Auditor-General had claimed that an article by Victor Lal was going to ruin his professional career!

30/11/2014

7 Comments

 

Seven years later, Devanesh Sharma has no qualm speaking to the 16th Attorney-General's Conference on 5 December 2014, when one of the very lawyers who put his hand up to join the interim Bainimarama government as Attorney-General was Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum:

Picture

A Fiji High Court Judge to Victor Lal, 6 March 2007, after Lal had revealed the confidential Minutes of the Judicial Services Commission that had seen Justice Anthony Gates appointed acting Chief Justice after the 5 December 2006 coup: "In the Sun yesterday. Shock waves as the lawyers had been grievously misled by the President [Devanesh Sharma, then president of Fiji Law Society]. He rang _____ accusing me of leaking the minutes which ______ refuted. A bit rich since he has been sending JSC correspondence to ______ of Fiji TV and to DVF (Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki). Sir_____rang me up to say he was pleased the minutes were published in the public interest."


The former president of the Fiji Law Society, Devanesh Sharma, of R Patel Lawyers to Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter, 2007: "The article [STOP THE HYPOCRISY] published is factually incorrect, based on a contumelious (insolently abusive and humiliating) disreagrd [disregard] of the role and strcutre [structure] of the FLS and is clearely [clearly] grossly defamatory of me in my personal capacity as a barrister and solictor [solicitor] and an officer of the Court and in my capacity as President of the FLS; The article is vindictive and is intended to damage my professional and personal reputation and to cause me irreparable harm and ignominy in my personal life, my professional career and professional activities; I have been seriously hurt and embarrased by the publication of the Article..."


A Fiji High Court Judge to Victor Lal, 23 February 2007: "You have written the truth. How can that be wrong? You obviously got him where it hurts.The FLS [Fiji Law Society] has now suspended Rajendra Chaudhery's practising certificate for daring to criticise Sharma on national TV. The reason given is that such criticism is conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Yet when ______ was criticised personally by _______ no action was taken by the FLS. Are some lawyers more equal than others?! Of course Sharma has the right to defend anyone he wants, but those involved in 2000 and 1987 appear prominently in his clientele, and his opposition to this coup is much stronger than the FLS reaction to the 2000 coup or to lawyers involved in it. In fact the only principled position for the FLS to take is to say that all lawyers are asked to remember their oaths as legal practitioners and to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. As for what the lawful position is of the country, that is a matter to be determined by the courts. Now that the FLS has decided what is legal and what is illegal, how can it take a position of amicus in any court proceedings in relation to the coup? It has lost its objectivity. As for the army lawyers, the matter is now before the courts, but it appears that they were judged and punished before any determination that they had in fact advised the army to break the law. If we still don't know that the law was broken or the nature of the advice tendered, how can we say that the army lawyers are guilty of giving illegal advice? I think the FLS has lost logic as well as objectivity. "


Victor Lal to a Fiji High Court Judge, Monday 29 January, 2007 - Subject:  Re: truth - Dear _____ He has sent another one to Fiji Sun, this time relating to my article STOP THE HYPOCRISY (14 December) as follows (see below; and also show it to ________ - any comments on the enclosed will be appreciated - its just to silence me)


Fijileaks Editor: Stung by the criticism, Sharma had sent in the following, demanding Fiji Sun apologize but as one High Court Judge wrote to Victor Lal, 'You have written the truth, how can that be wrong. You obviously got him where it hurts'.

Sharma to Fiji Sun:

The article published is factually incorrect, based on a contumelious disreagrd of the role and strcutre of
the FLS and is clearely grossly defamatory of me in my personal capacity as a barrister and solictor and an
officer of the Court and in my capacity as President of the FLS;

The article is vindictive and is intended to damage my professional and personal reputation and to cause me
irreparable harm and ignominy in my personal life, my professional career and professional activities;

I have been seriously hurt and embarrased by the publication of the Article; The article complained of in its natural and ordinary meaning contains the following imputations:

1. That I have personally taken action against
military lawyers
2. That I am a hypocrite
3. That I should be removed from the FLS
4. That the actions of the FLS in suspending the
certificates of certain solicitors is at my
instigation and personal directive
5. That as a defence lawyer who has defended persons
charged with offences related to the 2000 George
Speight takeover of parliament, I am tainted and have
a conflict of interest
6 That I have colluded with persons involved with the
events of 2000
7 That I have colluded with and am complicit in
alleged irregular dealings accociated with the release
under CSO of Ratu Jope Seniloli
8 That by being part of the defence team of Sitiveni
Rabuka in Mr Rabuka's recent trial for inciting
mutiny, I have condoned the actions of Mr Rabuka in
the coups of 1987
9 That by acting for Lt-Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka, I
am no longer qualified tothe  comment on any actions
of any members of the military, and am biased against
the military
10. That I am unfit person to be President of the FLS
and should be "cleaned up" from the FLS
11. That I have colluded with the GCC

In this article, Lal demonstrates his total inability to comprehend the role of lawyers and the law. In particular Lal demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between the role of a lawyer defending in a Court of Law those persons charged with offences against the Laws of this country, and the role of lawwyers advising and promoting a person or organisation in the  illegal overthrow of a democratically elected Government. As Lal and your paper should be aware, lawyers are Officers of Court bound by rules of ethics and good conduct. A fundamental component of the ethical standards expected of a lwayer is adherence to the
laws of this country. Lawyers who break the law and commit illegal acts are liable to be disciplined by
the FLS. The tendering of advice to overthrow, by use of force, a democratically elected government, if such advice is given by members of the FLS, is sufficient justification for the FLS to conduct an investiagtion into the conduct of these members. Being part of an organisation that commits treason and other serious offences under the Penal Code without showig any respect for the laws of Fiji, or one's oath as a lawyer and an officer of the Court is further reason for the FLS to conduct such an investiagtion Furthremore, the FLS is a collective decision made by the duly elected Council of the FLS and is not my individual decision the As a supposedly responsible media organisation it is your responsibility to ensure that such vindictive falsities masquerading as journalism are not published. By publishing Lal's viperous outpourings, the Fiji SUN has participated in the gross defamation of myself. I invite you to publish at the earliest possible date, in a prominent position in your newspaper, an unequivocal apology to me in the following terms:

APOLOGY TO MR DEVANESH SHARMA, PRESIDENT, FIJI LAW SOCIETY:


On 14 December 2006 the Fiji Sun published an article which referred to Mr Devanesh Sharma. The Fiji Sun
unequivocally recognises that the statements it made referring to Mr Sharma were false and without foundation, and that the imputations contained within those statements were false. The Fiji Sun unreservedly apologises
to Mr Sharma for any hurt and embarrassment that the publication of the statements may have caused to him

Notwithstanding that the Fiji Sun may publish an apology in the form requested, I reserve my rights to claim damages and costs by reason of the publication. I put you on notice that your failure or refusal to publish the requested form or apology to me, will be relied upon as conduct aggravating the damages suffered by me because of the offending publication I request your immediate acknowledgement of receipt of
this letter.

Devanesh Sharma
.
HYPOCRISY TAINTS FIJI LAW SOCIETY LEADERSHIP

By VICTOR LAL
Fiji Sun, 15 December 2006


The president of the Fiji Law Society, Devanesh Sharma, has suspended military lawyers and is demanding to know what help, if any, they gave to Commodore Frank Bainimarama when he took over the Laisenia Qarase government on December 5.

He says these lawyers risk losing their practising certificates if they do not give a satisfactory explanation. He says the lawyers failed to uphold the law because in the opinion of the society, the coup is illegal.

Interestingly, the overthrown Prime Minister Qarase, shortly before he was deposed, questioned why the society was silent on the recent developments and was not speaking out with one voice, including their overseas counterparts. Sadly, when the former president of the society, Graham Leung, called on Mr Qarase in May 2005 to abandon the Reconciliation and Unity Bill because it posed a serious threat to the rule of law, undermined the independence of the judiciary, and was perhaps unconstitutional, Mr Qarase refused to listen.

Also, when the society called upon Mr Qarase to abide by the Court of Appeal decision and hand over power to Mahendra Chaudhry in 2001, Mr Qarase simply ignored the court ruling or the call from the legal fraternity.

Mr Sharma's actions against the military lawyers, however, raise some very fundamental and disturbing questions: what role should a lawyer play in society or to what extent must he or she provide legal advice to an institution to which he or she belongs; and why should there be two laws, one for fat pay lawyers in private practice and one for military lawyers?

Unlike the private lawyers, both civilian and military laws govern the military lawyers like their foot soldier colleagues. However, as part of their employment, they were required by military law to tender legal advice to their military boss, the Commodore on the Doctrine of Necessity. It was up to the Commodore, who to some extent was the author of the creation of the necessity, to accept or reject their advice.

Mr Sharma also alleges that some members of the legal profession outside the military are heavily involved in giving legal advice, doing research and writing speeches supporting the military. Who are they? Can he provide names? If the Commodore's actions (based on legal advice from his or outside lawyers) are illegal, than surely it could be challenged in a court of law by none other than Mr Sharma who has a history of defending those accused of coup and mutiny related cases.

Mr Sharma was part of the legal team that defended Mr Rabuka who [on December 10] was acquitted after a split verdict (guilty and not guilty) on two counts of inciting mutiny against the Commodore at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in July and November of 2000. What difference does it make if one military lawyer, in the course of his duty, has tendered legal advice that might have resulted in the recent coup, and another private lawyer has no hesitation or conscience to defend the Father of Coups in the country - Mr Rabuka - who accepts that he committed treason in 1987 when he executed two coups against the democratically elected Bavadra government because "There Was No Other Way."

Moreover, it was none other than Mr Rabuka who emasculated the judiciary by jailing outspoken judges (like Justice Kishore Govind) and expelling from the Bench overseas judges from Fiji. Mr Rabuka ruled the country through the notorious Decree 12, which allowed for arbitrary detention in such a way as to deny recourse to habeas corpus rights and other forms of appeal.

The judiciary was entirely re-shuffled consonant with the new concept of Taukei justice. And the 1970 Constitution was torn to shreds.

What about the events of 2000? The ousted Attorney-General, Qoriniasi Bale, who was allegedly involved with Mr Rabuka in the 1987 coups, was the principal defendant in the Chandrika Prasad case on the 1997 Constitution. He was part of the Interim Civilian Government following George Speight's failed 2000 coup, and under his legal jurisdiction the ICG issued 30 decrees between July 17 and the end of 2000 and a further four decrees in 2001 to January 12.

He, along with the ousted Prime Minister, refused to hand over power to the Peoples Coalition Government of Mahendra Chaudhry despite the Fiji Court of Appeal ruling, and following the two successive general elections remained as AG until Commodore Bainimarama ousted him recently.

I would be very interested to know if the society directed all its members, including Mr Sharma, not to have any dealings or contacts with the ousted and un-elected Attorney-General who had colluded with Commodore Bainimarama and others in the drafting of decrees following the illegal seizure of power by George Speight and his shadowy characters. These characters were exposed as the former Vice-President Ratu Jope Seniloli, Deputy Speaker Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure and others. They were also charged with taking treasonous oaths of office to serve in a rebel government under George Speight at a time when the legitimate Head of State, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, was struggling to prevent the nation from descending into chaos.

Both were jailed for lengthy terms by Justice Shameem, only to be released on dubious grounds by Mr Bale to serve their prison terms extramurally. In Ratu Jope's case, he was out in three months on controversial medical grounds. The release of these convicts had angered the Commodore, and may have been a part of his list of reasons to launch the so-called 'clean up campaign'.

The Miliatry took an extraordinary step by issuing a public statement against Ratu Jope's release. Captain Neumi Leweni called the early release "an insult to our sense of justice and the rule of law" and a "riot" He and other senior military personnel said they believed the release of Ratu Jope was a political ploy to gain the support of "the same type of people who gathered in droves at the parliamentary complex in 2000" - a reference to the supporters of the coup.

The officers predicted that if Mr Bale was not reined in quickly, there could be "a return to the mayhem of 2000" The military argued that that Ratu Jope's release threatened national security .

The decision to release Ratu Jope on CSO was based on merit and the medical report, Mr Bale claimed. He said Ratu Jope's medical condition was confidential between him and the doctors and should not be disclosed without their consent. This, he said, was the law. The former Leader of Opposition, Mick Beddoes, wanted the names of the doctors who advised the release of Ratu Jope disclosed. He also called on Mr Bale to disclose the illness. He said people had a right to know the truth because "they may conclude that Ratu Jope's resignation and subsequent decision not to contest his guilt was a trade off for his release".

Mr Bale maintained he could not divulge details citing patient-doctor confidentiality.

If that is the case concerning Ratu Jope, one may ask Mr Sharma why should the military lawyers be forced by the society to disclose what advice, if any, they tendered to their military boss in the course of their duty as legal advisers to the military. Maybe, the Commodore should see if he can "clear the truth" about the medical record.

In any event, it was only recently that Justice Jiten Singh delivered judgment in a legal action brought by the Citizens' Constitutional Forum to challenge the release of Ratu Jope from prison in November 2004 under the CSO by Mr Bale. Justice Singh's decision upheld the CCF's challenge on the ground of bias or perceived bias, because, in the judge's words, "an informed observer would have serious misgivings about the impartiality of the first respondent (the Minister) in granting the CSO to the second respondent (Ratu Jope)"

The CCF sought an order of certiorari to quash Mr Bale's decision. Justice Singh did find that the CSO was flawed but did not order the CSO for Ratu Jope be quashed.

Both Ratu Jope and the ousted State are appealing against Judge Jiten Singh's ruling. Mr Sharma represents Ratu Jope. Will Ratu Jope return the pay he (Ratu Jope) received during the trial, and continues to receive a pension equivalent to 30 per cent of his Vice-Presidential salary, despite being caught on video camera swearing-in- Speight's Cabinet Ministers? Will those in the Great Council of Chiefs, who appointed Ratu Jope as Vice-President, and those MPs who elected Mr Vakalalabure as Deputy Speaker after the 2000 crisis also be hauled before the courts for aiding treasonists?

Meanwhile, the Great Council of Chiefs has joined Mr Sharma in condemning the military lawyers.

For God's sake, stop the hypocrisy. Where was the GCC, which strictly speaking, is not exclusively made up of chiefs but also of commoners, when its own legal adviser, Mr Bale, was discarding the rule of law with impunity, and was also suspended for five years from the Fiji Law Society for misusing trust funds?

Finally, Mr Sharma also represents Lieutenant-Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka, the Commodore's former second-in-command, who is facing a mutiny inquiry for allegedly confronting the Commodore about his (Commodore's) anti-government statements before the takeover of the Qarase government. Is there not a conflict of interest in his demands - of actual or perceived bias in his treatment of the military lawyers?

It is equally legitimate to ask Mr Sharma what right does he have to defend those implicated in the 1987 and 2000 coups, and to ensure that they are acquitted as charged, and in the next breath to demand from the military lawyers what advice, if any, did they tender to the Commodore in the takeover of government, which comprised Mr Bale, who himself had been no respecter of law as Minister of Justice?

The suspension is also a breach of the military lawyers rights under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution .

The law is meant to be blind. Why should there be two laws: one for private lawyers and one for military or government lawyers when it comes to questions of legality and illegality in Fiji?

It is time, to use a lawyer's phrase, Mr Sharma recused himself from lecturing to the military lawyers or to other lawyers who have tendered legal advice to the Commodore or will continue to do so in the future. The "clean up" begins with him
This e-mail was circulated to FLS members; it was leaked to Victor Lal from within FLS:
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:30 AM
> > > Subject: Message from the President


 Dear Members~

The is a message from the President to the
> members
> > > to
> > > disregard any article
> > > been published by the Fiji Sun and Daily Post
> > > attributed to him since he has
> > > not given any statement to their reporters.
> > >
> > >
> > > In particular after the Fiji Sun has published
> the articles by Victor Lal,
> > > the President has chosen not to speak to any of
> > the
> > > reporters from this
> > > newspaper.
> > >
> > >
> > > It would appear that these newspapers are just
> > > basically misreporting the
> > > stance taken by the Fiji Law Society.
> > >
> > >
> > > The only comment that Fiji Law Society has made
> > > recently to Fiji Times is
> > > that it is within the powers of the lawful
> > President
> > > of the country to make
> > > ministerial appointments provided that he
> complies
> > > with the Constitutional
> > > provisions. This does not in any way mean that
> the
> > > appointments he is
> > > making at the present time is legitimate or
> legal.
> >
> > > This is a matter that
> > > may be subject to litigation in the future.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Devanesh Sharma
> > > President, FLS
7 Comments

REPUTATION! WHAT REPUTATION? Why is Aunty Nur Bano Ali not suing Bainimarama who was Finance Minister to whom AOG gave 2010 Report

29/11/2014

7 Comments

 

Coming soon: The Minutes of the Rewa Dairy Board Meeting and the Strategic Workshop Output Report on Re-Structure and $0.5m fees!
In her Writ of Claims before the High Court she claims the 2010 AOG Report has brought her and aliz pacific into "hatred, ridicule and contempt and they have suffered damages as a result"; She claims she also lost clients who were interested in using her services but have decided not to invest as a result of the image painted by the 2010 Report. WE SAY - where were you when the whole of Fiji was crying for answers from you? - hiding behind Bainimarama/Khaiyum's DICTATORSHIP for 8 Years! During these years the investors were running to you for you were acting as the 'midwife' for them with the illegal regime!

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST: In 2008 her nephew Aiyaz Khaiyum was talking up 'contempt of court' as he attacked VICTOR LAL who had revealed that FIRCA officers had been tasked by Khaiyum to bring down the then Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki; worst, Khaiyum defended his then co-treasonist, the Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, only to bring charges against Chaudhry before the September election! Below is his original letter sent (with a demand by Christopher Pryde to then Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter) for its publication:

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
7 Comments

The 2015 Budget: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Deceptive

29/11/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture
By Professor Wadan Narsey (edited version appeared in Fiji Times, 29 Nov. 2014)

This is the second year in eight years, that the annual budget illustrates the power of democracy, with a government reminding voters that it is keeping the good promises made by the ruling party, in the previous elections campaign.


For seven years the Bainimarama Government ruled and presented budgets with impunity as there were no voters to be accountable to.

But in last year’s budget, in anticipation of the September 2014 elections, the Bainimarama Government came up with a sure-fire vote getter which was good policy as well, by extending  the fee-free education policies of previous governments right up to the end of secondary school, and then further to tertiary education, with students accepted at tertiary institutions, being guaranteed scholarships or loans.

This year’s budget is indeed giving many “goodies” promised to voters in the last elections.

The 2015 Budget also continues what I consider a “bad” questionable policy of excessive allocation for infrastructure in a short time period which may result in wastage.

There are also “ugly” aspects to this budget which reeks of concessions to “special interests”, repeating the mistakes of previous governments.

As with last year’s budget, there continues the deceptive presentation of key statistics such as the “low Net Deficit or Public Debt as a proportion of GDP”, which the ordinary public cannot be expected to understand, but economists do.

This 2015 Budget can appropriately be described as the “Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the Deceptive”.

The Good

There are many positives in this budget, which the speech by the Minister of Finance amply elaborated.

The fee-free education has been extended downwards to pre-schools and early childhood, as I have frequently advocated before (as for example here (https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/free-pre-schools-for-the-poor-the-fiji-times-30-july-2010/

As I have shown previously, it is the poor parents who cannot afford the current high fees for pre-schools (which are higher than for primary tuition), and it is mostly the poorest children who benefit academically from attending preschools because their home learning environments are not as good as those of well-off parents.

The amounts allocated, however, are far too little (a mere $5 million), given that currently roughly half of Fiji’s five year olds do not attend pre-schools and there would need to be around 700 additional new class-rooms built and teachers hired.

Moreover, the current pre-school teachers’ salaries are far too low.  This is in fact at odds with the recent speech by the Minister for Education who apparently advocates that the lowest classes must be taught by the more experienced teachers, who presumably must cost more.  But the increased allocations to pre-school is a move in the right direction.

More important in this budget are the large allocations made to the Ministry of Health whose hospitals and health centers are extremely run-down and suffering from scarcities in skilled staff: doctors, nurse, and all kinds of technologists needed to provide quality health services.

Then there are the other positives, which while difficult to implement, will be of great assistance to poor families with income below specified thresholds ($20,000 to $30,000 per year):  such as free prescribed medicines, basic supply of water and electricity, first home grants, grants to develop Fijian lands, etc.

The Bad

There is no doubt that Fiji has been in urgent need of more investments in roads infrastructure.

But the question is, how much more should Fiji invest annually in roads, with what timing over the next ten years, and what organization should implement these investments?

The Bainimarama Government over the last two years has allocated a massive one billion dollars to the Fiji Roads Authority, or roughly 500 million annually, when PWD in the pre-2012 days used to get only about $80 million.

This year, the 2015 Budget has allocated even more, or about $635 million to the FRA, which the media has largely ignored.

There is a “Parkinson’s Law of Triviality” which argues that ordinary people will spend far more time examining trivial sums of money (such as a Prime Minister’s salary or perks) than some large sum which they cannot comprehend because it is so large.

But people in Fiji would understand the argument that one could get every five year old in Fiji into preschool, by reallocating $30 million from FRA’s $630 million, and they would not even notice that it was gone?

This massive allocation to this newly established  public enterprise raises many questions on public policy that ought to be studied closely by the Auditor General’s Office, and indeed by economists or PhD students who want a good case study with which to examine the pros and cons of corporatiszation and privatization.

Questions that the Auditor General could ask the PS Finance, PS Planning and PS Infrastructure (and try your luck with the Minister of Finance) are

1.  Were there proper cost:benefit analyses done for each of the major projects (excluding the bridges over Nabukulau creek and Vatuwaqa creek) being implemented by the FRA?

2. What were the estimate rates of return on each of these projects.

3. Might the rates of return be higher if the investment projects in new roads were spread out over a longer time frame

4. What are the salary structures of the FRA and private companies hired to do all the work which PWD used to do before and were the expatriates hired by open advertisements to which locals had access.

5. What are the profit components of all the projects and how much are being repatriated

6. What are the costs per kilometer of the different projects

7. to explain whether the FRA has a program of localisation in place, to replace the highly paid expatriates currently employed.

8. Who exactly have been auditing all the public enterprises which have recently been corporatized, made virtually autonomous, and out of reach of the normal public service supervision.

 Students of public finance might like to examine what happened when the SVT Minister of Finance doubled the government allocation for the Fiji Visitors Bureau in 1999.  Of course the tourism arrivals did not double or even increase significantly (go and look at the data), because sales agents in our source markets could not suddenly switch their clients from Bali etc to Fiji.

Far more sensible would have been for Fiji to increase the FVB budget gradually so that they could productively and more efficiently use the increases.

Similarly, cost:benefit economists and financial analysts who know how rates of return on investments are significantly lowered if too much is spent in the earlier years when the benefits are going to come way in the future, would know that it would have been far more sensible for the Fiji Roads Authority to be granted gradual increases with which to prioritize the more profitable investments first (of course the currently closed bridges would be a priority) and low return investments later down the line.

 The Ugly

For decades, Ministers of Finance have been approached by vested business interests to give them some subsidy or preference or duty concession or other. Often they have given in, possibly encouraged by “incentives” from the business interest.

This Bainimarama Government is no exception, and interestingly, is repeating the same mistake made by the SDL Government, with respect to exercise books, just as it did with milk products.

During the SDL era, in one of the budgets presented by the then Minister of Finance Ratu Jone Kubuabola, the duty on imported exercise books was reduced in order to make them cheaper for students.  This was a correct policy, in keeping with WTO principle of reducing protectionism globally.

https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/the-costs-and-hidden-hand-outs-of-protectionism-the-fiji-times-14-august-2002/

But the firm which produced (or rather assembled all the imported inputs into) the exercise books mounted a massive publicity campaign against the reduction, the SDL Government reversed its policy, and the benefiting company took out advertisements thanking God that “common sense” (or some other universal lubricant) had prevailed .

In the 2015 Budget, the Bainimarama Government has also increased duty on imported exercise books to 32% or $1 whichever is the higher.

When a commercial retailer pointed out the ridiculousness of this measure in significantly increasing the prices that will be paid by school children, the Minister of Finance claimed that the measure was designed “to protect local manufacturers”.

The Minister of Finance, who is a lawyer, ought to take advice from the economists at his Ministry of Planning as to what constitutes “local manufacturing” and the concept of “effective rate of protection” which looks at the local value added content of a product.

Exercise books, with the paper, ink, staples, machines all imported, have very little local value added except the minimal labour starting and stopping the machines, and the fingers counting the money.  Some think that there might even be “negative value added” if all analysis is done in international market prices.

In the case of exercise books, I have no doubt that Ministry of Planning economists will find that the real “effective rate of protection” will not be 32% but in the hundreds if not the thousands, and can not be justified by any sensible economists.  But of course, lawyers who become Ministers of Finance can be driven by other considerations and will not be keen to listen to the economists in their ministries.

Nevertheless, the Opposition MPs can ask in parliament if any of the benefiting “manufacturers” of exercise books are active supporters of the Fiji First Party in anyway whatsoever.

Similar questions can be asked, as did the Leader of the National Federation Party (Professor Biman Prasad) about tariff changes which have significantly raised milk prices for consumers, while benefiting Rewa Dairy Company owned by CJ Patel, also owner of the pro-Government Fiji  Sun newspaper.

Banning foreigners from buying freehold land

One strange policy in the 2015 Budget has been the ban against foreigners buying freehold residential land in Fiji.

This has serious implications for many schemes which have been geared towards selling residential retirement villas to foreigners and also likely to discourage, at some cost to Fiji, foreigners who wish to retire in Fiji.

Most people who are afraid of the cost of annual leases being arbitrarily changed in the future, prefer freehold land.

Even indigenous Fijians, who theoretically have access to communally owned land, prefer to buy freehold land which they can develop with no fear of outside interference.

It is well known that foreigners retiring in Fiji not only bring in large amounts of their capital, but also employ large numbers of local people as cooks, cleaners, security guards, and drivers, etc.

Nearly always, the wages and salaries they pay are way above the minimum wages set by Wages Councils or the National Minimum Wage, and often the other benefits they offer are extremely valuable to the employees.

Why on earth would the Bainimarama Government try to “fix something which ain’t broke”?

It is also interesting that the development of non-residential land requires the permission of the Minister of Finance.  This unnecessarily reinforces the discretionary powers of the Minister and is surely open to abuse.

Good governance requires that the once the laws and rules are set, they must be applied to all, without the need for any discretionary approvals from any civil servant or minister.

The deceptions

Can you imagine a son who has taken over his father’s loss-making business boasting “Dad, I am going to make a good profit this year: I am planning to sell the business”.  This is effectively what the Minister of Finance is doing.

For the second year, the Bainimarama Government presents artificially low ratios for the Net Deficit as a proportion of GDP (2.5%) and a low ratio of Public Debt:GDP ratio of around 48% by including sales of public assets  as part of normal revenue.

Deception Number 1 is claiming as “Investing receipts” and part of normal revenue, some $510 million to be raised by selling public assets.

This then enables the Minister of Finance to claim Deception No, 2:  a low Net Deficit of $214 million, or a low 2.5% of GDP.

But take away the sale of public assets, and you suddenly have a Net Deficit of $724 million or an extremely record high 8.7% of GDP.

Readers might like to contemplate that this Government could equally plan to sell another $300 million of public assets and boast that the government was in “surplus”.

Similarly, if the Government were not to sell public assets but borrow additional money in order to spend what they are planning to spend, then the Public Debt would rise from the $4.1 billion the Minister of Finance is claiming to $4.6 billion which would also be a record high of 53.3% of GDP, and not the 48% they are claiming (Deception No.3).

Essentially, the normal revenues of Government cannot support the massive increases in expenditure that they have planned, without the sale of public assets.

All the pretty graphs in the supplements are equally deceptive and worthless.

Investment as Percentage of GDP

The Bainimarama Government is proclaiming that Investment as a percentage of GDP is now well over 25%  which on the surface can be a good indicator for any economy.

BUT the bulk of this investment is still public sector investment (especially in roads and water), whose actual rate of return is unknown, but I suggest is probably far less that the Rate of Return on the public assets that the Government is planning to sell.

Private sector investment is still far less than the public investment, and it is the former which will contribute to healthy economic growth, because private investors will not invest unless they are going to make money.

Ministers of Finance when they invest tax payers money, never ever exercise the due diligence that they would if they were investing “their father’s money”, and as Indo-Fijans like to point out when governments waste tax-payers’ money  (“baap ke paisa nahin hai”).

While there are many private sector investments taking place now, tax payers can hope that this becomes generalized enough to ensure that the Private Investment as a percentage of GDP gets about 20% or so.   That remains to be seen.

Sale of Good Public Assets

 Privatization of inefficient public assets can be justified if they are making unacceptable losses which are costing tax-payers large amounts in socially unjustifiable subsidies and government has no need to be involved in those activities when the private can do a better job.

But the Bainimarama Government is planning on selling off proportions of public assets which are profit making such as in FEA ($250 million), Airports Fiji Limited ($125 million), and Fiji Ports Corporation Limited ($80 million).

Will the public sector investments government is planning, generate the same amount of returns as these assets which are being sold to finance the public sector investment?

Some of these public enterprises (such as ports and airports) are also nationally strategic assets and monopolies which should not be in private hands.

Privatizing a government monopoly and effectively creating a private monopoly without setting up a regulatory environment (which will itself be costly) is a recipe for disaster, especially when the PE has already been corporatized, is operating relatively efficiently, and is totally within the control of government.

 A private unregulated monopoly is likely to be far more exploitative of consumers than a regulated public monopoly.

This topic is large enough to need a separate article.

Also needing a separate article by analytical political scientists (if there are any alive in Fiji) is the strange phenomenon of Fiji’s democracy, that a political party which gets elected by promising free education, medicines, water, electricity etc, can use their alleged “popular mandate from people” to sell off crucial public assets, or defend their immunity provisions, or the constitution they have imposed on the country, and many other contestable policies, which were never election issues.


2 Comments

GODDESS OF POWER! Nepal's killing fields: FIVE THOUSAND buffalo lie slaughtered at the beginning of Hindu ceremony which sees up to 300,000 animals killed to bring worshippers good luck!

28/11/2014

3 Comments

 

                          WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
~ Hundreds of thousands of animals set to be slaughtered during two-day religious festival in Nepal
~ The Hindu festival is held every five years in honour of Gadhimai, the goddess of power
~ Festivities kicked off on Friday morning with the mass-slaughter of 5,000-6,000 buffalo in a field
~ The last time the festival was held, in 2009, more than 250,000 animals were killed, according to PETA

Picture
Offer to the gods: Thousands of buffalo lie dead in a field after being sacrificed for a religious holiday in near the Indian border in Nepal
Picture
MORE than 250,000 animals are being lined up for slaughter as Nepal embarks on a two-day religious festival where buffalo, birds and goats are sacrificed to appease a Hindu goddess. Millions of Hindus flock to the ceremony, which is held every five years at the temple of Gadhimai, the goddess of power, in Bariyarpur, Nepal, near the Indian border. The last time the festival was held, in 2009, more than 250,000 animals were killed, according to animal rights organisation PETA, who is campaigning to put a stop to the practice. The festival is 'kicked off' with the ritual slaughter of five thousand buffalo in a field near the temple, after which two days of ritual animal slaughter takes place. Animal rights activists such as PETA are campaigning to halt the mass animal-slaughter, but despite their efforts, the organisers of the festival has promised that this year will be the biggest yet. About 2.5 million devotees  have turned out for the festival, according to local government official Yogendra Prasad Dulal, who said it was 'impossible to estimate' the total number of animals sacrificed so far.'It has been a grand day,' Mangal Chaudhary, head priest at the Gadhimai temple said. 'The buffalo sacrifice has ended, but we will continue the rituals with goats and other animals for one more day,' On the first day, worshippers slaughtered more than 6,000 buffaloes, which were coralled into holding pens in the fields, along with at least 100,000 goats and other animals, Chaudhary said.The festivities will continue on Saturday when at least another 100,000 animals will die in the name of goddess Gadhimai. More than 80 per cent of Nepal's 27 million people are Hindus, but unlike most of their counterparts in neighbouring India, they frequently sacrifice animals to appease deities during festivals. Authorities deployed hundreds of police personnel to make sure there were no clashes between activists and the devotees. 'It is a ritual connected with people's faith,' said Yogendra Dulal, an assistant administrator of the Bara district, where the temple is located. 'We can't hurt their sentiments and ban the practice.' Worshippers believe the animal sacrifice, meant to appease Gadhimai, the Hindu goddess of power, brings them luck and prosperity. About 6,000 buffaloes were held in an open-air pen prior to being beheaded by butchers using swords and large curved knives.Thousands of goats and chickens will also be sacrificed before the festival ends on Saturday, temple officials said. The heads of the sacrificed animals will be buried in a huge pit while the animal hides and skin will be sold to traders who have contracted to buy them. 'It is not proper to kill animals in the name of religion,' Uttam Kafle, of rights group Animal Nepal, told Reuters by telephone from the site.'We are trying to convince the people that they can worship at the shrine peacefully and without being cruel to animals.' India's Supreme Court recently asked the government to stop the illegal movement of animals into Nepal for the ceremony. The ritual began at dawn with a ceremonial 'pancha bali' or the sacrifice of five animals, comprising a rat, a goat, a rooster, a pig and a pigeon. Although cows are considered sacred by Hindu's, the thousands of animals seen slaughtered in these pictures are buffalo. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852739/Nepal-devotees-sacrifice-thousands-animals-Hindu-ritual.html#ixzz3KOBzh6E3

Picture
Bringing the buffalo to slaughter: A calf draws its last breath as a butcher lifts his blade over its head
Picture
Blessing of the weapons: Butchers raise their swords while performing rituals on Thursday night, before the sacrificial ceremony today
Picture
A Hindu villager leads a bufallo as he heads to the village of Bariyapur to attend celebrations of the Gadhimai festival
Picture
Worshippers from India brought their own offerings, such as this buffalo being carried in a rice sack
3 Comments

THE GODFATHER OF FIJIFIRST PARTY FRAUD: In 2009 he secretly registered party's domain name while holding Fiji down under his PER, stole FFP name from Girmit Heritage Party, and GUESS WHAT NOW!

27/11/2014

11 Comments

 

Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum declared that he owned plot of land worth $80,000 THROUGH Midlife Investments Ltd but Registrar of Companies has NO FILE on MIL; now we are told that Khaiyum merely reserved the NAME MIL with ROC! So, did Khaiyum COMMIT FRAUD under Political Parties Decree by making a false declaration about the plot of land at Wailoaloa?

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Wailoaloa beach towards Fantasy Island
Picture
JUST look at some of the developments at Palm Drive. $80,000 blocks?
FIJILEAKS: Now a new Nadi town is planned - which means Khaiyum's Wailoaloa property (a valuer told us its actually worth $250,000) will sit between the runaway and the beach. Did Khaiyum buy the property for they had their own game plan and were waiting for the election results?

THE Nadi Chamber of Commerce and Industry unveiled a bold new plan to relocate the tourist centre from its present position to an area southwest of Denarau Island.

A committee formed by the chamber revealed that apart from coming up with the proposal, it was in discussions with investors willing to fund the relocation plan.

Speaking at a trade seminar co-hosted by the chamber and the South African High Commission, businessman John Grey said the ultimate goal was to transform Nadi from being a mere tourist town to becoming the tourism, hospitality and sports city of the South Pacific.

Under the proposal are plans for the Nadi River to be re-aligned and diverted in certain areas to reduce the likelihood of flooding, construction of roads to reduce congestion in the town and the development of a shipping port at Wailoaloa.

"The proposed new Nadi would be a city by the sea. The city would be by the beach and river and next to the city would be a cultural centre and next to that would be a light industrial area and in-between the proposed city and the current site of Nadi Town would be parks and gardens." Source: Fiji Times
Picture

Coming Soon:
CORRUPT INDO-FIJIANS SINCE THE 2006 COUP:
FROM FICAC FILE - Where did this 'money man' from a top school get thousands of dollars to build this grand mansion in Suva?

Picture
11 Comments

OVER DOZED WITH CONFUSION: FICAC told FIJI SUN that Fijileaks 'Healthgate Report' was FAKE; now it is telling FBC 'Investigation' is still ongoing - WE SAY, It was completed in 2012!

26/11/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
Picture

Fijileaks: The 52 page detailed FICAC Investigation was conducted between January-March 2012 and charges were recommended against Health Minister Neil Sharma and others; from Auditor-General's Report of 2009 it is also clear that Aiyaz Khaiyum must have been aware of the 'rot and scams' in the Health Ministry but he did nothing; instead, in 2014 he gave Sharma ticket to stand as FijiFirst Party candidate in the election! It was part of the charade to present FFP as having a 'clean bill of health'

ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM 'HEALTHGATE' REPORT 2012:

Consultant/Director

Mr. Rohit Rambisessar is a ministry appointed consultant/director for Fiji Pharmaceutical & Bio Medical Services and is required to work 20 hours per week for a period of three months with hourly rate of F$ 50.00 paid on a weekly basis. (Refer Terms of Reference Appendix 5)


Mr. Rohit Rambissessar’s appointment as a consultant implies his responsibility of discharging his duties in line with the code of conduct of the Public Service Commission with highest integrity, accountability, transparency and avoidance of “Conflict of Interest”. 

Mr. Rohit Rambissessar had a pecuniary/financial interest as he potentially gained from the public position he held by way of seeking approval to procure vitals locally, thus, registering his company’s interest by tendering quotations and ultimately supplying the goods.

Honorable Minister is equally responsible as he authorized the purchase knowing too well that Mr. Rambisessar is the owner of Samabula Drug Store. As a matter of fact Mr. Rambissessar and Honorable Minister are well acquainted and have been close friends for quite some time.

Mr. Stephen Paul and Mr. Rohit Rambisessar are the share holders of “Stevro Limited”. Mr.Rrohit Kesho Rambisessar is a sole trader of Samabula Drug Store. (Refer Appendix 5.1 and 5.2

In 2009, upon request from the consultant, the Minister approved the purchase of Cancer drugs from “Stevro Limited”.

The then [Fijileaks has withheld job title])_____________, (name withheld)__________ questioned the integrity and transparency of the Minister on the directive to issue LPO to “Stevro Limited and Samabula Drugs” only to face immediate transfer to Head Quarters. _________ who is now based at ________ is our key witness in this scenario.

Two more LPO’S were issued in favor of Samabula Drug Store whose owner is Mr. Rohit Kesho Rambisessar. (Refer Appendix 6, 6.1 and 6.2)

Tender number 218/08 was called on 24/10/08 which closed on 18/12/08. It is evident that tender number 218/08 was put on hold until further notice by the consultant. Soon after the purchase of vitals drugs from Samabula Drug Store on 27/07/09, the evaluated tender number 218/08 which was put on hold by the consultant was formalized by Major Tender Board in its meeting number 12/2009 held on 28/07/09.

On receipt of a formal complaint from an anonymous complainant and Mr [Fijileaks has withheld name] the preliminary investigation is instigated as per the directive of the Deputy Commissioner. It is alleged that the Minister is involved with corrupt conduct, collusion, conspiracy and abuse of office in awarding the tender to Hospineer, Samabula Drug Store and Stevero Limited.

FICAC Recommendations

1. We strongly recommend that the Honorable Minister Dr. Neil Sharma, Mr. Vashu Devan and Mr. Arveen Chandra be charged for collusion, conspiracy, abuse of office and official corruption.

1.1 Dr. Neil Sharma and Mr. Vashu Devan engaged in corrupt conduct by concurring release of confidential summary of price analysis which Mr. Vashu Devan knowingly accepted and used it to his advantage.

2. Honorable Minister Dr. Neil Sharma and Mr. Rohit Kesho Rambissessar both engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to LPO’S issued to Mr. Rohit Rambissessar’s companies {Samabula Drug Store and Stevro Limited} The request submitted by Mr. Rohit Rambissessar to Honorable Minister Dr. Neil Sharma who approved the purchase knowing that Mr. Rohit Rambissessar at the time was an appointed consultant and owner of these companies.

2.1 Mr. Rohit Rambissessar and Dr Neil Sharma had been close associate for sometime. As a result, both of them have knowingly and deliberately abused their authority.

3. ____________(name withheld) may be a party to the conspiracy and as such is one of the suspects. 

Name List of Key Witness to the above (Fijileaks - Names Withheld):

1)  Evaluation Team

2)   Mr. _________

3)   Mr._________

4)   M/S_________

5)   Mr._________

6)   Mr. _________

7)   Mr.________

8)   FPO Officials.

9)   Dr. ________.

10)  Dr. _________

11)  Dr. ________ (possibly A suspect)

12)   ___________

13)   Dr. ________

14)    Mr. ________

15)    Mrs. ________

16)     ________ (Fiji Pharmaceutical Biomedical Services)


Picture
The 2009 Auditor-General's Report

MR PETER ZINCK, WHERE ARE YOU? PICK UP THAT PHONE OR CONTACT US: [email protected]

PicturePeter Zinck????
REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS
Volume 3 Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments - 2008

FIJI PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES

19.21 Pending Surcharge – Mr. Peter Zinck

Any sum or sums due by an officer to government may be deducted by the Permanent Secretary for Finance from salary due to such officer. An officer shall be given prior notice of such action being taken. In addition, all practical and cost effective efforts shall be made to recover losses which are recoverable and to avoid future losses occurring from the same cause.

The former Chief Pharmacist, Mr. Peter Zinck, was surcharged $50,316.94 (50% of $100,633.88) for non delivery of 100 hospital beds ordered as per the indent MD107/03. The supplier, Pacific Surgimed International Ltd of New Zealand was paid in advance the total amount of $100,633.88 in December 2002.

The Officer applied for leave without pay for a year with effect from 18/08/08; however this was declined by the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Commission, reason being him owing substantial surcharge amount. Without any approval, Mr Zinck proceeded on leave and as a result his service was terminated on 17/08/08.

Audit noted that his salary was ceased on 26/08/08 instead of 18/08/08, resulting in overpayment of salary amounting to $1,041.47. The Officer was repaying the surcharges amount at a rate of $120 / fortnight; however this ceased on 25/08/08 due to his termination. The Officer is now employed at the United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA). The Officer owes the government $47,758.41, resulting from surcharge ($46,716.94) and overpayment of salary ($1,041.47).

In addition, Mr. Zinck is yet to return a safe given to him whilst holding the position of a Chief Pharmacist. The Ministry was not able to provide the material value of the safe. This case was been investigated by the Anti Money Laundering Unit, Criminal Investigation Department of the Fiji Police Force in July 2008. As at the audit date, neither any report has been received by the Ministry nor the Ministry followed up on this case with the mentioned unit. Failure to instigate timely action could result in substantial amount of loss to the government. Also the prolong delay in taking necessary action would result in the amount not refunded from the supplier.
Recommendations
 The Ministry should officially write and inform Mr. Zinck to make necessary arrangement to clear all his outstanding dues.
 Appropriate authorities should be consulted and informed if the attempt to fully recover outstanding surcharges is unsuccessful.
 The Ministry should follow up with the CID Unit on the progress of the case.
Further OAG Comments
During the exit meeting on 21/09/09, the Permanent Secretary commented that this case was handled directly by the current Minister with CID Police Department. However, they will be seeking legal advice from Solicitor General, and would be informing the Immigration Department, Public Service Commission and the UNFPA about this case.
Another person (Mr. Narendra Goundar) involved in this case has gone overseas and his wher[e]abouts are
unknown. His name would be sent to Immigration Department and the Interpol.

Picture
1 Comment

TONGUE-TIED IN PARLIAMENT: Wadan Narsey questions the absurdity of the Bainimarama government which has banned native Fijians from speaking their language in Parliament

25/11/2014

11 Comments

 

"The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it." - The Indo-Trinidanian novelist and Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul in A Bend In The River.

Fijileaks: Cowardice, Collaboration, and Timidity of native Fijians in the face of  Bainimarama's dictatorship will see Fijians disappear as a RACE!

Picture
Wadan asks the hard question, November 25, 2014
Wadan Narsey has called the decision by the Bainimarama Government to ban the use of the indigenous Fijian language in parliament “extraordinary and unilateral”. Is there another Parliament in the world where the language of the majority of indigenous people is banned? Narsey points out all of the contradictions in this policy, one of which is the fact that Bainimarama regularly addresses the theoretically multi-racial military in the language that is the mother tongue of 95% of its members. And when he does so, there is no translation for the benefit of those who don’t understand what he’s saying. Prof Narsey has called a motion to rescind this silly rule and allow the three major languages to be spoken in parliament.

Fiji’s un-parliamentary languages (edited version in The Fiji Times, 22 Nov. 2014)

By Professor Wadan Narsey

An extraordinary and unilateral Bainimarama Government decision that has not been publicly debated at all, has been the banning of the use of the indigenous Fijian language in Parliament. This is quite surprising given that indigenous Fijians are the majority of the population of Fiji. The parliament is the supreme legislative body of any country, where the elected representatives of the people meet to discuss governance and public policy issues.

Historically, Fiji parliamentarians could speak in any of Fiji’s three main languages (English, Fijian or Hindi) with simultaneous translations provided by the Parliamentary Secretariat. Of course, English is a common language in Fiji, bequeathed to us by the oft-maligned British colonials, and it would probably be the preferred language in Parliament. But that should not preclude parliamentarians speaking in Fijian or Hindustani. if that is what they are comfortable with, or if that is the language that their particular electorates would prefer to be communicated with. There are many issues here, including: the accountability of the elected parliamentarians to their voters, international practices, the rights of indigenous peoples in preserving their culture and language, and the strange political agenda of the Bainimarama Government.

The language of democracy

We have often heard the Bainimarama Government allege that for the first time in its history, Fiji has a genuinely democratic system, with parliamentarians elected by the people and accountable to them, with every voter being equal. How often have we heard that democracy does not end, with the insertion of a ballot paper into the ballot box. We are told that in genuine democracies, candidates not only present themselves and their policies to the voters, but the voters then follow what their elected candidates say and do in parliament, all to be taken into account at the next elections.

But what language will the elected parliamentarian be accountable in, when the live broadcasts are being made to the voters of Fiji? If they are forced to speak only in English, large numbers of voters will have been prevented from understanding what a particular parliamentarian is saying. They will need a translation through the media and there is no guarantee that the correct translation will reach the voters who supported that parliamentarian.

The elections campaigning languages

Nowhere was this issue so clarified as when candidates were seeking the votes of the electorate. How many times did we see during the election campaigns that candidates very wisely spoke to local communities in the languages they preferred. While many, especially the younger generation are comfortable with English, large numbers of the older generations are only comfortable with indigenous Fijian or Hindustani.

We therefore saw Indo-Fijian candidates speak in Hindi to Indo-Fijian communities. We saw Bainimarama himself speak to villagers in Fijian, because that was the language they were comfortable in. Why would the same Bainimarama then insist that the parliamentarian, once elected, must not be allowed to speak in that language in parliament?

International practice

Everywhere, parliaments allow their elected members to speak in whatever is the dominant language of the people. The European Parliament allows 24 languages, although English is the preferred language. Of relevance given the recent political hype about Fiji and India “learning from each other”, there are 22 official languages recognized by the Lok Sabha, the  Indian House of Representatives.

Indian Prime Minister Modi, when he spoke a few days ago at the Fiji National University, spoke in Hindi, to the delight of the mostly Indo-Fijian audience (some 80 percent according to some estimates). While there was an appearance of spontaneity, the reality is that the Machiavellian organizers had preplanned this, and tried to prepare for it by ensuring that non-Hindi speakers all had ear-sets to listen to translations into English.

The exercise according to some, was a failure, and many non-Hindi speakers could not listen to any English translation. But the point is that it was perfectly acceptable to the Bainimarama Government that the Indian Prime Minister speak in whatever language the majority of his audience was comfortable with- in this case, Hindi, even if a hundred percent of that audience would have understood Modi perfectly had he spoken in English. Bainimarama himself understands this language imperative when he speaks to an audience which is far more important to him than the Fiji Parliament- i.e. the soldiers of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.

Bainimarama and the RFMF

Over and over on TV, we have seen Bainimarama choosing to speak to the RFMF troops in the indigenous Fijian language, whether in Fiji or in the Middle East.

So also does Brigadier Tikoitoga and his senior officers speak to the soldiers in Fijian, because that is what their listeners are comfortable with.

Bainimarama does not insist that the language of communication to his RFMF soldiers must be English.

So why is the Fijian language banned from Parliament?

The Bainimarama agenda

We need to remember that the Bainimarama Government’s strange ruling on languages started with their political vendetta against the SDL, by banning party names that were “Fijian”.

So Soqosoqo Duavata Ni Lewenivanua (SDL) was forced to become Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) even though the rational acronym would have been SDLP.  But that would have been too close to SDL and also banned. There was a strange manifestation of this madness in education, when some schools in Fiji were forced to change from their allegedly “ethnic” names to allegedly “neutral” names. It was hilarious therefore to see “Indian College” with the long history associated with that name, being forced to adopt the allegedly non-ethnic name of “Jay Narayan College”.  How un-Indian is that? Such policies by the Bainimarama Government totally contradict the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The UNDRIP, while accepting the fundamental equality of all peoples, recognizes the historical marginalization of indigenous peoples the world over and fully supports the rights of indigenous peoples to organize themselves as a group for political, economic, social and cultural enhancements.

Article 5 of UNDRIP states clearly that  indigenous people “have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions” which includes their languages and their names. Part of the attempt to preserve the Fijian culture is to officially recognize the Fijian language as a legitimate means of communication in the highest body in the country- the Fiji Parliament. It would not be difficult to argue that many of the actions taken by the Bainimarama Government in forcing changes on Fijian people and institutions without their agreement, including the banning of Fijian names for political parties and the banning of the Fijian language from Parliament, blatantly contradicts the UNDRIP to which Fiji is a signatory.

Preserving the indigenous language

The banning the indigenous Fijian language from Parliament, is especially insensitive and irrational given that the indigenous Fijians are a clear majority of the population of Fiji, and an increasing proportion because of the lower fertility of Indo-Fijian women, and continuing high rate of Indo-Fijian emigration. .

Where in the world would the language of the majority of people, get banned from the highest legislative body in the country?

If any government attempted this in India or Germany or France, they would face protests and violence in the streets, and certain suicide at the polls.

It is a puzzle indeed.

What should concerned parliamentarians do?

The Speaker of the House, the Secretary to Parliament, the majority of the Government bench and the majority on the opposition benches, are indigenous Fijians.

What will the Speaker of the House do if any parliamentarian insists on speaking in the indigenous Fijian language (or Fiji Hindi)?  Keep expelling them from the House, and give easy and exciting news footage to the television stations?

Perhaps Opposition MPs could move a motion that parliamentarians be allowed to speak in whichever of the three languages they are comfortable.

If they had a secret ballot, they might even get the support of a number of Fiji First Party parliamentarians.

Picture
Indian Prime Minister addressing FNU audience in Hindi
Picture
"We made no inquiries about India or about the families people had left behind. When our ways of thinking had changed, and we wished to know, it was too late. I know nothing of the people on my father's side; I know only that some of them came from Nepal." "In England I am not English, in India I am not Indian. I am chained to the 1,000 square miles that is Trinidad; but I will evade that fate yet." Sir V. S. Naipaul

On January 26, 1965, Republic Day, in pursuant of Article 343 of the Constitution of India, Hindi became the sole official language of India. The South Indians (i.e. Madras State) lashed out against the Indian government's language policy and proclaimed the determination of the Tamil people to resist Hindi as an 'unwise, unjust and discriminatory tyranny'. The South Indians rose up against 'Hindi Imperialism' resulting in large-scale riots. Let us remind the Bainimarama government of Nehru's words: "----There must be no imposition..."

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

AND don't forget the linguistic roots of the Sri Lankan civil war: the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 by majority Sinhalese against minority Tamils

Picture
Narsey: Indian Prime Minister Modi, when he spoke a few days ago at the Fiji National University, spoke in Hindi, to the delight of the mostly Indo-Fijian audience (some 80 percent according to some estimates). While there was an appearance of spontaneity, the reality is that the Machiavellian organizers had preplanned this, and tried to prepare for it by ensuring that non-Hindi speakers all had ear-sets to listen to translations into English. The exercise according to some, was a failure, and many non-Hindi speakers could not listen to any English translation.
Picture
Modi's Hindi speech to FNU on his website: http://narendramodi.in/category/index/

Modi told FNU that India to play role of 'Visvaguru' to world; Modi said the coming age would be the age of knowledge, and India would once again perform the role of "Visvaguru". He said India's ancient sages had spoken of India's global responsibility, and the coming "Gyan Yug" would see India play a pivotal role, using the strengths of its
democracy and demographic dividend.



PictureAnit Singh
No Man or his Monkey can stop me from speaking in my mother-tongue.
Comment by Anit Singh whose party name FijiFirst was stolen by Khaiyum/Bainimarama

I convey easily what lingers on the surface usually in the English Language, no problems, but to convey the real feel of my inner-most, I usually resort to my mother-tongue, Fiji-Hindi.

For example, I like calling Aiyaz and Baimimarama –‘Intellectual Property Chors’ better and rather than calling them ‘Intellectual Property Thieves’. Now a ‘Thief’ or a ‘Butako’ or a ‘Chor’ may mean the same thing but the difference is in the feelings, evoking the correct sphere of your emotional intelligence, you see.

The word CHOR, in my mother-tongue, for me is more devious, more cunning, more conniving and more criminal …far more ‘low-down’ than the ordinary English word ‘Thief ‘would ever be.

The word CHOR for me … conjures the correct images, of yeh...the pitiable CHORS that Bainimarama and Aiyaz actually are- behind their fake and put-on persona of respectability, with their bull-shit RIGGED titles and fancy suits and stupid pink ties.

Them being ‘Intellectual Property CHORS, is a statement of FACT – an undeniable TRUTH.

Picture
11 Comments

VINAKA SEREVI: Fijileaks can reveal that it was Fiji's 'The Special One' who 'superfastly' stepped in to distribute $20,000 from Digicel to Vodafone Fiji 7s TEAM!

24/11/2014

1 Comment

 

COMING SOON: Vodafone Fiji Ltd donated thousands of dollars to SDL's business arm Duavata Initiative Ltd to fight the 2006 general election!

Picture

Picture
PictureGOLDEN HERO SEREVI
MYSTERY has surrounded the identity of the person who received F$20,000 from the mobile phone company Digicel to distribute to members of the victorious Vodafone-sponsored Fiji 7s team following their win at the Gold Coast 7s.

That person can now be revealed to be Fiji’s Special One Waisale Serevi – who has close relations with the Irish telecoms giant from when he was coach of the Fiji 7s side, when Digicel were its sponsors, and as a paid brand ambassador for the Digicel brand.

No confirmation was immediately available from Serevi or any of his representatives, but two sources within Rugby House have confirmed to Fijileaks that Serevi was the conduit for the players to receive their overdue bonuses which have been distributed according to the usual bonus protocols.

The startling news that Serevi, Fiji’s favourite sporting star bar none, has thrown his enormous popularity behind the cause of the Fiji 7s players shows how desperately unpopular Vodafone’s involvement with the Fiji Rugby Union has become.

Vodafone’s payment of the $20,000 bonus to the players for winning a 2014/2015 IRB 7s Series tournament has been delayed for reasons not explained by either Vodafone or the FRU and is such a bone of contention that even the timid Fiji media are asking questions.

The $20,000 offer is already $5000 less than Vodafone’s managing director promised to pay when they took over the sponsorship rights at the start of 2014 for any tournament wins in the remaining fixtures of the 2014 series. That $25,000 is already a cut of almost 2/3rds from the figure the team was playing for in seasons 2012/2013 and the first half of the 2013/2014 series, when Digicel were still the team’s title sponsors, and were paying the team a win bonus of $67,000.

Many questions still remain unanswered over Vodafone’s purported $40m, 5-year sponsorship agreement with the FRU which includes the enormously popular Fiji 7s team. Because of the repeated postponement of the FRU’s annual general meeting, provincial union delegates have not been able to cross-examine the FRU directors responsible for agreeing terms with Vodafone – which was heavily pushed by the FRU chairman Filimone Waqabaca, the permanent secretary Finance.

It now appears clear that Vodafone offered at least $7m less cash over the same period time than Digicel offered – which is why the sponsorship contract is subject to a High Court action.

For its part Vodafone huffed and puffed in a corporate press release that Digicel’s actions were nothing more than a ‘cheap ploy.’ The mobile giant added, ‘Wonder how FIRCA will treat such mysterious payments through a mysterious person?’ [They also referred to the Rio Olympics is taking place in 2015, and not 2016.]

Vodafone and the FRU will be praying that the involvement of a player of Serevi’s status – to facilitate payments promised but not delivered – will not catch the media’s imagination like a similar protest organised by the players of Manu Samoa against the Samoan Rugby Union. World opinion has fallen very much on the side of the players and against the Union, with Test players lining up to show their solidarity under #samoaunited

In the letters page of the Fiji Times (November 24), four letter writers were strongly in favour of Digicel, sharply criticising Vodafone (‘If Vodaphone [sic] and their consortium together with Rugby House do really care about the welfare of players and rugby for that matter, then the players ought to have been paid their bonuses for the Gold Coast Sevens win within two weeks after winning.’) while none supported the government’s favoured mobile network Vodafone.

Safe to assume that the Sri Lankan expat cabal of so-called marketing experts at the heart of the Vodafone-led FRU sponsorship consortium must be muttering dark thoughts about Waisale Serevi.


Digicel Fiji
November 18
Digicel to pay Gold Coast 7s heroes
Digicel makes $20,000 ex gratia payment to the heroes of the Gold Coast Sevens tournament:

Digicel confirmed today that a strong desire to ensure players are recognised for their outstanding achievements and motivated to continue is behind the mobile company making a $20,000 ex gratia payment to members of the winning Fiji Sevens squad from the Gold Coast tournament held in October. The company said it was concerned about recent coverage in the media concerning financial support for the national team.

Digicel Fiji Chief Executive Officer, Darren McLean says the company wants to see that there are no unnecessary distractions and that the positive momentum continues. “This is an important year for sevens rugby and I congratulate the coaching team for a fantastic start in the World Series with that great victory in Gold Coast last month but they can’t lose momentum as the top four places in the World Series qualify for the 2016 Rio Olympics. This ex gratia payment is about trying to ensure that the players are able to focus fully on their preparations.”

Digicel Fiji has proudly supported various sporting teams in Fiji since 2008. This has included sponsorships associated with Fiji’s number one national sporting body the Fiji Rugby Union. The mobile telecommunication company supported the FRU in 2006 even before getting a license to operate in the country. Digicel had announced in May 2006 a multi-million dollar deal for four years to sponsor the Fiji National 7s team, which was subsequently renewed.

Aside from the Fiji National 7s team Digicel also sponsored the local provincial competition known as the Digicel Cup from 2008 which supported the development of players at grassroots and provincial level. Digicel has also in the past sponsored various other sports federations and teams including Fiji Pearls Netball, the National Netball Champs, Suva Volleyball club league, Fiji Paralympics Sports, and the IRB Pacific Nations Cup in 2009. Digicel is proud to have been a financial supporter of these competitions and teams.

McLean added, “You need to look after these world class players and we need to treat them well if we are to retain them. I feel for these players who work so hard and put their bodies on the line for the country, bringing joy all across Fiji with their performances on the world stage.”

Digicel is delighted that the Fiji 7s Team has in recent years achieved outstanding results such as the only World Series title win in 2005/2006, the Gold medal win at the World Games in Taiwan 2009, the famous Hong Kong victory in 2009, 2011 and 2012 along with other tournament victories on the IRB World Series. Digicel believes in recognising talent and rewarding national talent for outstanding world class performances.
Picture
Digicel Fiji, November 20. Digicel supports Rotuma Athletics team: The Rotuma Athletics team received a major boost as they were presented with brand new competition uniform by Digicel Fiji today, on the eve of the two-day Central/Eastern FMF Chow Games to be held at the ANZ Stadium, Suva. Digicel Fiji’s Commercial Director, Mr. Andrew Skelton welcomed the 16-member team to Suva and presented new competition vests and shorts to them at the Digicel headquarters in Suva. “We are happy to sponsor our friends from Rotuma for the games,” said Skelton.
1 Comment

RESIGN YOU LYING MEDIA BULLY? MIDA chairman changes tune against Radio New Zealand after lying to UN that the radio station had apologized and retracted stories

23/11/2014

6 Comments

 

"Radio New Zealand's CEO, Paul Thompson, wrote to the UN to say there was indeed no apology for any racism, imbalance or inaccuracy."

REWARD FOR LYING TO THE UN: Khaiyum gives MIDA $300,000 of taxpayers money in his 2015 National Budget

Picture
Picture


 Updated at 9:28 am on 20 November 2014
The Fiji media watchdog has changed its racism allegations put to the United Nations Human Rights Council.


The Chairman of the Media Industry Development Authority, Ashwin Raj, recently told the UN both Al Jazeera and Radio New Zealand had apologised for and retracted stories about the Fiji election he said were racist, unbalanced and inaccurate.

Alex Perrottet reports the accusation of racism has now changed.

"Radio New Zealand's CEO, Paul Thompson, wrote to the UN to say there was indeed no apology for any racism, imbalance or inaccuracy. Mr Raj has now told Radio New Zealand that it was not racist in its reports, but that Al Jazeera was. He has not responded to questions on whether he could have been more accurate in his reporting to the United Nations. During the election week, RNZI made minor changes to some stories, but editors stress the content removed was factual and done to appease the authority, following threats over its journalists' accreditation. One story was on the Fiji public broadcaster's apparent breach of electoral laws, an issue that has still not prompted any official comment from Mr Raj."

Updated at 3:03 pm on 30 October 2014

Fiji's Media Industry Development Authority has accused Al Jazeera and Radio New Zealand of racism in their reporting of last month's election in Fiji.

Al-Jazeera and Radio New Zealand were among several foreign media organisations covering the event.

The allegation of racism was made by the head of MIDA, Ashwin Raj, in an address to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

"During the elections MIDA called for and received retractions and apologies from Radio New Zealand and Al Jazeera in relation to stories about Fiji which were racist, unbalanced and inaccurate."

Ashwin Raj gave no details of the alleged racism or imbalance.

Radio New Zealand International has rejected the allegations.

Picture
6 Comments

ROTTEN TO THE CORE: A YEAR LATER TOURISM FIJI AND KHAIYUM YET TO EXPLAIN DISCREPANCY IN OGILVY'S PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRACT AND DECLARATION STATEMENT

22/11/2014

3 Comments

 

Aiyaz Khaiyum declares in his 2015 Budget: $23.5m Marketing Grant for Tourism Fiji; Operating grant of $300,000 to MIDA; As we have repeatedly pointed out, Khaiyum brought in MIDA to ensure that Fijian press did not expose his rotten dealings and abuse of taxpayers funds while he ensured his opponents were convicted and jailed for very similar offences; now he has taken control of the national purse!

COMING SOON: He declared under his Political Parties Decree that he owns a plot of land worth $80,000 in Wailoaloa THROUGH Midlife Investments Ltd; Registrar of Companies informs VICTOR LAL the file on Midlife is NOT IN THEIR SYSTEM-IS KHAIYUM HIDING IT IN HIS OFFICE?

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
3 Comments
<<Previous
    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