If you were a mosquito on the wall of one of the several dozen meeting rooms in the sprawling complex of buildings and tents that hosted the 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), you would probably be smiling. Despite the moderately cold temperatures in Germany’s former capital, you’d probably understand that the planet will continue to warm to about 3 ̊C pre-industrial temperatures.

As a result, your natural habitat will expand the poorest sub-Saharan countries and over most of the world. More people would live in warmer temperatures, especially in developing countries, and your choice of food sources ad depositories for diseases you carry would become more plentiful.

But what is good for mosquitos is not so good for human beings. Global warming or the adverse effects of climate change poses significant risks for human health, something which the UNFCCC recognized more than 25 years ago in its very first paragraph of its operational part. This treaty has been ratified by 197 States and the European Union. Paragraph 1 of article 1 defined the “[a]dverse effects of climate change” to mean “changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.” In other words, serious consequences that will make life on our planet very difficult for many people or even impossible.

This treaty was intended to protect us from such harm by ensuring States take responsibility for, in the words of article 2, the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” These words remain devoid of real meaning as States have not taken their responsibilities seriously to date. Instead, the Baby boomer, Millennial, and X-generation of negotiators have treated the text as a puzzle to be fought over with little attention for its actual intention.

To further obscure their unwillingness to act, States in 2015 at COP21 in Paris, adopted the Paris Agreement. This agreement does very little to demand any action at all towards achieving the goals stated in article 2 of the UNFCCC above. The Paris Agreement does require States to report information to various forms of clearing houses who will store it or provide it to the public. It also encourages more dialogue. But neither scientific information or dialogue are the solution. It is only action that can “save the world” in the way children from Bonn’s international School meant as they shouted to delegates before singing them nice songs at the opening of COP23.

The tropical Island of Fiji was the formal host of COP23, but it was ironically held in the frigid city of Bonn, Germany, apparently because the Island State was not in a position to host it at home. The irony was not apparent to most delegates who had never ventured Pacific Island, but many of Fiji’s Islands may disappear or be subject to such turbulent weather conditions that not only COPs can’t be held there, but many in their permanent population will have to flee for their lives.

Nevertheless, when State delegates from almost every country in the world sat down to negotiate a solution to these problems they did so with the pedantic attention of an intellectual applying him or herself to a Sunday newspaper crossword puzzle. The big picture seemed to disappear. Negotiations were largely secret and lacked real participation by civil society, which was kept at an arm’s distance. More distressingly the larger picture seemed to be lost to the individual challenges of filling in the correct words here and there. Even a seasoned treaty negotiator would have wondered at how the climate negotiators were able to often ignore the larger picture.

While most examples did not appear to the public eye the few that did were troubling. When discussing how to deal with unavoidable damage calls for more dialogue and workshops replaced concrete obligations to come up with resources that are needed to save lives. Again, when discussing the reports of funds that might provide those resources the arguments were about how much to congratulate States that had pledged, not even yet provided resources, that by the pledge alone were only a fraction of the need. Concrete action to increase ambition around resources was rejected off-hand. In fact, any attempt to create concrete mechanisms to deal with resources, obligations to cut emissions, obligations to protect people, were meet with meaningless concession of more meetings, more workshops, or more dialogue. One older Italian Observer intimated that it was like watching a fiddler play a beautiful melody as Rome was burning to the ground.

Some of the complacency may have been due to the laid back approach of the Fiji Presidency. Fijians portrayed themselves as some of the friendliest and most welcoming and cooperative people. The Fijian Presidency of COP23, under the auspices of Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, was characterized by empathy for the plight of such friendly people. COP23 open and closed with touching songs of thanksgiving. Throughout COP23 Fiji tried to impress the values of Bula (friendly welcome) and Talanoa (listening to each other) on the process. Indeed, it made it more humane and at times very pleasant.

But while South Pacific hospitality was on display, a good number of the State Parties were drilling holes in the canoe, as one delegate put it referring to the Fijian traditional canoe in the entrance hall that the Presidency frequent referenced as the symbol of the voyage that had to be taken collectively. In the preparations for COP23 the Fijian Presidency graciously accepted the support of richer countries who paid for foreign consultants who displaced even Fijians on the host country’s delegation. Reliable sources indicated that the chief Fijian negotiation Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan, the country’s ambassador the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, had been told what she could and could not emphasize at COP23 by foreign consultants. And developed States, just as they had done in Durban, in very polite tones threatened to make the meeting a failure if the Presidency was not compliant.

Similar to COP21 in Paris when the French Presidency created a celebratory feel-good sensation with the adoption of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, two years’ later the same differences that made that Agreement so weak remained obstacles to action in Bonn. Once again developed States generally refused to give up advantages they have claimed for themselves through centuries of over-exploitation of the planet’s atmosphere. Developing States, who are already doing more than their richer counterparts, refused to continue to shoulder the burden of addressing climate change without significant financial support that they require to sustain their own economic development, but could not muster the unity that might leverage action.

By the time COP23 adjourned at 7 a.m. on Saturday morning 18 November 2017, almost 24 hours overtime and with many items left open and unresolved, there was a general fatigue ostensibly from the repetition of differences that just seemed not to go away as much as from the all-night session that followed 15 hours of frenzied negotiations.

During COP23 and the several negotiation streams concerning the Paris Agreement it became apparent that the Agreement was seen by delegates as a concession to the status quo, rather than the step forward that it had be touted as being. Indeed, it became clear that the value of the agreement depends on how it can inspire the action that is needed through its multiple reporting requirements and general voluntary review processes. Neither the reporting requirements or general voluntary review processes were agreed, however, and discussion wil continue on them at the next COP and interim meetings.

Virtually no progress was made on taking action. Both the provision of resources and the mitigation of greenhouse gases must come from developed countries, but they showed no willingness to live up to this responsibility. The consequence of this abrogation of responsibility is increasingly seen in the damage it does to human beings and their environment, but nothing was done to provide remedies.

On 28 June 2017, before the 23rd edition of the global climate summit got underway, a group of scientists and prominent actors in the climate negotiations published a comment in Nature that warned that we only have three years left to reverse the adverse effects of climate change. One of the co-authors Sharan Burrows told Popular Science that, “We’re already seeing climate devastation changing seasons, changing people’s livelihoods, and even their lives.”

During COP23 a commentary entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” appeared in the scientific journal BioScience, signed by 15,364 leading scientists from 184 countries. The scientists warn that we are “not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperiled biosphere.” It concludes by acknowledging that “[s]oon  it  will  be too  late  to  shift  course  away  from  our  failing  trajectory,  and  time  is  running  out,” and consequently, “[w]e  must  recognize,  in  our  day-to-day   lives   and   in   our   governing   institutions,  that  Earth  with  all  its  life  is our only home.”

As COP23 began there was sober feeling of urgency among Observers or non-State actors. State delegates, however, seemed reconciled to business as usual. The annual pre-COP discussion among groups of States delivered no creative solutions for bridging the impasse that prevent the climate action and seemed to merely entrench State’s policy positions. The Fijian Secretariat appeared overwhelmed amid rumours that it had a team of Baker & Makenzie consultants showing it the way and sometimes pressuring Fiji to act against its own best interests. An example was the Fiji Presidency’s refusal to fight for a robust loss and damage text.

Undoubtedly, one of the most disappointing decisions concerned loss and damage, which provides support to countries for the adverse effects of climate change that can no longer be avoided. Developing countries had called for a permanent agenda item on loss and damage and an expert group. Again, developed countries blocked anything having the possible consequence of raising adequate funds and merely agreed to a paltry single expert dialogue in 2018.

Failure to agree on precise form. Even linking Loss and Damage to finance was not agreed. Developed countries did not want to commit to giving resources to address the loss and damage suffered by developing states. This raised serious questions about the good faith of developed states in even including loss and damage, which was a condition of many developing states agreeing to the Paris Agreement.

The new Global Stocktake (GST), transparency and compliance negotiations ended with weak compromises that ether promised action, nor fully encouraged it.  A more than 180-page document formed the basis of the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement including the GST, the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and the compliance mechanism. This document will have to be significantly trimmed down, but that will be a monumental task on which there are divergent views.
On adaptation, the action to react to the adverse effects of climate change before they could harm the population or at least before they became too dangerous, little was agreed. In the end, the advance that was made was merely to bring Adaptation onto the Paris Agreement agenda, when most States already believed that it was there.
Noting the relationship between loss and damage and finance, Harjeet Singh of ActionAid International writing in Scroll.in on 16 November 2017, noted that “[f]inance remains the most important as well as the [most] contentious issue at the table since the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was established.”
Indeed, in Bonn finance appeared to be both the central issue and a topic prone to open old wounds between developed and developing countries that even Fiji’s Talanoa dialogue could not overcome.

The most heated debates boiled around finance at COP23. From the mere adoption of a report on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to providing guidance to the long-existing Global Environmental Fund (GEF), States and groups of States bucked heads over both minor and major finance issues. The adoption of the GCF Report was held up for days over how much to congratulate the European Union from promising money that they had both not yet actually given and which was far short of the projected needs. The COP’s guidance to the GEF stalled over language encouraging the GEF to ensure financing for climate change, only one of several matters its funds.

Perhaps most striking of the finance debates was the fact that the United States emerged from it rather passive positions on other issues to frequently block consensus. Little concern seemed to be given to the United States’ record of berating developing States for blocking consensus when they thought the action agree was too weak. Instead, the United States seemed proud to defend its standing in the way of stronger action by blocking language that was agreed by other States.

As a result, the decisions on finance are among the weakest to emerge not merely from this COP but since COP21 in Paris when a decision was taken to avoid finance decision altogether. At the same time, the urgency of implementing action pushed questions of finance to the forefront.

On long-term finance the COP seemed to be running in circles authorizing workshops dialogues, but making little progress securing the US$100 billion per year for climate finance that was promised or the estimated as high as 6 trillion that is needed per year.

Some advances were made as a decision was taken to include issues related to agriculture and food security in the work the COP’s subsidiary bodies. The short decision leaves much to still be decided, but it is the first time that issues of agriculture and food security have made it on to the agenda after years of lobbying by indigenous and framers groups.

Women also booked a well-deserved win as COP23 advanced and adopted a Gender Action Plan after years of discussion about how to address gender and climate change. Similarly, the indigenous peoples and communities’ platform was adopted, which operationalized the concern for indigenous peoples that was agreed a few years ago. And for the Pacific Islands and something close to the heart of the Fiji Presidency as loosely related ‘Oceans Pathways’ was announced as an effort to protect our oceans from the adverse effects of climate change. Also inspired by the ‘Island COP’ was the Talanoa Dialogue. It was agreed this dialogue would discuss ambition in two stages: a preparatory phase and a political phase.

The Final COP decision also refers to “a stocktake on pre-2020 implementation and ambition” to be held at COP24. This stock will also consider financing, although the modalities will be based on the rather lightweight modality of the facilitative dialogue that took place at COP22 in Marrakech.

Perhaps the brightest stop during the otherwise usually dreary rainy days in Bonn came from the youth. For years, the youth constituency has been perhaps the most honest and committed of all Observers. They saw through the façade of the Paris Agreement and used their 1:30 am speaking slot at the end of COP21—well after all the celebrating had died down—to roundly condemn the weak global leadership of national governments. It was the only time that the President and French Foreign Minister, who had just stepped back on to the podium, seemed visibly shaken by public criticism of the instrument he had orchestrated.

Just prior to COP23 the Youth held their 13th Conference of Youth (COY13) with more than 1500 youth from over 110 countries participating in meetings from 2 to 4 November. The youth constituency or YOUNGO were also out in force at COP23.

The German youth led the way aiming resolutely at the just re-elected German government of Angela Merkel and her cozy ties with the fossil fuel industry. On the last Tuesday of COP23 the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations held a press conference demanding that the German government phase out of coal by 2030.

Youth from the US both joined with US politicians who supported climate action and criticized them for not doing enough. Their main target seemed to be the American President Donald Trump who was bellowing CO2 from fossil fuel into the atmosphere as he jetted around the Far East in the massive gas guzzling Air Force One, a Boeing 747 converted to luxury hotel, situation room and press room in the air.

It wasn’t his immediate pollution the American youth were worried about as much as the Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement and state publicly that he was go to do little about climate change.
When the youth finally received the chance to offer their general statements at the end of all the State and intergovernmental interventions in the plenary, youth representative Etinosa Ebinor called for States to take more honest and stronger action on finance. She also criticized the COP for limiting access of civil society saying youth needed to be in the rom to keep States honest.

Despite hosting the climate conference and being the permanent seat of the UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn was not hesitant to boast of Germany’s polluting practices. Conference delegates arriving at the nearby metro station were greeted by large photos of German brown coal quarries and displays mocking the government’s alleged commitment to climate action with documented stories about how it was failing to take action.

At the same time, German technology seemed to fail when it was being showcased. Deutsche Telkom’s Wifi service was almost unusable for the first seven days of the Conference, although it marginally improved after hundreds of complaints from frustrated delegates. Similarly, while trying to show off carbon-neutral means of transportation the local transport authorities couldn’t seem to keep even a semblance of a timetable. Riders were left to wait for sometimes more than an hour for late trains or buses in near freezing temperatures at night and often forced to resort to usual fossil-fueled means of transport to get around.

Inside the conference venues, temperatures fluctuated between almost freezing and tropically warm. Little thought seemed to be given to the army of Aggreko diesel generators that were providing the poorly regulated heating.

The traffic and communications chaos perhaps underlined the fact that go[o]d intentions are not enough even when the capacity to act competently is present. Most delegates and the two dozen or so world leaders who attended are probably starting to wonder whether the climate action we need will ever been taken.  After 25 years of negotiations, they know with their colleagues that action could be taken if there was just the will to look the truth in the face and act with consequences.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a fair legal framework based on principles of accountability, transparency and good governance when the Constitution has declared no one can challenge in a Court of law the validity of the 2013 Constitution, or any Decrees made between December 5, 2006 (the day after the coup) and the first sitting of Parliament 2014.
 
The Government decreed that there will be no accountability for any illegality, wrong decisions. misuse of public funds, other corruption, criminal acts, including the unlawful overthrow of an elected government.You cannot complain to the Human Rights Commission for any breach of human rights in those eight years. The coup perpetrators have given themselves immunity from prosecution. The Auditor General’s Report for that period have not been released to the public.
 
The Decrees of that period still apply even though they may be in conflict with the Bill of Rights under the Decreed Constitution (Section 172(3)(4)(5). We cannot change the Constitution unless three quarters of the Members of Parliament approve and then three quarter of the votes of people in a Referendum (Section 160). This is imposed by a Constitution that people had no say in its formation and was not passed by a Parliament.Yet the Preamble begins with WE THE PEOPLE OF FIJI…. declare our commitment to justice, human rights and so on.

The 2013 Constitution is not a fair legal framework because its provisions for change are almost impossible to achieve.  It is not impartial when under Section 23(4) of its Bill of Rights, two elected former Prime Ministers, Hon Mahendra Chaudhry and Hon Laisenia Qarase have no political right at all to stand in any Elections.  That is the prohibition laid down by those who came to power through the 2006 Military Coup. 

So, what’s the meaning of this commitment to human rights and justice in the Preamble?

Parliament under the Decreed 2013 Constitution is a dictatorship and not a democratic body. There is no accountability or consensus there.  In the Parliamentary Committees, the Opposition Member’s views, and indeed the public views, of those that appear before those Committees of the Bills, are not respected by the government.  We have no influence at all on the Bills the Opposition discuss with the Government members.  The Minister responsible for the draft Bills will not accept any changes recommended from the Parliamentary Committees, especially if the Opposition Members have made them.

There is no transparency or respect of the rule of law in this Parliament. Last year the Government, under the guidance of the Attorney General, expelled from Parliament three Members of the Opposition when it had no power under the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act to do this. It was also in breach of Parliamentary Standing Orders.  Then this was followed up by a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act so Parliament can sit like a High Court and fine Members and citizen up to $100,000 dollars, or imprison them up to five years for the crime of “demeaning the dignity of Parliament”. What does dignity mean in a Parliament that is a mere front for the dictatorship of two men?

Chapters 8 on Accountability, Section 149 of the Constitution requires a law to establish a Code of Conduct applicable to the President, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, Permanent Secretaries, Members of Commissions, Ambassadors, Executives of Statutory Bodies and Public Offices appointed under written law.  There is no Code of Conduct Act in place even though it is required under the Constitution.  And in the social media we read a lot of allegations of illegal and bad conduct. Now we learn that the Ministry of Information wants to introduce laws and technology to eliminate criticism of Government through the social media such as Facebook.

A Code of Conduct Bill was introduced in 2016 and referred to the Parliamentary Committee.  The Code of Conduct Bill has so much wrong with it.  It is not intended for serious investigations of corruption, abuse of office, neglect of duty and improper conduct.  Complaints against high office holders will not be taken seriously because these can be summarily dismissed as “pure speculation, frivolous, vexatious or politically motivated”.  Some public officers and Executive positions in government owned corporations are not included in the Bill. Complainants are required to be secretive and they are not to discuss their grievance with anybody, otherwise their complaint will be summarily dismissed.  In other words, you cannot ask anybody for advice before you submit a complaint.  The Bill is more about preventing any serious investigation.

Under Section 149(a) of the Constitution, the Government is also required to establish an Accountability and Transparency Commission to be responsible for enforcing compliance of Office holders with the Code of Conduct.  No such body has been established by the Government after eleven years in office. 

During the early years of its rule, we often heard the Attorney General Aiyaz Khaiyum rabbiting on about the lack of good governance, responsiveness, accountability and transparency, especially of elected governments before the 2006 coup. He often said he is going to introduce good governance qualities and “true democracy”. Well, he has been in office for over a decade. We no longer hear these sanctimonious preaching from him.

Under Part B of the Accountability Chapter of the Decreed Constitution it says:

Section 150 – A written law shall make provision for the exercise by members of the public of the right to access official information and documents held by the Government and its agencies”.

An Official Information Bill was introduced to Parliament last year and referred to the Parliamentary Committee.  My NGO, Pacific Dialogue, made submissions to the Committee on this Bill.  We found it to be the most ridiculous Bill we have ever read.  Its provisions were more about prevention and restriction of official information from being released.  To the Chairman of the Committee, Hon Sunil Sudakhar, we contrasted its restrictive provisions with those of Freedom of Information laws in other countries like New Zealand for example.  And even submitted to the Committee a draft Freedom of Information Bill made by the Yash Ghai Constitution Commission. We recommended that the Government replace its Bill with that one because it was the most recent model.  One and half years have gone and we have not seen their Official Information Bill back in Parliament. Remember that Yash Ghai Constitution Commission and what happened to it? Its Report was burned. 

However, in February this year the Attorney General got a Bill for the privatisation of the Fiji Electricity Authority taken to Parliament as an “emergency” legislation, without Members having any opportunity to read it.  It was not referred to a Parliamentary Committee for public scrutiny. Mr Khaiyum could not explain why this Bill was emergency under Standing Orders or any public interest justification for it. 

This month, before the Prime Minister went to Bonn for the COP23 Conference we read of a $100million flotation by the Reserve Bank of “Green Bond” at 6.3% interest for 13years to establish a fund for climate change damages and renewable energy.  This offer to unknown overseas subscribers was made even though Reserve Banks all round the world were getting bond investment at no interest or negative interest rates. I say this is a bogus fund for the indirect privatisation of the Fiji Electricity Authority by unknown foreign investors.  You see, if foreign interests want legislative changes to serve their predatory interest, this Government will break all the rules to provide for their need.  But if the laws need to change in the public interest of the people of Fiji, the Bills might just make an appearance in Parliament and then put on the back burner and forgotten.

This government is increasingly falling under the control of foreign creditors whose only interest is payment of interest on loans. They are not genuine investors because their interest in Fiji is speculative and short term. If there are problems in the payment of loans, then public assets such as the FEA, the Fiji Ports, Fiji Airports, Air Pacific, Fiji National Provident Fund, the Water Authority, the Reserve Bank, Fiji Development Bank, Housing Finance Corporation, Housing Authority and the others will be sold.  You may not know that some of these public enterprises are already partially privatised. It happened during the 8 years before the 2014 Elections.

Privatisation as the means for paying debts has happened in many countries all over the world. In bankrupt Greece for example, 90% of the recent 130 billion-euro dollars of the emergency loans from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund never arrive in the Greek economy because they go to pay overseas creditors and bond holders. State taxers are taken including reduction in pensions and massive layoffs of employers in the public sector had to cease so Greece has to sell off public assets including roads, gas fields, mines and even tourist resorts islands to pay these creditors. This is the future Fiji faces under this Government.

When you have Media Decrees under which the Fiji Times Editor and Publisher are prosecuted for seditious publications, fined $300,000 and have two years suspended jail sentences hanging over them and, another prosecution for seditious publications in Nai Lalakai, how can we have proper democratic accountability of Government through the media? The media is intimidated into silence, self-censorship and suppression of news about Government corruption and abuse of power.

And then we have the Fiji Sun. It had opposed the coup of 2006. So, “principled” was the Fiji Sun between 2006 and 2009 that it used to refuse publication of statements from the Government it then considered illegal. What is the Fiji Sun today? A craven government newspaper that publishes everything the Government wants to publish, will not allow any criticism of the government on its pages, does not publish Opposition statements but only publishes the Attorney General’s attacks on statements of the Opposition that were never published in the Fiji Sun. The Fiji Sun letters to the Editor column gives special privilege to Government supporters to criticise the Opposition parties on issues that were never published in that paper. And where are the Fiji Sun journalists that we so opposed to the 2006 coup?  They are still there.  The paper is now controlled by a “Training Officer” who is a New Zealand citizen.  We need to ask who pays his salary? Why did he come back here to support the Coup regime and remain it’s main apologist and defender?

You may, remember Prime Minister Bainimarama’s first press interview after deposing the elected Government in 2006?  He said no one is going to benefit from his coup.  It was about cleaning up corruption.  In the words, he was selling it as a “Good Governance Coup” and remain its main apologist and defender?

What is accountability and transparency when FB and ASK, according to certain blog sites, are paid more than the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers. If this information is incorrect, why not publish the correct information so everyone knows how much our leaders are receiving from taxpayers and external funds?

For that matter, why do we not know how much the Cabinet Members were receiving in salaries between 2007 and 2014 when they were being paid by Dr Nur Bano’s Accountancy firm? No investigation took place because under the Decreed 2013 Constitution, the Government never did anything wrong in its first 8 eight years and, with the non-introduction of a Code of Conduct law, the government remains unaccountable for another 4 years. Are Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama getting payoffs for the bogus Green Fund Investment?

Finally, I have to mention the Multinational Observer Group Report and the Electoral Commission Report 2014.  They have made many good recommendations to improve the electoral system.  Some involve changes to processes and other mean changes to the relevant Decrees.  In any genuinely democratic country that believes in free and fair elections, the Government would deal with these recommendations in a transparent and bipartisan manner so that all stakeholder political parties and members of the public can be involved in building consensus for changes to the system before the 2018 Elections. 

Instead, the government has replaced the first Electoral Commission with its own political appointments and amended the Electoral Decree so that the reappointed Supervisor of Elections is now directing the Electoral Commission as its Secretary.  This has compromised the independence of these offices. This is the Supervisor of Elections that the Court of Appeal had ruled last year that he had unlawfully disobeyed the direction of the Electoral Commission to disqualify candidate Mr. Praveen Bala who is now Minister for Local Government and to allow Steven Singh a Labour Party candidate to stand.  Mr Saneem should have resigned because of the Court ruling but he is still there.

The Commission and the Supervisor have rejected most of the recommendations of these Reports, instead of advising the Government on how the Electoral Decrees need to change.  The Opposition Parties do not believe there will be free and fair elections in 2018.  The Elections will be rigged just as it was in 2014. For those who want to know how it was rigged talk to me after this and I will explain.

We can say that this Government falls short of internationally accepted measures of transparency, accountability and good governance.  It has sophisticated public relations through its foreign Media agency QORVIS, but the public is never provided with real information about its decision making and how these are made and why some commitments are not implemented.  The public impression is that the person who makes all the decisions of this government is the “Minister for Everything” Mr Aiyaz Khaiyum.  He is the elephant in the room. The rogue elephant.

There is so much we can say on this subject of lack of Good Governance, Accountability and Transparency but I will now stop so you can talk about the hope for better things after 2018.

Fijileaks: Jone Dakuvula had spelled out to the FLP convention the following as he understood:

GOVERNANCE

“Governance is the manner of steering or governing or directing and controlling a group of people or state.  Governance is “the process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented, or not implemented”. (Wikipedia)
Governance is related to politics in that politics is defined as “the art of governance”.

Eight key elements of good governance:

1. The rule of law, which means fair legal framework that are enforced by impartial regulatory bodies
2. Transparency
3. Responsiveness
4. Consensus oriented
5. Equity and inclusiveness
6. Effectiveness and efficiency
7. Accountability
8. Participation

The World Bank says good governance indicators are:

• Voice and accountability
• Political stability
• Lack of violence
• Government effectiveness
• Regulatory quality through the rule of law
• Control of Corruption

Voice and Accountability means how citizens can express preferences, secure their rights, make demands on the state and ultimately achieve better development outcomes. Whew! That is a lot on the requirement of Good Governance. Some will say we need further definition but I will leave that to the academics at our Universities.
 
 
ACCOUNTABILITY
Basically, it means being able to account for one’s actions. In other words, governance is being willing to be answerable, to give account for ones’ actions, to accept blame and liability for wrong actions and their consequences which means punishment by law for misconduct. 

Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practises.  In the absence of accounting procedure, there is no accountability.  (For example, the function of an independent Auditor General’s Office and a Parliment Public Accounts Committee).

Political accountability means the accountability of the government, politicians and civil servants to the public and to Parliament.  In Parliament, the government relies on the support of Parliament, which has the power to hold the government to account. Parliament in some countries can pass a vote of no confidence in the Government, but in theory only, under Fiji Parliament, as you know.

In a democracy, regular elections and the existence of, and effective functioning of other non-government institution are important to the accountability of leaders in government.  These institutions are strong civil society organisations, independent news media, effective political parties, and auditors. Also, vital, are Independent Universities that conduct research, publish and comment publicly with expertise about concerns of people, including the decisions and activities of Government.

TRANSPARENCY

Political transparency means to hold public officials accountable and fight corruption. Openness, accountability and honesty define Government transparency.  In a free society, transparency is a government obligation to share information with its citizens.  It is at the heart of how citizens hold public officials accountable. (Wikipedia)

Father Barr slams crony capitalism at Fiji Labour Party Convention

The “greed and self-interest” of a small lobby of employers who exercise undue influence with the government have successfully blocked wage increases for workers for years, Father Kevin Barr told the Fiji Labour Party convention on Saturday.

Speaking on Social Justice and Equity, Father Barr who was appointed independent Chair of 10 Wages Councils in 2008 but resigned in frustration in 2012, said during his 4-year tenure three different proposals for wage increases for the sector, were knocked back by the Bainimarama regime under pressure from a “small group of influential employers”.

“In other words every wage proposal made by the Wages Councils had been opposed by a small group of influential employers. What is worse government allowed this greedy and selfish group of employers to get their own way and crush the hopes and dreams of the workers of the country for modest wage increases to assist them cope with the rapidly increasing cost of living,” he said.

Calling this crony capitalism, he said: “ The Ministry of Labour through the Wages Councils is supposed to be protecting the interests of the workers of the country. However, others in government continually allowed a few of their employer friends to influence them to obstruct the established process and called for delays and decreases.”

Recounting his experience as head of Wages councils, Father Barr said when he took over in 2008, the workers had received no increases for three years.

• 1st proposed increases were to come into effect on 1st February 2009. But “without any consultation, it was announced that, under pressure from a strong lobby of employers, the Wage Regulation Orders would be deferred to 1st July 2009.

• 2nd proposed increases were to come into effect 1July 2010. But was deferred for 10 months until 1st May 2011 and then reduced by 5%.

The deferment and reductions were done without any consultation with the Wages Councils. “The work of the Wages council was being interfered with by some outspoken employers with government,” he said.

No meetings of the Wages Council were held in 2011, he said, because of the stubborn determination of the Permanent Secretary to have a formula which was unacceptable to all parties based on misinterpreted “productivity”.

• 3rd proposed increases were in early 2012 when the Wages Councils next met. These were to come into effect on 15 August 2012. But again without any consultation, it was announced through the media that the wage increases had been deferred to 31st October. Meanwhile, the Wages Councils would be asked to reconsider the increase because of objections from some employers (who were already members of the Wages Councils).

“When I heard the media announcement, I was outraged and considered the lack of proper consultation most unacceptable. It showed no respect for the members of the Wages Councils who had worked so hard to reach consensus... Above all, it showed no concern for the workers – the 60% of those in full time employment who are covered by the Wages Councils and earn below the poverty line (wages).”

Father Barr resigned from Chair of the Council a few days later (18 August 2012) in protest, he said, at the suffering of the workers who were receiving very low wages. And because government was allowing employers to “dominate the 10 Wages Regulation Orders without taking into consideration the plight of the workers.

He told the FLP convention on Saturday that there was a lot of lip service from government on concern for all citizens including the poor and the marginalized, yet it had proved to be “pro-investor and anti-worker”.

The 20% devaluation of the dollar (April 2009) forced food prices up 38% and building materials 29% but wages remained the same. He said the increase in the national minimum wage to $2.68c an hour this year, was “totally inadequate in terms of justice”.

Father Barr said those who spoke out in protest against such treatment of workers were making a stand against the “injustices perpetrated on our workers.

“It is a stand against greed and selfishness and a lack of concern for the needs of workers and their families. It is a stand for justice. Our concern about wages has been motivated in large part by the growth in poverty and inequality and the serious effect it has on the families of workers.”

Chief Magistrate Usaia Ratuvili will deliver his judgement in former Education Minister Doctor Mahendra Reddy’s trial next Friday.

It is alleged that Doctor Mahendra Reddy, on or about 8th May this year, in Rakiraki, in order to influence the vote of Waisea Lebobo, the Manager of Ra High School, directly conferred or offered to confer a benefit namely a steady water source for Ra High School.

It is also alleged that Doctor Reddy on or about 8th May this year, in Rakiraki, interfered with the free exercise or performance of a political right of Waisea Lebobo that is relevant to the 2018 election.

Doctor Reddy has pleaded not guilty to one count of bribery and one count of undue influence.

The maximum penalty for each count upon conviction is a fine not exceeding $50,000 or a prison term not exceeding 10 years. Source: Fijivillage News

Germany faces the possibility of new elections after the small Free Democrats pulled out of talks on forming a government with chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative bloc and the Greens, saying that the parties were unable to develop an acceptable framework for moving ahead.

Free Democrat leader Christian Lindner told reporters that his party decided to withdraw from the drawn-out negotiations rather than further compromise its principles.

"It is better not to govern, than to govern falsely," he said.

Without the Free Democrats, Ms Merkel will be forced to try to continue her current governing coalition with the Social Democrats, although that centre-left party has said it will not do so, or she could try to form a minority government, which is seen as unlikely. Otherwise Germany will have to hold new elections.

Ms Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and sister Bavaria-only Christian Social Union, the pro-business Free Democrats and the left-leaning Greens had already blown past Ms Merkel's own deadline of Thursday to agree on a basis for opening formal negotiations on a coalition of all four parties, a configuration that has never been tried at a national level in Germany.

Greens politician Reinhard Buetikofer criticised Mr Lindner's decision, saying on Twitter that the Free Democrat leader had chosen "a kind of populist agitation instead of governmental responsibility".

Key sticking points were the issues of migration and climate change.

Among other things the Greens were pushing for Germany to end its use of coal and combustion engines by 2030, though they had signalled they were open to some compromise.

The other parties are also committed to reducing carbon emissions, but Ms Merkel's bloc had not put a date on when to phase out coal. The Free Democrats also expressed concern about what the moves would mean for jobs and Germany's economic competitiveness.

On migration, the Christian Social Union was pushing for an annual cap on refugees, while the Greens wanted to allow more categories of recent migrants to bring their closest relatives to join them.

The centre-left Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's partners in the outgoing government, have been adamant about going into opposition after a disastrous result in the September 24 election. Party leader Martin Schulz on Sunday again ruled out the possibility of pairing up with Ms Merkel's bloc to form a new government. Source: The Independent, London 20 November 2017

The success of Fiji’s Presidency of COP23 will be celebrated at Albert Park in Suva on Friday.

Permanent Secretary for I-taukei affairs Naipote Katonitabua says that a deserving celebration is fitting as this is the first time a small Pacific Island Nation took up the role of Presidency.

Naipote says that members of the public are invited to attend the event to celebrate a milestone achievement that we as a nation have all contributed towards.

The event which is the “Vakasenuqanuqa” will start with a march from the Suva Bus Stand at 9.30am while the traditional ceremony will start at 11am.

The Ministry of i-taukei affairs has also reached out to the Vanua for their participation at the event.

The formalities will include the I-vakasobu, Qaloqalovi, vakamamaca, Sevusevu and other traditional protocols and will also feature some entertainment.

An event room will also be set up to showcase what the team had covered during the COP23.

The Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and the team will arrive in the country tomorrow afternoon. Source: Fijivillage News, 20 November 2017

WHERE THERE'S A WILL
The Fiji Times
Thursday, 16 November 2017

WHEN his pension as a former prime minister was stopped in 2006, Sitiveni Rabuka started selling plastic bottles and coconuts to supplement his family's income.

This habit of the former PM and Social Democratic Liberal Party leader has not stopped because he believes he has shown his children and grandchildren that where there is a will, there is a way.

Apart from supplementing his income, he believes collecting plastic bottles for recycling makes him and his family keep the environment clean.

Mr Rabuka said there was great satisfaction in gainful work and most of the money earned from selling plastic bottles and coconuts was used for everyday expenses.

"I started picking up plastic bottles and my family also helped, after a Suva foreshore clean-up drive was done by some civil servants and youth groups, and I felt it would be both financially rewarding in a small way, and also a civic service in keeping our foreshore, ocean and city clean and tidy," he said.

"Although my pension entitlements have been partially restored, we have continued to collect plastic bottles for recycling."

Mr Rabuka said he started collecting coconuts after receiving a contract to supply the nuts to a food processor.
"I applied and got a contract to sell coconuts to Food Processors at Vatuwaqa, both to earn some money and to help the people of my village and some villages in Natewa earn some money.

"They and I found that it was less tiring and more rewarding to sell nuts than to cut and dry copra, transport it down to Savusavu to sell at Copra Millers factory in Balaga.

"Although I also obtained a copra buying license from the Coconut Industry Development Authority, I stopped buying both raw (Niu droka) and dried copra when my copra dryer was burnt accidentally while being used by a relative in my village.

"While I did these in a casual way, I was also involved in the sale of some of my properties to keep up with my mortgage payments."

Mr Rabuka said he also maintained some international and local speaking engagements, and helped manage an international coconut oil company in Vanuatu.

He resigned from the company after it changed ownership.

He said he could not recall how much he used to earn after selling plastic bottles and coconuts.

"I cannot recall, but I remember that much of it resulted in a trading loss and was reflected in my tax returns over the years.

"I have stopped buying and selling coconuts and copra, but continue to pick and recycle plastic bottles. There is a bag at home that is nearly full for sale at Coca Cola facilities in Kinoya."

Mr Rabuka said he bought two investment properties from the money he made from the sale of his freehold property.

"Helped one church in Pacific Harbour with their hall, one in Lami with the new roof of their church, bought all the pews for a church in Nasinu, financed the logistics in the acquisition of an ambulance for St John Association, support QVS athletics team and QVSOB rugby teams in Suva, Lautoka and Savusavu — so I was not only selling bottles, as some people think.

"I have been receiving a large part of my pension entitlements, and I am grateful to the (then) interim government for restoring it. I was only deprived my full entitlements for about six months.

"While I did not make much from plastic bottles and coconuts, I made my million in my property sales and paid a lot of tax for it."

Mr Rabuka said when one struggles, unity never fails and never says die.

Describing the challenges life brought to him, Mr Rabuka made reference to his favourite poem "IF" by Rudyard Kipling.

"Unity never fails because when I struggled, my family, church, vanua and friends supported me in a big united team," he said.

Mnangagwa, 75, is a notorious and much-feared figure in Zimbabwe, having led a vicious crackdown on opponents in the 1980s with the help of the dreaded North Korean-trained Fifth Army brigade. 

Thousands of civilians were killed during the Gukurahundi campaign, but Mnangagwa has always denied involvement. 

His reputation for cruelty is so legendary that he was one of the few leaders of Zimbabwe known to drive around the country without security.

He is also known for his unpredictable darting eyes. 

He has had a long and varied political career, leading at one point the justice, defence, housing and finance ministries as well as being the speaker of the lower house and a spymaster.

Mnangagwa was widely viewed as Mugabe's successor until he was ditched by the president last week and fled to South Africa.

Mugabe had accused his former deputy of plotting to take power from him, while his ambitious wife Grace referred to him as a snake that 'must be hit on the head' after the two clashed.

Last month she warned of a possible coup being orchestrated by Vice President Mnangagwa amid a heated power struggle.

She claimed his allies were threatening to kill people who did not support his bid to succeed Mugabe.  
  
Grace recently told supporters: 'In 1980 this person called Mnangagwa wanted to stage a coup. He wanted to wrestle power from the president. 

'He was conspiring with whites. That man is a ravisher. Source: The Daily Mail, London, 15 November 2017