Blog Archives

COUP, WHAT COUP? Zimbabwean army takes control of capital Harare and TV station but denies coup against Dictator Robert Mugabe. Army spokesman: "We are only targetting criminals around comrade Mugabe"

15/11/2017

0 Comments

A military spokesman, Major General SB Moyo made an announcement on state television saying Mugabe and his family were “safe and sound and their security is guaranteed”. Moyo said the army was targeting “criminals around” Mugabe, who were “committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in order to bring them to justice”. But many newspapers around the world are reporting differently:

GILDED CAGE: While Zimbabweans are living in abject poverty Chombo was living a life of luxury behind gated palace

Fijileaks: Since Brigadier-General Pita Driti is serving his prison sentence we have decided not to approve your comments regarding him, Fiji's Finance Minister Aiyaz Khaiyum, and the unfolding events in Zimbabwe

"We wish to make this abundantly clear this is not a military takeover of government. What the Zimbabwe defence forces is doing is to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation in our country which if not addressed may result in violent conflict."

WISH LIST OF MANY ZIMBABWEANS FOR THE LAST 37 YEARS

ZIMBABWE MILITARY STATEMENT IN FULL

“Good morning Zimbabwe.

Fellow Zimbabweans. Following the address we made on 13 November 2017, which we believe our main broadcaster Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation and the Herald were directed not to publicise, the situation in our country has moved to another level.

Firstly we wish to assure our nation, His Excellency, the president of the republic of Zimbabwe and commander in chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, comrade R G Mugabe and his family, are safe and sound and their security is guaranteed.

CRIMINALS

We are only targeting criminals around him who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country in order to bring them to justice.

As soon as we have accomplished our mission we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.

To the civil servants, as you are aware there is a plan by the same individuals to influence the current purging which is taking place in the political sphere. To the civil service, we are against that act of injustice and we intend to protect every one of you against that.

To the judiciary, the measures underway are intended to ensure that as an independent arm of the state you are able to exercise your independent authority without fear of being obstructed as has been the case with this group of individuals.

PEACE

To our members of parliament, your legislative role is of paramount importance, of peace and stability in this country, and it is our desire that a dispensation is created that allows you to serve your respective political constituencies according to democratic tenants.

To the generality of the people of Zimbabwe, we urge you to remain calm and limit unnecessary movement. However we encourage those who are employed and those with essential business in the city to continue their normal activities as usual. Our wish is that you will enjoy your rights and freedoms and that we return our country to a dispensation that allows for investment, development and prosperity that we all fought for and for which many of our citizens paid the supreme sacrifice.

To political parties, we urge you to discourage your members from engaging in violent behaviour. To the youth, we call upon you to realise that the future of this country is yours. Do not be enticed with the dirty coins of silver, be disciplined and remain committed to the efforts and values of this great nation.

To all churches and religious organisations in Zimbabwe we call upon your congregations to pray for our country and preach the gospel of love, peace and unity and development. To both our people and the world beyond our borders, we wish to make this abundantly clear this is not a military takeover of government. What the Zimbabwe defence forces is doing is to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation in our country which if not addressed may result in violent conflict.

WORK

We call upon all the war veterans to play a positive role in ensuring peace, stability and unity in the country. To members of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, all leave is cancelled and you are all to return to your barracks with immediate effect.

To the other security forces, we urge you to cooperate for the good of our country. Let it be clear we intend to address the human security threats in our country. Therefore any provocation will be met with an appropriate response.

And to the media, we urge you to report fairly and responsibly.

We thank you.”

Police sat down like kindergarten kids by the Army. One thing about tables; They always turn when you least expect them to....

Will Mugabe's hated wife be the tyrant's downfall? IAN BIRRELL of Daily Mail (London) explains how power in Zimbabwe could be swinging in favour of former vice-president dubbed 'The Crocodile'

NO MORE GRACE AND FAVOURS: Mugabe and his wife Grace

With tanks on the streets of Zimbabwe and enemies at the gates of his plush mansion, are we witnessing the end of Robert Mugabe’s remarkable and blood-stained rule over Zimbabwe?

Only one thing was clear last night as rumours swept Harare: after 37 years running the nation, the old despot’s vice-like grip on the shattered ‘breadbasket of Africa’ is weakening.

And the cause? His loathed second wife, Grace.

At stake is not just control of poor, battered Zimbabwe – a country tortured by Mugabe’s decades of disastrous rule – but also the vast flow of money from diamond mines that have turned many of his senior aides into multi-millionaires.

Just days ago, it seemed Grace – 41 years Mugabe’s junior was winning a power struggle worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy to succeed the ailing 93-year-old president.

But with the sensational events of last night, it seems the balance might be tipping in favour of her rival for the crown – a brutal former spy chief nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’.

His real name is Emmerson Mnangagwa, a long-standing supporter of Mugabe until the president sacked him as vice-president last week. Soon after, amid death threats against him, he fled to South Africa.

Mugabe had accused his former deputy of plotting to take power from him, while Grace Mugabe referred to him as a snake that ‘must be hit on the head’.

Yet the combative Mnangagwa, 75, who recently survived a poisoning blamed on ice-cream from Mugabe’s own dairy, has been telling allies he would return rapidly and everything would soon be ‘sorted’.

He also publicly warned Mugabe the ruling Zanu-PF party was ‘not personal property for you and your wife to do as you please’.

Now it appears The Crocodile’s friend, Zimbabwe’s military chief General Chiwenga, has mobilised his forces after issuing a threat earlier this week that the army would not tolerate Grace’s planned purge of 300 senior party figures linked to her rival.

0 Comments

THE DREAM OF MY FATHER: As FFP Minister FAIYAZ KOYA is handed the changing baton to be ACTING PRIME MINISTER, we look back on that fateful day in April 1977 when his father SIDDIQ KOYA was denied the job

14/11/2017

0 Comments

FINALLY: Faizal Koya

The following chapter is from VICTOR LAL's book
Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

ROBBED: Siddiq Koya

VICTOR LAL: "In 1985 I had interviewed Siddiq Koya, Jai Ram Reddy, Mrs Irene Jai Narayan and other key players who were embroiled in the 1977 political and constitutional crisis for the study that I was writing on Fiji (later published as a book) under Sir David Butler's supervision at Oxford. I had been on personal terms with all the NFP leaders for years, and was also privy to the views and thoughts of the native Fijian chiefly leaders, including the then Governor-General Ratu Sir George Cakobau, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, for whom my family had long campaigned during the elections. In particular, I was very good friends with the colourful but eccentric Sakiasi Butadroka, the leader of the Fijian Nationalist Party. He was more than happy to grant me an interview. I still vividly remember the shock my father, as president of the Alliance Party Tailevu branch, and my uncle who had just lost to Mrs Narayan in the Suva Indian Communal seat as Alliance candidate, felt when we learned the Alliance Party had lost the April 1977 election to the National Federation Party. I was still in the counting hall, nervously watching the recount my uncle had requested, when I was told of the devastating news.
What happened next, and why Koya did not become the Prime Minister in 1977?
Read the chapter below from my book:"

ON 4 April 1977 about 20,000 Fijians (natives) voted for the radical FNP (Fijian Nationalist Party). For the first time in the country's political history the Alliance Party had been defeated. This defeat paved the way for the NFP (National Federation Party) to form Fiji's next government with the first Prime Minister of Indian (Indo-Fijian) origin: Siddiq Moidean Koya. But this event did not take place. Instead, Fiji entered into an epoch of political instability and confusion.

MESSAGE HEARD; Sakiasi Butadroka at the hustings

On 7 April 1977, 'the day that fooled Fiji', Koya went to the Government House at 4.30 p.m. to be sworn in as the new Prime Minister. But the Governor-General, Ratu Sir George Cakobau, told him that he had appointed Ratu Mara as Prime Minister and had asked his Alliance Party to form a caretaker government. A period of bitter racial and constitutional wrangling followed. If the Governor-General's action had stunned the nation, the defeat of Alliance was equally astonishing. The Nationalists had been waiting on the sidelines as both the Alliance and NFP prepared to embark upon the electoral campaign, a campaign in which several issues was on trial: the staying power of the Alliance, the strength of the Nationalists, the readiness of the NFP as a government-in-waiting, and, above all, the viability of parliamentary democracy.

The members of the House of Representatives had, on 10 February 1977, ended their last session before its dissolution for the 19 March to 2 April general elections with the claim that they had given Fiji a model government. The closest the House of Representatives had come to a constitutional impasse was when, following a vote of no confidence, the former Speaker, R.D.Patel, in 1975, refused to accept that his constitutional obligation was to resign as Speaker.

These March/April elections clearly emerged as the most crucial. Indisputably, they were to be a three-cornered fight between the Alliance, the NFP and the FNP. Most political pundits thought the Alliance would remain in office, although the possibility of a coalition or minority government was widely anticipated. Elections in Fiji have always stirred up racial issues and the emergence of the FNP gave fresh impetus to the hatred for the Indians on the part of some Fijians. The Nationalists reiterated demands for constitutional changes, with Butadroka fervently hoping for an NFP victory so that it would reveal to the Fijians that the country was not exclusively theirs:

That is the day Ratu Mara and his Alliance Fijians must look for. It is the very thing I want to prove to the Fijian people; that this Parliament does not belong to us. The Fijians take it for granted that a Fijian will always be Prime Minister, that a Fijian will always be Governor-General and the ministers for Fijian Affairs and Lands will always be Fijians. I tell them NO. It is not in the Constitution. I wish for the day the Federation will come to power, because it is the very time it will dramatically point out to the Fijians that the government is not ours.

MILESTONE: Faiyaz Koya is not only acting Prime Minister but he is also the first Indo-Fijian to be Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources. The Indo-Fijian politicians were reluctant to take up the position in old days because they were terrified of the chiefs

As the election fever gained momentum Butadroka and his campaign members visited most rural Fijian areas and explicitly spelled out their message 'Fiji for the Fijians', and went on to lampoon the Alliance's performance, particularly its alleged failure to protect Fijian interests. While asserting that the FNP would form the next Opposition, Butadroka maintained that this would force the Alliance to seek a coalition with the NFP. He was convinced the 'FNP flag would fly in Parliament'.

The Alliance found itself in a dilemma: whether to focus its campaign exclusively on the Fijians or on the population as a whole. The party chose, however, to campaign in force across the country where the FNP threatened to make deep inroads into its support. The offensive, by several prominent Alliance ministers, was led by Ratu Mara who barnstormed across the country claiming that a vote for the FNP would turn Fiji into another Uganda. Describing Fiji as a 'three-legged table', he went on to state that 'if Mr Butadroka's party evicts one section, the Indians, then next comes the General Electors and finally the Fijians will be left in Fiji, which will create a situation like Uganda is facing today. He also asserted that the FNP's main motive were to discredit the Alliance and to work for its downfall, and to create confusion and despondency. In the past Ratu Mara had indicated his early retirement from politics. But now sensing the anxiety among some voters regarding who would replace him, he reassured the nation of his availability because:

"I found that [when] I mentioned my retirement then there were voices completely contrary to the principles of the Alliance that have...formed a party. And as long as that party promotes its course and as long as it remains, I will remain in politics. I refer to the Butadroka party, which wants to send Indians out of Fiji."

This failed to appease the Nationalists or to allay the fears of the Indians. Many thought that it was simply an example of election showmanship. While campaigning on the platform of 'peace, progress and prosperity', the Alliance, to some extent, did specifically concentrate on Butadroka. It chose Tomasi Vakatora, a former Secretary for Communications, Works and Tourism, who was from the same province in which Butadroka had launched the FNP nearly three years ago, to fight him for the Rewa-Serua-Namosi Fijian communal seat.

The Alliance probably calculated that personal rivalry in the NFP between Koya, [K.C.] Ramrakha and Mrs Irene Jai Narayan, which for several months had made the quest for party unity frustratingly elusive, was sufficient to eliminate the Indian-dominated party from the political map. But if the Alliance found comfort in thus dismissing the NFP, it was equally aware of the political perils that lurked in its own backyard: the bitter Indian Alliance dispute over the rejection of Sir Vijay Singh as candidate for the safe Tailevu seat, coupled with the withdrawal from the Alliance by M.T.Kan (an Indian Cabinet minister who had been unsuccessfully prosecuted for corruption), could cost them a lot of Indian votes.

On the whole, the Alliance remained defiant and buoyant, with Ratu Mara apparently not too concerned at the prospect of ruling Fiji with a majority of one. He remarked that Malta's Dom Mintoff was one of the strongest prime minister in the Commonwealth because he had spent so long in power battling with a majority of one. The Alliance also dismissed the electoral threat posed by a young but influential Fijian chief, Ratu Osea Gavidi, who decided to run for Parliament as an independent against the official Alliance candidate in his own Nadroga/Navosa constituency in the western belt of the country.

The NFP, meanwhile, entered the election battle as a collection of disparate groups, busily protecting its own vested interests and beliefs. It did, however, seem to be in tacit connivance with the FNP in an electoral arrangement to defeat the Alliance. The NFP had fielded 35 candidates only; with none for the Fijian or General Elector communal seats, and only two for the National seats. Some of its Fijian candidates had secretly nominated FNP candidates in certain crucial or marginal seats (Victor Lal's Butadroka interview). Despite the fundamental differences in personality of Koya, Ramrakha and Mrs Narayan and their acrimonious conflicts of the previous year they formed an odd but strategic coalition.

The NFP's problem during the general election was to win Indian hearts, minds and votes. Equally pressing was the threat from disgruntled NFP politicians: notably R. D. Patel, who was standing against Koya as an Independent candidate for the Lautoka Indian communal seat; and Vijaya Parmanandam, another Independent, who was contesting the Suva Rural Indian communal seat after failing to be nominated for the same seat on an NFP ticket.

In 1977 Patel, who had resigned as Speaker of the House and from the NFP in 1975, dedicated himself solely to eliminating the embattled Koya as NFP leader. Division within the NFP's grassroots members also widened with Hindus, Muslims and Gujeratis communally splitting along religious, linguistic and provincial lines. For example the contest between Koya (a Muslim) and Patel (a Gujerati) 'was no longer just an election battle between NFP and an Independent. It had become a Muslim versus Gujerati affair'.

To be continued

0 Comments

FNUGATE: VC Healey rushes out circular to explain Jonathan Cartmell appointment: I did not know Cartmell. He is part-time student at Bath University where I gave occasional lectures. He contacted me with his CV

13/11/2017

0 Comments

Fijileaks: NIGEL HEALEY was not only giving occasional seminars at the University of Bath in the UK. Both, Healey and Cartmell, were also registered Doctoral Students in Business Administration there. It is quite likely they never met in Bath but once connections were established in Fiji, Healey should have recused himself from chairing the interview, as requested by one of the two local candidates, citing conflict of interest.
One of the interviewers has told Fijileaks that they were not informed by Healey about the request from one of the two local candidates for an independent panel. According to the panelist Healey had merely scrawled on the score sheet w/d [meaning withdrawn] - against the name of one of the two local candidates, so they proceeded to interview the two remaining candidates, one local and another: CARTMELL

Fijileaks: We call on FICAC to launch a full scale investigation into the Cartmell appointment despite Healey issuing veiled threats to Whistleblowers, claiming the leaks are an abuse of office. We have a formidable track record of being proven correct previously on FNU scandals, and we have more highly explosive materials on Healey and Cartmell but which we will reveal at our own time and choosing. We had spent months investigating Cartmell's appointment before going public!

Fijileaks: Both, Healey and Cartmell, were also registered Doctoral Students in Business Administration; Cartmell lists his education affiliation with University of Bath as pending (2014-20). Healey completed his thesis in 2016 from the University of Bath:
Healey, N., 2016. The challenges of managing an international branch campus: An exploratory study. Thesis (Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)), University of Bath. Cartmell's previous employment with Georgetown University was as Executive Director - Office of Outreach and Business Development - for the university's Qatar campus. Healey's thesis is a study of the challenges of managing an international branch campus (IBC) of a UK university. One can see how useful Cartmell's previous employment is to Healey's thesis. Healey is reportedly on $500,000 salary as VC of FNU and Cartmell has been appointed on $300,000
Fijileaks: Jonathan Cartmell should FINISH his thesis, FIRST! But is he still finishing his thesis part-time with the University of Bath, UK?
CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY!

The following was sent to us with a request to hold back his name:
"With respect to the FNU scandal, I make this observation. VC salary is over $500,000 and the Director HR [Cartmell] was on $250,000. VC Ganesh Chand's salary was $181,000 and Narend Prasad's as Director HR and Director Finance was $150,000 Registrar and Deans salaries ranged between $70,000 to $100,000. So altogether during Ganesh Chand's time the total salary of the VC, Registrar, Director of Finance, Director HR, and four Deans of Colleges, was in total seven senior management positions still below the total salaries of the current VC and his Director of HR.
Can you please not put my name under this post..."

HEALEY circulated this circular below in response to Fijileaks postings

Fijileaks:

* If Healey is so much concerned about the transparency of HR processes at FNU,, especially recruitment and selection, then why didn't he recuse himself from the interview of Director HR when he himself brought in Cartmell as Consultant Director (see Healey's circular, above, to FNU)?

* Why didn't Healey agree to one of the two local candidate's request for an independent panel?

* Why did Healey go ahead and write preferred candidate is Cartmell if he really believes in transparency?

Healey is contradicting himself by writing the attached circular to all FNU.

* Why is Healey comparing the weaker candidate_ with Cartmell?

* Why not compare Cartmell with , the local candidate who was more qualified than Cartmell but who wanted Healey to recuse himself from the interview panel?

"In the case of the DHR appointment, the selection panel was clear that there was an appointable candidate, but determined that an expatriate [Jonathan Cartmell] was the strongest candidate, given his senior HR experience with multinationals like Unilever, Telstra and FedEx and his extensive track record in higher education with a leading US university" -
Nigel Healey in his FNU circular; he was chair of the selection panel, and allegedly refused to recuse himself despite a request from another local candidate who cited conflict of interest, for Healey had hired Cartmell
Fijileaks: Cartmell's CV is not all gold!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the interviewing panelists has told Fijileaks that they were not informed by Healey about the request from one of the two local candidates for an independent panel. According to the panelist Healey had merely scrawled on the score sheet - withdrawn - against the name of one of the two local candidates, so they proceeded to interview the two remaining candidates, one local and another: CARTMELL

Abstract

This thesis is a study of the challenges of managing an international branch campus (IBC) of a UK university. Branch or satellite campuses are not a new phenomenon. Within the UK, the Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Southampton all began as university colleges of the University of London, teaching a prescribed curriculum and acting as an examination centre for the University of London. Ironically perhaps, over a century after London provided higher education to the provinces, at least 13 provincial universities currently operate branch campuses in the capital, including Glasgow Caledonian University and the Universities of Liverpool, Cumbria, South Wales and Ulster (Quality Assurance Agency 2014). Internationally, the University of Ceylon (now separated into the Universities of Colombo, Peradeniya, Vidyodaya and Kelaniya) was also set up as an international college of the University of London. After World War II, a number of Commonwealth university colleges of the University of London were established under the ‘scheme of special relationships’. These colleges offered University of London degrees and were provided with academic support to develop their systems and procedures so that they could eventually become independent. The group of Commonwealth colleges in the special relationship included the predecessors of today’s Universities of Ibadan, Nairobi, West Indies and Zimbabwe (Harte 1986). The current wave of IBCs is, however, different from the university colleges of yesteryear in two important respects. First, today’s IBCs are the private initiatives of UK universities, rather than part of a wider development policy agenda driven by the UK or a foreign colonial government. Second, the IBCs are privately owned, either wholly or jointly by the UK universities, rather than being public institutions set up by a government. This is reflected in the titles of the new IBCs which either position them as an extension of the UK university (eg, University of Reading Malaysia, University of Middlesex Dubai) or highlight the nature of the educational partnership (eg, International University of Malaya Wales, Xi’an Jaiotong Liverpool University). The common thread connecting today’s IBCs to the past is that they follow the historical 8 convention of teaching curricula designed in the UK and awarding the degrees of the home university. The 21st century version of the IBC is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to the conclusion of the ‘Uruguay Round’ of trade talks and the establishment of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in 1995, non-tariff barriers effectively precluded trade in educational services in most markets. The oldest ‘modern’ IBC is the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, which was set up in 2000. Most of the UK’s IBC’s have been established only in the last ten years and a number ─ for example, the University of Reading Malaysia and Heriot-Watt University Malaysia ─ are still in their infancy. Building and operating an IBC represents a ‘brave new frontier’ for UK universities and this thesis sheds important light on the challenges involved. The international strategy literature provides a valuable conceptual framework within which to organise these challenges. The globalisation of business is far more advanced than that of higher education and the management models much better understood. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have developed sophisticated techniques for managing extensive networks of overseas subsidiaries and have dedicated functional departments to oversee the movement of labour, goods, services and capital across national borders. A fundamental challenge for MNCs is to determine how much to localise their product or service to meet the needs of each national market. Universities face the same dilemma with their IBCs. Should they be ‘clones’ of the home campus, providing an educational experience which is identical to that on the home campus? Or should they localise the curriculum and pedagogy to adapt to the learning styles and context of the host market? Unlike MNCs, however, UK universities are not huge corporations with HR and finance departments accustomed to dealing with transfer pricing, international tax issues and managing internationally mobile staff. They are stolid, UK-based organisations with a public sector ethos and a tradition of being managed by academics, rather than professional career managers. They are characterised by arcane governance structures, internal politics and glacial decision-making. More than half the UK universities (ie, 9 the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education) have been independent of local government control for less than 25 years and many still operate on the basis of employment contracts and working practices from this era. The scale of the IBCs relative to their UK campuses is, moreover, generally so small that the organisational ‘centre of gravity’ is overwhelmingly the UK-based operation. A second difference between MNCs’ subsidiaries and IBCs is that, despite the advent of GATS, higher education remains a highly regulated sector. UK universities are subject to oversight by the national Higher Education Funding Councils, the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). When they establish IBCs which provide UK degrees, the IBCs are subject to the same scrutiny by the QAA. At the same time, IBCs are regulated by the equivalent bodies in the host country, either arms-length organisations like the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) or the host Ministry of Education. Governments in many countries subsidise higher education, either indirectly by providing students with grants or loans to contribute towards tuition costs or directly by subsidising universities or operating them as part of the public sector. To control the cost to the taxpayer, they often impose enrolment caps; to meet public good objectives, governments may use a range of levers from moral suasion to purpose-specific grants to steer universities to admit students from underrepresented backgrounds or undertake research in particular areas. At the very least, IBCs must compete with subsidised, regulated local universities, but often they themselves are subject to the same regulation and control. Because of these two important differences between MNCs and universities, the focus of this study is on the challenges of managing an IBC as perceived by the IBC managers. While there is a well-developed literature on principal-agent theory, much of the international strategy literature on localisation approaches the problem from an organisational perspective; that is, it couches the challenge to the MNC as an entity of determining the optimal degree of localisation. In the case of an IBC, the senior management of the home university may similarly take a view, in principle, of the optimal degree of localisation of the curriculum. But because the management systems of a UK university are so underdeveloped in terms of controlling a small IBC thousands of kilometres away, and because there are other equally powerful stakeholders in the 10 host country involved, it is the IBC manager in situ who has to balance these competing demands. This study uses critical realism as the conceptual framework. This is because IBC managers are operating in the context of hard objective, external facts (government regulations, enrolment targets, financial budgets), but they nevertheless have to construct their own understanding of their objectives within the context of the wider social structures and power relations. For IBC managers, they are working in an alien culture where they may not speak the local language or fully comprehend the social norms and conventions. They have to work out what they think are the agendas of the host government, their joint venture partner and their competitors and what they believe their students want. They also have to interpret the home university’s objectives, which may be vague or ambiguous given the differing objectives of the most senior leaders (eg, the pro vice-chancellor teaching and learning is likely to take a different view from the chief financial officer about the objectives of the IBC) and the shifting political alliances in the senior management team. Using semi-structured interviews with IBC managers, mostly in their own offices at the IBC, this thesis finds that the managers feel pressure to localise the staff base, the curriculum (broadly defined to embrace content, pedagogy and assessment) and research. This pressure emanates from five main clusters of stakeholders: the home university, the joint venture partner, the host country (government, regulators and employers), competitors and students. The importance of the focus on the IBC managers is that, firstly, they generally report that the senior management of the home university typically exercises limited direct control, failing to understand the situation on the ground or making decisions in an ad hoc, sometimes contradictory way; in no case did any IBC manager report that they felt there was a clear strategic vision on the part of the home university management team for the development of the IBC. Second, the IBC managers are constantly encountering novel problems or issues that neither they, nor their senior colleagues at the home university, have ever encountered before and they have to use their judgement to achieve a resolution. 11 The analysis of the qualitative data shows that the global integration (I) – local responsiveness (R) paradigm represents a tractable framework for organising the dimensions of the IBC which may be localised to a greater or lesser extent. Further analysis of the objectives of the stakeholders suggests that IBC managers are generally driven to a high degree of localisation of the staff base, while experiencing considerable resistance to the localisation of the curriculum. Whether or not research is localised depends on the extent to which the priorities of the host country reflect wider international concerns (eg, climate change, energy sustainability).

Fijileaks: More to follow in coming days

1st August, 2017
The Director
Department of Immigration
Suva

This is a formal complaint against FNU Consultant Director Human Resources - Mr Jonathan Cartmell.

1. The Director Human Resources position was advertised in 2016. However without any formal interview, Consultant Director - Jonathan Cartmell - was hired by Vice Chancellor - Nigel Healey. The Immigration Department was informed that since FNU could not attract any local staff for Director HR position, FNU had to recruit an expatriate as Consultant Director HR. How can anyone decide on this when the Director position never went through the interview process. The position was advertised, file was made, however the file was put on hold and CDHR was appointed without even testing the local market.

2. The Immigration Department was informed that Consultant Director HR was hired just to train Manager HR and all section Managers and then after 1 year, new local Director HR will be hired. Mr Cartwell's contract is expiring in October 2017. The position has been advertised (June 2017) and there are locals who meet the MQR and can perform the same job at a lower salary thus saving tax payers money.

3. Mr Cartmell is being paid almost $250,000 as Consultant Director HR where else the same tasks can be managed by a local at $80,00.

4. Currently most of the time CDHR is away overseas, mostly travels overseas since his family is in Australia. He himself is very incompetent. Most of his work load is managed by Manager Human resources - Mr_______and section managers.

5. VC and DHR are very close friends and it seems like Director HR position will be given to Mr Cartmell without giving opportunity to the local staff. They are always spotted together having lunch and dinner usually in isolation. Why is there discrimination? I hope Immigration Department does a proper investigation so that justice prevails for Fiji Citizens. As soon as Mr Cartmell joined FNU, he initiated Job Evaluation Exercise which was a total failure. According to him, a person joining recently can perform much better than persons working for years. He himself is new and that is the reason he keeps saying that experienced staff are incompetent which is not correct. He wants to remove all HR staff and bring in his people to work for HR Department.

6. He has approached FNU management to restructure HR department HR Department. If Mr Cartmell wants to minimize costs and restructure FNU management, why was there a need to create Senior Manager HR position when Manager HR position exists? Manager HR, a local staff has also applied for Director HR position. Mr Cartmell quickly created Senior Manager HR position so that this position goes to Manager HR and keeps his mouth shut and gets the Director HR position. If not then he can appoint a new staff for Senior Manager HR and redundant Manager HR position.

7. I hope your team [will] please investigate and let the true picture exposed and [Fijian] taxpayers money is saved from this type of expatriate. Competent staff at FNU are being sidelined in the name of restructure and all is not well. People working in FNU are being used and graded second class employee and making room available for his own colleagues to come on board. It must be seriously noted that he already plans to stay much longer at FNU. Well, this I think was already planned before he was recruited as consultant.

8. This abuse of office and corruption should stop at FNU and I am quite confident your highest office will look at it.

From Whistleblower
cc. FICAC

"He (a highly qualified local candidate whose name Fijileaks is withholding) even told VC [Nigel Healey] to set up an independent interview panel so that fair interview is being held. VC did not agree to _____'s suggestion of conducting a fair interview process...VC went ahead with the interview. Mr Cartmell's CV at the interview was introduced by VC..."
FNU Whistleblower to FICAC, 19 September 201719th September 2017

The Director
Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC)
Suva

Re: CORRUPTION AT FNU HR DEPARTMENT

This is to formally advise on the corrupt practice at Fiji national University. This is mainly related to appointment of Director Human Resources recently. Mr Jonathan Cartmell was hired by VC [Nigel Healey] as consultant Director Human Resources October last year.

1. He was hired on the basis that he would come and train all HR staff and in that process a new full time Director would be appointed and he would be a local based staff. This has been reported to Director Immigration dated 1st August 2017. Also attaching one for your reference. The attached letter was also sent previously but no action has been taken so far. (http://www.fijileaks.com/home/fnugate-fnu-whistleblower-to-immigration-department-the-director-human-resources-position-was-advertised-in-2016-however-without-any-formal-interview-consultant-director-cartmell-was-appointed-by-the-vc)

2. From the information that we have gathered is that Mr Cartmell has been given an offer as Director Human resources with a salary package of $300,000. This has not gone through the Council and the Senior Management Group of FNU. With this amount of salary, three Directors can be hired - local based. It seems like that the interview panel have been forced by Vice Chancellor to conduct interview of Director Human resources position.

3. The two panel members initially had declined to proceed with the interview since there were only two applicants and the position was not internationally advertised. There were only three applicants (the list is attached).

4. The person most capable was a local based staff (__________). who did not attend the interview since he became aware of VC's motive to hire Mr Cartmell. He even told VC to set up an independent interview panel so that fair interview is being held. He knew very well that how ever excellent he performs in the interview, Mr Cartmell will get the position.

5. _______ is the ____________of FNU and he is also ____________. VC did not agree to ________'s suggestion of FNU conducting a fair interview process. He knew very well that ________would point out the blunder that Mr Cartmell has created in the Job Evaluation Exercise. Please also contact________and he can point out what all went wrong with the Job Evaluation Exercise.

6. To avoid this being discussed in the interview, VC went ahead with the interview. VC knew very well that the other applicant ___________is not capable and the panel will obviously give less points so that he is not selected.

7._________. Please provides JUSTICE to local staff of Fiji.

cc:
Minister of Labour
Prime Minister's Office
Higher Salaries Commission
Minister for Education

* Why is Healey comparing the weaker candidate_ with Jonathan Cartmell?

* Why not compare Cartmell with , the local candidate who was more qualified than Cartmell but who wanted Healey to recuse himself from the interview panel?

0 Comments

REEKING WITH BIAS: Wadan Narsey claims the Special Edition of Journal of Pacific Studies on the 2014 General Election, edited by Vijay Naidu and Sandra Tarte, reeks of BIAS and the two botched cover design

12/11/2017

0 Comments

"The front cover of the Special Edition of the JPS had a photo of smiling Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum and emblazoned with the word “ENDORSED”, giving the clear impression to readers that the 2014 Elections had endorsed the Bainimarama Government." - NARSEY

"The back cover of the JPacS informs the world that it “welcomes scholarly contributions “ on topics relevant to the development problems of the Pacific islands, and that submissions would be judged by the usual academic criteria, including relevance, contribution to the literature and current debates. Why then did the JPS Special Edition not approach two of the foremost writers on Fiji’s electoral systems, Professor Jonathan Fraenkel and Professor Wadan Narsey to contribute to their Special Edition on the 2014 Elections? Both Naidu and Tarte are personally aware that Narsey for more than a decade been involved in community education alongside both of them, including as part of initiatives by the Citizen Constitution Forum (CCF) on electoral systems, including that in the 1970, 1990, 1997 and especially the imposed 2013 Constitution under which the 2014 Elections have been held. Narsey was also part of the Yash Ghai Commission deliberations and conducted electoral workshops at USP. Narsey has published more than twenty articles in The Fiji Times, on the “2014 Election Issues” in the 2014 Elections; spoken to gatherings of three Opposition parties (SODELPA, NFP and PDP) prior to the election; and prepared a rather prophetic Voter Education Kit for the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement and run workshops for the 2014 Elections even though the NGO’s voter education was banned by Bainimarama. All his writings have been on his personal website NarseyOnFiji read throughout Fiji." - Professor Wadan Narsey
A special issue of the Journal of Pacific Studies (JPacS) titled ‘No Ordinary Election’: The Fiji General Election of 2014 was launched at The University of the South Pacific (USP) in Suva on 16 October 2015:

(From left-right): Dr Kesaia Seniloli, Professor Vijay Naidu, Ms Shamima Ali (Coordinator, Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre) and Dr Sandra Tarte with copies of the special issue of Journal of Pacific Studies.

By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY

No changes for the 2018 Elections? It seems that Khaiyum and Company have dug themselves in and will not bring about any significant changes to the electoral system and elections processes that enabled them to “win” the 2014 Elections. There is indeed little public pressure on them, beyond Opposition parties referring to the Multinational Observer Group Report and Recommendations, which Khaiyum and Bainimarama Government could not care about.

There is indeed no informed and expert opinion being publicized through the media that can support the Opposition calls for a fairer system.

Why aren’t there any “expert” calls for change, especially given that one has three universities now in Fiji full of so-called experts on all things under the sun?

Why MOGs and not USP?

In countries like Australia, neutral university academics are often called upon by governments, media and society to shed light on contentious policy issues and offer constructive policy recommendations.

It is therefore extremely strange that in Fiji, calls by the Opposition Parties for changes to the electoral system do not refer to the local university academics, but to the findings and recommendations of the Multinational Observer Group (MOG) that came to observe the 2014 Elections.

Why are prominent USP academics expert in politics not to be heard at all on the current weaknesses of the electoral system and processes which were unilaterally imposed on Fiji by the Bainimarama Government?

This omission is extraordinary given that USP’s flagship Journal of Pacific Studies devoted an entire edition to the 2014 Election (Special Issue on the Fiji General Election of 2014 (Volume 35, Issue No.2), edited by senior USP academics Professor Vijay Naidu and Dr. Sandra Tarte.

Sadly and unfortunately, however, this JPS Special Issue demonstrates all too well, how USP’s academic integrity has been compromised in recent years. This JPS Special Issue shows all too clearly how the senior academics refused to systematically analyze the evidence that they themselves present, but marginalized in footnotes and endnotes, which taken together establishes so conclusively that the 2014 elections were NOT “free and fair” and that the system MUST be changed as the Opposition Parities are demanding if there is to be electoral justice.

This failure is more pronounced when one notes that Professor Naidu and another JPS contributor (Catholic priest Father David Arms) were both members of the Fiji Electoral Commission and would have seen at first hand virtually all the unfair aspects of the 2014 Elections.

The senior academic editors (Naidu and Tarte) showed an abysmal lack of judgement in the design of a the cover which had the word “ENDORSED” accompanied by photos of smiling Bainimarama and Khaiyum, suggesting that the voters had fairly elected the FFP to government.

To rub salt into the academic wound, the Special Edition was launched with great praise by the prominent and very effective head of Women’s Crisis Centre (Shamima Ali), who once was a courageous defender of human rights in Fiji.

MOGs and banana republics

Developed civilized countries like Australia or NZ don’t have foreign Multinational Observer Groups flying in to observe if elections are free and fair.

It is only backward Third World countries where there is no faith in governments, public institutions and civil society that that MOGs comprising international organizations like United Nations or Donors, come to do the verification that all was “hunky dory”.

Some may do their work well or badly. Most certainly, government are never accountable to them nor are MOGs accountable to the people concerned. Any criticisms and recommendations made by the MOG can be safely ignored, just as the Bainimarama Government is currently doing.

Which is why it is important to ask why our university academics are not providing the public the guidance that they deserve and instead, why they produce an academic journal which at best fails to enlighten the public on the fundamentally flawed nature of 2014 Elections, and at worst gives an overall impression that the 2014 Elections “endorsed” (i.e. fairly elected) the Bainimarama Government.

Overall JPS impression?

Guest Editor Dr. Sandra Tarte reported (USP News Bulletin, 19th October 2015) that the Special Edition of the JPS aimed to provide “impartial, scholarly analysis” of the 2014 Elections, and that this was “reinforced by our Vice-Chancellor and President, Professor Rajesh Chandra at a meeting with him last year”.

Father David Arms (Member of the Fiji Electoral Commission) wrote in his article in the JPS “The general verdict on Fiji’s 2014 September elections is certainly positive … the basic job got done”.

The front cover of the Special Edition of the JPS had a photo of smiling Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum and emblazoned with the word “ENDORSED”, giving the clear impression to readers that the 2014 Elections had endorsed the Bainimarama Government.

That was all reinforced when the Special Edition of the JPS was launched in glowing terms by Shamima Ali (Coordinator of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre and powerful advocate against domestic violence). Ali pronounced that the 2014 General Election was discussed “in a relatively impartial way” and concluded that it would be “a crucial resource for people interested in Fiji’s electoral politics and politics in general, as well as for Fiji scholars, students and observers”. Ali even recommended that the JPS Special Edition should be read by “political leaders and aspirant leaders, scholars, journalists, NGOs, feminists and the wider community”. She also “appreciated the chapter on women candidates and how women fared better in the latest election”, a debatable conclusion.

However, it is far more useful for readers to judge the JPS Special Issue by its contents and more specifically on the endnotes and footnotes in some articles.

I emphasize that I find no fault with most of the articles by the other academics examining narrower issues in the 2014 Elections, as no doubt assigned to them by the senior academics Naidu and Tarte.

The damning footnotes and endnotes

The Introduction by the Editors bluntly stated “Formerly influential institutions and entities such as the Great Council of Chiefs, the Methodist Church, trade unions, the media and even NGOs were either eliminated or so hobbled by years of repressive decrees that they became largely ineffective… accompanied by a constitution that entrenches several hundred decrees which cannot be challenged in any court of law, and a social environment that constrain fundamental freedoms.”

But that was where the brave analysis ended.

From then on, the objective observations and analyses are to be found mostly in the endnotes and footnotes, as for instance by Professor Naidu who noted the following, without spelling out the critically important wider ramifications:

the Bainimarama Government rejected the Report and Electoral System recommended by its own appointed Yash Ghai Commission (we note of genuine experts);
following the 2009 Court of Appeal decision, members of the judiciary such as magistrates and judges were dismissed or resigned;
the Bainimarama Government rejected electoral options recommended by the NCBBF Working Group 1;
the Fiji Times has been denied government advertisements altogether;
The Fiji Times was fined $300,000 and its editor sentenced to six months imprisonment (suspended for 2 years) for republishing a story about the Fiji judiciary appearing in a NZ newspaper;
FICAC questioned the Chairman of the Fijian Electoral Commission about his role in the holding of a panel discussion on the elections;
threats by Bainimarama against the Leader of SODELPA were recorded by media;
All major NGOs complained against the Bainimarama Government’s refusal to abide by all the principles of democracy, freedom of the media, and basic human rights.

The article by Liku and Slatter stated in Endnote 8

“Unprecedented decreed restrictions on the commencement of political party campaigning, on media reporting, and on civil society organizations’ involvement in the elections, together with close relations between the incumbent government and the military, made for a very controlled election climate”.

This article, despite claiming to focus on gender issues, did not discuss the fact that the Bainimarama Government had rejected the Ghai recommendation for a “Closed List” which would have given a guaranteed representation of women in parliament, depending on the ratio of women required in the Closed Lists, almost certainly far more than actually achieved in the 2014 Elections so praised by Shamima Ali.

The unfair biases not systematically discussed

Absolutely extraordinary is that neither the Senior Editors nor the other authors in the Special Edition of the JPS have any systematic and sustained discussion on all the important mechanisms through which the Bainimarama Government “controlled” (some would say “manipulated” or “rigged”) the entire elections resulting in unfair outcomes:

the suppression of trade unions and unionists, the GCC and the Methodist Church;
the massive financial support given to Bainimarama by the capitalist classes (whose fundraiser is now sitting on multiple government boards);
the suppression of the enormously damaging Auditor General’s Reports from 2007 to 2013, released only after the elections were held;
the suppression of an important FBS Employment and Unemployment Report which clearly showed that the negative economic impact of the Bainimarama Government;
the pro-Bainimarama Government bias of the Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) and its Chairman (Ashwin Raj);
the draconian Media Decrees, the media censorship, biased media ownership and management, and overall suppression of the free media by the Bainimarama Government;
the clearly biased Supervisor of Elections who refused to comply with legitimate instructions given by the Fiji Electoral Commission (approving an inappropriate candidate while eliminating one approved by the FEC);
the legislative demand that new parties must have the names and signatures of 5000 voters, all openly published in the Fiji Sun (while ninety percent of FFP Members of Parliament had less than 1000 votes each) making a farce of the principle that elections must be a “secret ballot”;
the prosecution and jailing of political opponents to disqualify them from standing as candidates;
the exclusion of photos, names and party symbols of candidates, leaving only 250 numbers out of which one had to be ticked, giving clear advantage to Bainimarama;
the tight control of the polling stations, the voting, the counting and the final reporting processes
the banning of voter education by NGOs;
the massive vote buying using taxpayer funds prior to polling day and promises of more.
Bainimarama’s advice to Indo-Fijians that there would be no further coups if he was returned to power.
the impact of an extremely biased media, including the government-owned FBC TV and radio stations whose CEO was the brother of the Attorney General, the preferential financial support of the owners of the pro-government Fiji Sun (while Fiji TV was on six month license extensions), the biased media journalists of these two media organizations
a former MIDA CEO and FBC employee who late in the day became FFP candidates
the banning of exit polls at any of the polling stations, the norm in other countries.
the fact that not a single polling station result was independently verified by the FEC, despite requests from concerned members of the public.
the significant disqualification of votes because small political parties and Independents could not get the massive 5% minimum threshold, or 27,000 votes (which even twenty of the FFP Members of Parliament could not obtain in aggregate).
a final result which was so incredibly lop-sided (some twenty FFP MPs have less than 1000 votes each) making a total mockery of the idea that voters were democratically electing their Members of Parliament.

While some individual articles in the Special Edition do a reasonable job of analyzing the particular aspect aimed at, the analysis of the totality of the 2014 Elections is extremely poor.

Indeed, any good junior academic could use merely the authors’ endnotes/footnotes and at least the salient facts listed above (there are more), to credibly establish the proposition that the 2014 Elections were NOT free and fair but “rigged”, and that the entire system and restrictive legislation need to change as the Opposition Parties are demanding.

The failure of the editors themselves to do this is extremely disappointing especially given that both Naidu and Slatter have long been active exponents of “leftist class analysis” of Fiji’s history and political economy as clearly seen in their PhD theses.

Were they mindful of their contracts at USP? Professor Naidu has been on short-term contracts at USP at the mercy of Vice Chancellor Rajesh Chandra, an open Bainimarama Government supporter. Were they merely following the “second best” solution that “something is better than nothing” even if watered down? Or are they simply closet supporters of the Bainimarama Government and its mantra “we are all Fijians”?

The Senior Editors’ choice of contributors however indicates a deliberate attempt to exclude different views of the 2014 Elections, while a recent attempt to change the management structure of the JPS suggests that the hand of USP management was not far away.

Biased choice of contributors

The back cover of the JPacS informs the world that it “welcomes scholarly contributions “ on topics relevant to the development problems of the Pacific islands, and that submissions would be judged by the usual academic criteria, including relevance, contribution to the literature and current debates.

Why then did the JPS Special Edition not approach two of the foremost writers on Fiji’s electoral systems, Professor Jonathan Fraenkel and Professor Wadan Narsey to contribute to their Special Edition on the 2014 Elections?.

Both Naidu and Tarte are personally aware that Narsey for more than a decade been involved in in community education alongside both of them including as part of initiatives by the Citizen Constitution Forum (CCF) on electoral systems, including that in the 1970, 1990, 1997 and especially the imposed 2013 Constitution under which the 2014 Elections have been held. Narsey was also part of the Yash Ghai Commission deliberations and conducted electoral workshops at USP.

Narsey has published more than twenty articles in The Fiji Times, on the “2014 Election Issues” in the 2014 Elections; spoken to gatherings of three Opposition parties (SODELPA, NFP and PDP) prior to the election; and prepared a rather prophetic Voter Education Kit for the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement and run workshops for the 2014 Elections even though the NGO’s voter education was banned by Bainimarama. All his writings have been on his personal website NarseyOnFiji read throughout Fiji.

When the Senior Editors were asked why I was omitted, Dr. Tarte said “she did not know”, while Professor Naidu said “We did not go outside of the university schools to seek contributors”. But in the same breath Naidu admitted that “the exceptions to this were Fr David Arms, and Chantelle Khan”. Why would Naidu and Tarte have made these particular exceptions? The mind boggles with Chantelle Khan.

Naidu later wrote to me (17 April 2016) “on hindsight I am sorry for what now appears to me as a silly oversight”.

But Naidu also added “I am very sorry that USP senior management actively prevented you from participating as a panelist and key note speaker on a number of occasions. This was not right and violated the principle of academic freedom, and the fundamental role of the university to promote debate and critical thinking. You correctly criticize the media situation in Fiji –it is pretty bad.”

It was no oversight to exclude critical views of the 2014 Elections. Naidu and Tarte were not interested in paying any attention to the need to have objective scholarly contributions in the JPS Special Edition devoted to the 2014 Elections, which would not only have enhanced the literature but encouraged the “debate” that the JPS claims to have as a central objective of their publication.

Censoring the JPS Board

The nature of the JPS Special Issue on the 2014 Elections is given another dimension given that Professor Vijay Naidu himself wrote to two senior economics professors trying to remove them from the Editorial Board of the JPS.

Without any meeting of the JPacS Editorial Board, it was announced that the Editor-in-Chief (Professor Biman Prasad) had been replaced by Professor Vijay Naidu and also excluded from the JPacS Board. Professor Narsey was also informed by Naidu, in writing, that he was no longer a member of the JPacS Board. Upon protest, both Professors Prasad and Narsey were soon reinstated on the Board, again without any explanation.
The question remains: who gave the orders to exclude Professor Biman Prasad and Professor Wadan Narsey from the JPS Board?

A mere Board Member himself, Naidu had no authority to exclude Professor Biman Prasad as Board Chairman and appoint himself; nor to exclude Professor Narsey, one of the most prolific academics writing on Fiji and Pacific issues. It is more likely that the initiative came from USP Vice Chancellor Rajesh Chandra, a Bainimarama supporter, with Professor Vijay Naidu merely signing his name to the orders, paying little heed to principles of fairness or academic integrity.

Of course, both Naidu and Tarte are well aware that the USP Vice Chancellor (Professor Rajesh Chandra) has interfered with the academic freedoms of USP staff and students, pressured senior academics and managers to resign, cancelled academic panel discussions, prevented guest speakers from speaking at World Press Freedom Day, and even stopped students protesting against the Indonesian Government’s suppression and genocide of the West Papuan people.

They would have known that Vice Chancellor Chandra would not have been happy with a critical analysis of the 2014 Elections “which called a spade a spade” nor would he have been keen to renew contracts of some academics who he could claim had “gone past the retirement age”.

The Silent Fiji Electoral Commission

It is pertinent that none of the former Fiji Electoral Commission (Chairman Chen Bun Young, Professor Naidu, Larry Thomas, James Sowane, Alisi Daurewa, or Jenny Seeto) have publicly criticized the clearly unfair elements of the 2014 Elections and none have publicly supported the calls by the Opposition Parties for changes to the systems.

The implicit message that has gone out to the voting public and the media is that all these former members of the FEC, labelled by the Bainimarama Government as “experts of one sort or another, endorsed the2014 elections processes and outcomes. It could be argued that they are all “closet” supporters of the Bainimarama Government and implicitly of the 2006 military coup.

The JPS Special Edition on the 2014 Elections and the involvement of Professor Vijay Naidu, Dr. Sandra Tarte, David Arms and Shamima Ali can all be viewed as part of the civil society “legitimation” of the repressive military Bainimarama Government and their legislation, rules and regulations manipulating the 2014 Elections, and eventually enabling them to claim that they had been democratically elected by the voters of Fiji.

It just as well that Fiji’s Opposition Parties are referring to the mild Report of the foreign Multinational Observer Group rather than the writings or views of USP’s local “experts”.

It is extremely sad that there are no university academics in Fiji who are prepared to point out the horrible erosion of academic integrity that has taken place at The University of the South Pacific, the once premier tertiary institution in the Pacific, under the management of Professor Rajesh Chandra, a mediocre academic/manager relying on the patronage of the Bainimarama Government to obtain and protect his job at USP.

Post-script 1
The involvement of Australian Catholic priest, Father David Arms, in Fiji’s election processes deserves special treatment within a broader analysis of the competing support of Fiji’s religious institutions for military coups and the ability of unqualified but white expatriates to fill vacuums in leadership in a morally bankrupt former colonial and mentally colonized country like Fiji.

Post-script 2
The involvement of prominent citizens (like Jenny Seeto, Larry Thomas, etc) in accepting appointments to the Fiji Electoral Commission also deserve separate analysis. There is of course now a new lot being paraded as part of the Khaiyum Machinery for Elections, about some of whom (e.g. fishing capitalist Graham Southwick) one can already make some interesting conjectures merely from recent news items about them.

Post-script 3
Also needing separate analysis is the decline in activity of NGOs like the Citizens’ Constitutional Forum which used to be in the forefront of advocating constitutional and electoral changes for making elections fair and is now reduced to calling on voters to be brave in voting. Or of once human rights battlers like the CEO of Women’s Crisis Center.

0 Comments

SODELPA TO THE RADRODROS: 'Shailendra Raju calling Sainiana Radrodro a BITCH has nothing to do with the party. He is not even a party member and his campaign for Rabuka does not have party's approval'

12/11/2017

0 Comments

SODELPA hierarchy are also worried that relentless attack on Khaiyum purely on grounds that he is Indo-Fijian MUSLIM could backfire at poll, especially with SITIVENI RABUKA as SODELPA party leader
The Indo-Fijians have a very, very, very long memory in Fiji Since 1879 they have existed in Fiji like hospital patients on a VENTILATOR - not knowing when the native Fijian nationalists and their shadowy chiefs will invoke their SUNSET CLAUSE and switch off the machine - and kick all of them out of their lands, property, and even hospital beds and deport them from Fiji
Long before Brij Lal and his wife Padma were exiled from their land of birth in 2009, many others had been meted similar or worse fate by SITIVENI RABUKA (but not a murmur from NFP whose then leader Jai Ram Reddy was willing to become Rabuka's deputy if SVT-NFP had won 1999 election). There was no discussion between the political leaders on the fate of those who had involuntarily lost their Fiji passports at the hands of Sitiveni Rabuka. Even Brij Lal, one of the architects of the 1997 Constitution, seems not to have raised the matter in any deliberations during the drafting of the Constitution. What right a third-ranking army officer and a RACIST have to seize A FIJIAN PASSPORT and send INDO-FIJIANS into Exile on the grounds that Fiji belongs to native Fijians?
WHAT right did this racist coupist have to issue a FATWA to KILL his opponents?
In choosing RABUKA as leader, SODELPA deliberately brought the executioner to have his finger on the VENTILATOR MACHINE - to whip up native Fijian voters.
But like survivors of the holocaust, it is our moral duty to stand up to RABUKA and those inside SODLEPA who want to bring back their SUNSET CLAUSE. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, 'We may all have come in a different ship - a drua from Africa or a coolie ship from India, but we're in the same boat now. Fiji belongs to all who were born in Fiji. We are all indigenous to the country. Its not the colour of your skin but the content of your character that makes you a Fijian.
I had, all my life, set my eyes on the promised land. I may not get there with you because of my EXILE but we as a people will get to the promised land, despite all the obstacles put in our way by pseudo and corrupt nationalists since 1879.'

“The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.”
V.S. Naipaul,
The Indo-Trinidadnian writer and Nobel laureate, in
A Bend in the River

The following poem by Nikhat Shameem, published in 1995, captures the plight of the Indo-Fijians in
Sitiveni Rabuka's Fiji:

ANOME

I leave this land where I was born
this sunny warm May morning
History has been unkind
to take no note of this bond
between me
and this land of mine

Misted porthole
I look out, I leave my soul
I cry my farewell
to home and friends and a life well-known
For what? I think with fear

Yes, I am scared and angry too
How can I start afresh?
In a country not seen before
what little choice I have

Your home is not your home, they said
Repatriate them! they called

Ten more minutes to touch down
Is that you my heart that pounds?

I wait at the airport, clutching my suitcase
and struggle with tears
No job, no work permit, what do I do?
Where will I go?
No home
No place to hide
How do I heal my wounds?

Head high I remember
the Syria
Through my veins flows
girmitiya blood
If they could do it
so will I
Do your damnedest

I will survive
in this new land
New Zealand

Fijileaks has extracted Nikhat Shameem's poem from the above book

"The Syria" in the poem refers to this girmitiya ship Syria which wrecked in Fiji in 1884; many survivors were saved by Nasilai villagers

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is maintaining his commanding lead as the preferred PM in the latest public opinion poll.

The poll, conducted by Razor for the Fiji Sun, has Mr Bainimarama leading with 66 per cent preferring him as Prime Minister.

People were asked who would they like to see elected as PM in the 2018 General Election.

The emphatic result confirms that Mr Bainimarama’s popularity has not waned since his election in the 2014 General Election, contrary to beliefs held by his political opponents that he has been losing ground.

In fact, Mr Bainimarama’s performance on the domestic front is complemented by his popularity on the international stage.

In the current COP23 summit in Bonn, he has introduced the Fijian way of dialogue called the talanoa session which engages a broad spectrum of leaders, representing a diversity of interests. It’s the first time it has happened in such a big international gathering.

His leadership at the United Nations Ocean Conference that Fiji co-hosted with Sweden in New York in June and at COP23 as its president, has been widely praised.

At home, the poll result comes as no surprise. It mirrors his impressive performance. He is generally regarded as “a man of the people.”

The opinion poll shows Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa also maintaining her position in second place on 14%, ahead of SODELPA Leader Sitiveni Rabuka on 10%. Others are on 5%, National Federation Party leader Biman Prasad on 3% and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry on 2%.

People were also asked who they would like to see as deputy PM: The result: Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum 51%; Pio Tikoduadua, Niko Nawaikula 7%; Aseri Radrodro 3%; Others 3%; Unsure 28%.

89% of those polled said they had registered and would vote.

63% picked FijiFirst as the favourite to win the election.

SODELPA came second at 21%. NFP and FLP scored 3%. Unity Fiji failed to win a vote. 1% said they would not pick any of the existing parties and 9% said they were unsure.

The poll was conducted in the Central, Northern and Western divisions. The survey involved 600 people in face to face interviews. The Fiji Sun, 11 November 2017

VICTOR LAL: 'Those of us who were fellow travellers with Aiyaz Khaiyum and Others in 1987 in our fight to bring down the curtain on the RABUKA HORROR SHOW, whether peacefully or violently, understand where Khaiyum is coming from, and where he wants to take Fiji, but he has to be accommodating and curb his ego and dictatorial manners.'

COMRADES AGAINST DICTATORSHIP: Mohammed Rafiq Kahan and Victor Lal in London, 1988. Kahan escaped extradition to Fiji after shipping 40 tons of weapons into the country to overthrow Rabuka

0 Comments

SODELPA stalwarts in Facebook war! Shailendra Raju: "She [Sainiana Radrodro] should fuck off and leave Rabuka alone. She is facing 12 charges for fraud and should be getting ready for prison next year"

11/11/2017

0 Comments

SODELPA MP, Shadow Minister for Transport, and Sainiana's husband ASERI RADRODRO hits back at Shailendra Raju:

"Shailendra Raju! I see you've been consistently attacking Sainiana Radrodro, swearing at her and threatening that she be removed from the party. Why don't you come and do that job yourself..Empty Vessels" - Aseri

The war of words broke out over this Facebook posting that Rabuka used to pick bottles at the sea wall and sell coconuts for a living after the Bainimarama regime cut off his Prime Ministerial pension.
'He still does it today'

SAINIANA RADRODRO outside Suva Magistrates Court

SODELPA'S FACEBOOK champion in New Zealand
Shailendra Raju with party leader Sitiveni Rabuka

SODELPA MP, Shadow Minister for Transport, and Sainiana's husband ASERI RADRODRO (right) hits back at Shailendra Raju:
"I'm thinking, Shailendra Raju. I see you've been consistently attacking Sainiana Radrodro, swearing at her and threatening that she be removed from the party. Why don't you come and do that job yourself. Vei kemuni na vakavosavosa tiko, tokona tiko na ka e vakatukuna tiko na tamat qo, kua mada na sika tiko vataveitalia na nomuni weli, da dui dikevi keda taumada. So talega na turaga go sa vinaka cake mera yalewa...#
Empty vessels..."

http://fijivillage.com/news-feature/SODELPA-member-raises-concerns-in-relation-to-comments-made-by-Rabuka-rk925s/

The following photo was tagged to the Raju Facebook posting:

THE UNRELENTING FACEBOOK WARRIOR FOR SODELPA IN NZ

UNRESTRAINED 'NAME CALLING' OF FIJIAN WOMEN ON FACEBOOK

SNAKES: A Viber message leaked to Fijileaks reveal Sainiana Radrodro calling Shailendra Raju and Rajendra Chaudhry SNAKES:

"Ni Bula . Dua ga Na taro. Ni Bau veitalanoa Se cava e nodrau I naki tiko o Shalendra kei Rajen? Are they really for the party or are they making sure Sodelpa splits into factions so that FLP benefits and NFP?

We started off 2014 with NFP gaining half of our strategies inside parliament. Changes had to occur as much as that were difficult and we got a new Party Leader. This is now being taken over by Shalen and Rajen. Neither of whom are Sodelpa and here we have indigenous Fijians singing their tune? Really?

Meanwhile I'm happy to have the party send me packing if that's what it wants. I'm sure the top echelon knows what will happen when that is done.
They will have to explain to the people why there were plots within to do what occurred to RTK.

I have all that on record. That may answer your questions on why they can't act to discipline people. Because they know I am not the culprit. They are.
Ni qarauna Vinaka Na gata Sa toka qo E loma. Na Marama ya Ena basuka Vakadua an duavata.

She is ruthless and is willing to go to any length.
And she is being supported by a very powerful person. Vinaka.”

0 Comments

FNUGATE: Fiji Immigration Department steps in and cancels the WORK PERMIT of Jonathan Cartmell after string of Fijileaks revelation about how FNU Vice Chancellor Nigel Healey manipulated interview process

10/11/2017

0 Comments

* A spokesman from Fiji's Immigration Department, speaking on condition of anonymity, has informed us that they have cancelled Cartmell's work permit, and that Healey has filed an appeal with the Immigration Department, peddling the same argument that there are no LOCALS available to take up the position of DIRECTOR Human Resources at the Fiji National University
* We had hinted in our previous posting that it is quite likely Healey deliberately marked down the local candidate for the job (26/17) to trigger the local's resignation, and to pave the way for Cartmell's appointment
at a salary of $300,000
* We are informed that the local's life at FNU had been calculatingly made very difficult since the interview, and he has tendered his resignation from FNU. As a result, Healey is now asking Fiji's Immigration Department to reconsider its decision over the cancellation of Cartmell's work permit as there are no locals available to take up the job
* We say: Re-Advertise the JOB. Cartmell was given a one-year work permit previously to train a local for the job. He was not expected to suddenly apply for the position: Director HR at FNU

One of the interviewing panelists has told Fijileaks that they were not informed by Healey about the request from one of the two local candidates for an independent panel. According to the panelist Healey had merely scrawled on the score sheet - withdrawn - against the name of one of the two local candidates, so they proceeded to interview the two remaining candidates, one local and another: CARTMELL

OUT OF FIJI: Our sources spotted VC Healey at the Nadi airport yesterday afternoon, heading off to New Zealand
Fijileaks: We call on FICAC to investigate Vice Chancellor Nigel Healey and former Consultant HR, Jonathan Cartmell, for alleged
ABUSE OF OFFICE
Fiji cannot bow and scrape to them just because EXPATRIATES
think they are ABOVE THE LAW

"He (a highly qualified local candidate whose name Fijileaks is withholding) even told VC [Nigel Healey] to set up an independent interview panel so that fair interview is being held. VC did not agree to _____'s suggestion of conducting a fair interview process...VC went ahead with the interview. Mr Cartmell's CV at the interview was introduced by VC..."
FNU Whistleblower to FICAC, 19 September 2017

19th September 2017

The Director
Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC)
Suva

Re: CORRUPTION AT FNU HR DEPARTMENT

This is to formally advise on the corrupt practice at Fiji national University. This is mainly related to appointment of Director Human Resources recently. Mr Jonathan Cartmell was hired by VC [Nigel Healey] as consultant Director Human Resources October last year.

1. He was hired on the basis that he would come and train all HR staff and in that process a new full time Director would be appointed and he would be a local based staff. This has been reported to Director Immigration dated 1st August 2017. Also attaching one for your reference. The attached letter was also sent previously but no action has been taken so far. (http://www.fijileaks.com/home/fnugate-fnu-whistleblower-to-immigration-department-the-director-human-resources-position-was-advertised-in-2016-however-without-any-formal-interview-consultant-director-cartmell-was-appointed-by-the-vc)

2. From the information that we have gathered is that Mr Cartmell has been given an offer as Director Human resources with a salary package of $300,000. This has not gone through the Council and the Senior Management Group of FNU. With this amount of salary, three Directors can be hired - local based. It seems like that the interview panel have been forced by Vice Chancellor to conduct interview of Director Human resources position.

3. The two panel members initially had declined to proceed with the interview since there were only two applicants and the position was not internationally advertised. There were only three applicants (the list is attached).

4. The person most capable was a local based staff (__________). who did not attend the interview since he became aware of VC's motive to hire Mr Cartmell. He even told VC to set up an independent interview panel so that fair interview is being held. He knew very well that how ever excellent he performs in the interview, Mr Cartmell will get the position.

5. _______ is the ____________of FNU and he is also ____________. VC did not agree to ________'s suggestion of FNU conducting a fair interview process. He knew very well that ________would point out the blunder that Mr Cartmell has created in the Job Evaluation Exercise. Please also contact________and he can point out what all went wrong with the Job Evaluation Exercise.

6. To avoid this being discussed in the interview, VC went ahead with the interview. VC knew very well that the other applicant ___________is not capable and the panel will obviously give less points so that he is not selected.

7._________. Please provides JUSTICE to local staff of Fiji.

cc:
Minister of Labour
Prime Minister's Office
Higher Salaries Commission
Minister for Education

0 Comments

FNUGATE: FNU Whistleblower to FICAC: "The person most capable was a local based staff (------). But he did not attend the interview since he became aware of VC Healey's motive was to hire Jonathan Cartmell..."

9/11/2017

0 Comments

"He (a highly qualified local candidate whose name Fijileaks is withholding) even told VC [Nigel Healey] to set up an independent interview panel so that fair interview is being held. VC did not agree to _____'s suggestion of conducting a fair interview process...VC went ahead with the interview. Mr Cartmell's CV at the interview was introduced by VC..."
FNU Whistleblower to FICAC, 19 September 2017

We have redacted the name of the two local candidates. The most qualified local candidate___ (whose name is on the interview list) had refused to attend the interview unless VC Healey set up an independent panel which did not include Healey. But Healey refused and also he did not relay the request to the other panelists. The choice was a foregone conclusion - the appointment of Cartmell who was not, in the first instance, meant to be offering himself as a candidate Director Human Resources. A work permit had been obtained on his behalf as a consultant to train a local to take up the DHR position. His work permit was granted till October 2017

Fijileaks: We call on the Director of Immigration to CANCEL Cartmell's WORK PERMIT and FNU VC Nigel Healey to be investigated by FICAC for alleged Abuse of Office. One of the interviewing panelists has told Fijileaks that they were not informed by Healey about the request from one of the two local candidates for an independent panel. According to the panelist Healey had merely scrawled on the score sheet - withdrawn - against the name of one of the two local candidates, so they proceeded to interview the candidates, one local and another, Cartmell.

We strongly suspect the Healey-Cartmell game plan is to trigger the resignation of the candidate who scored terribly low point from Healey (26-17) compared to from other panelists so that the two could CONVINCE the Immigration Department to endorse Cartmell's work permit, and knowing the most qualified local candidate refused to appear for interview unless Healey had recused himself from the interview panel.

"VC did not agree to 's suggestion for FNU conducting a fair interview process. He [Nealey] knew very well that _would point out to the [panelists] the blunder that Mr Cartmell has created with the Job Evaluation Process..." Whistleblower to FICAC, 19/9/2017

Fijileaks: It is well for FFP government to champion on CLIMATE CHANGE in BONN but it is equally urgent that LOCALS are not thrown into the sea by unscrupulous expatriates who are flooding Fijian institutions at the expense of qualified locals. It is time to reverse this climate of dumbing down locals for top jobs and holding them into life of servitude, and even induced resignations via cleverly orchestrated and stage-managed job interviews

Where did Nigel Healey find $300,000 to pay Cartmell for the DHR post?

0 Comments

FNUGATE! FNU Whistleblower to Immigration Department: 'The Director Human Resources position was advertised in 2016. However, without any formal interview Consultant Director Cartmell was appointed by the VC'

8/11/2017

0 Comments

'The Immigration Department was informed that Consultant Director HR was hired just to train Manager HR and all section Managers and then after 1 year, new local Director HR will be hired. VC and DHR are very close friends and it seems like Director HR position will be given to Mr Cartmell without giving opportunity to the local staff.'
FNU Whistleblower to Director of Immigration, 1 August 2017
Fijileaks: VC Healey, as we pointed yesterday, has appointed Cartmell as Director, Human Resources. He had DECEIVED the Immigration Department to get WORK PERMIT for Jonathan Cartmell as CDHR on the pretext that Cartmell would be training a local for Director HR job.
Both seem to have links with University of Bath in the United Kingdom. VC HEALEY and CARTMELL should be reported to FICAC, and prevented from leaving Fiji until the matter is fully investigated and resolved. We are tired of seeing EXPATRIATES come into Fiji, and the first thing they do is talk about restructuring - meaning KICKING OUT LOCALS - so these bloody leeches and fat cat expatriates could rake in over $300,000 in salary and hundreds in other perks and benefits. The real culprits are the appointing locals who go along with them at the expense of other locals

Its confession time. When Dr Ganesh Chand, an old friend of mine, was toying with the idea of forming the University of Fiji, he approached me for help, to sound out Ro Kepa, then Education Minister but who was perceived to be a racist towards Indo-Fijians. I agreed to liaise with her given my personal association with her late husband Sailosi Kepa from my Ratu Kadavulevu School days. I also provided a few statues of other Universities to Chand with a view to giving university education to more students, and to break the stranglehold of USP on education. Chand, as we know, later became VC of FNU. It is also time we KICKED OUT those expatriates who fly into Fiji, take up high-powered jobs, treat our locals with contempt, bring their fellow overseas cronies on massive salaries, and behave like 'White and Brown Sahibs' - and when things go wrong, they escape back to their respective countries on the next flight out of Fiji (Robin Nair, Ewan Perrin, John Samy, Narendra Prasad, Ian Rouse etc, etc, etc). In this instance, we have evidence that VC Healey is planning to dismiss over 15 staff from Human Resources to enable him to pay Cartmell over $300,000

CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY!!!!!

We reproduce the following letter written by the FNU Whistleblower to the Immigration Director on 1 August 2017, containing various allegations against VC Nigel Healey and Jonathan Cartmell. Since our e-mails and website are blocked by FNU, we have not been able to obtain comments from the two. We are also holding back documents which the Whistleblower provided to back up his allegations:

HILLY ROAD AHEAD: FNU VC Healey

"As soon as Mr Cartmell joined FNU, he initiated Job Evaluation Exercise which was a total failure." Whistleblower to Director of Immigration

0 Comments

FNUGATE: FNU Vice-Chancellor Nigel Healey who carted in Jonathan Cartmell as "Consultant" Director, Human Resources, now has appointed him as HR boss at expense of locals - with obscene salary of $300,000++

8/11/2017

0 Comments

HILLY ROAD AHEAD: FNU Vice-Chancellor Nigel Healey

Jonathan Cartmell

We will be bringing the inside story of the shady appointment tomorrow, including the letters to FICAC and the Director of Immigration regarding the underhand manner in which Healey allegedly went about to appoint Cartmell, whom the FNU staff have accused of being 'incompetent'.
He was brought in the guise of a 'consultant' to train locals for the job

Meanwhile, we bring an update on another Australian:

EWAN PERRIN - The 'Graduate' - CIO Academy,
Said Business School, University of Oxford
Oxford Said Business School to Fijileaks:
"This is not an accredited programme [CIO Academy], so you will not receive a CERTIFICATE, DIPLOMA or DEGREE from Oxford University..."

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

"We wish to make this abundantly clear this is not a military takeover of government. What the Zimbabwe defence forces is doing is to pacify a degenerating political, social and economic situation in our country which if not addressed may result in violent conflict."

Will Mugabe's hated wife be the tyrant's downfall? IAN BIRRELL of Daily Mail (London) explains how power in Zimbabwe could be swinging in favour of former vice-president dubbed 'The Crocodile'

The following chapter is from VICTOR LAL's bookFiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

MILESTONE: Faiyaz Koya is not only acting Prime Minister but he is also the first Indo-Fijian to be Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources. The Indo-Fijian politicians were reluctant to take up the position in old days because they were terrified of the chiefs

HEALEY circulated this circular below in response to Fijileaks postings

Fijileaks: More to follow in coming days

* Why is Healey comparing the weaker candidate_____ with Jonathan Cartmell?* Why not compare Cartmell with ____, the local candidate who was more qualified than Cartmell but who wanted Healey to recuse himself from the interview panel?

"The front cover of the Special Edition of the JPS had a photo of smiling Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum and emblazoned with the word “ENDORSED”, giving the clear impression to readers that the 2014 Elections had endorsed the Bainimarama Government." - NARSEY

“The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.”V.S. Naipaul,The Indo-Trinidadnian writer and Nobel laureate, inA Bend in the River

The following poem by Nikhat Shameem, published in 1995, captures the plight of the Indo-Fijians in Sitiveni Rabuka's Fiji:

SODELPA MP, Shadow Minister for Transport, and Sainiana's husband ASERI RADRODRO hits back at Shailendra Raju:

"Shailendra Raju! I see you've been consistently attacking Sainiana Radrodro, swearing at her and threatening that she be removed from the party. Why don't you come and do that job yourself..Empty Vessels" - Aseri

The war of words broke out over this Facebook posting that Rabuka used to pick bottles at the sea wall and sell coconuts for a living after the Bainimarama regime cut off his Prime Ministerial pension. 'He still does it today'

The following photo was tagged to the Raju Facebook posting:

THE UNRELENTING FACEBOOK WARRIOR FOR SODELPA IN NZ

UNRESTRAINED 'NAME CALLING' OF FIJIAN WOMEN ON FACEBOOK

SNAKES: A Viber message leaked to Fijileaks reveal Sainiana Radrodro calling Shailendra Raju and Rajendra Chaudhry SNAKES:

Where did Nigel Healey find $300,000 to pay Cartmell for the DHR post?

CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY!!!!!

"As soon as Mr Cartmell joined FNU, he initiated Job Evaluation Exercise which was a total failure." Whistleblower to Director of Immigration

Archives

The following chapter is from VICTOR LAL's book
Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention

* Why is Healey comparing the weaker candidate_ with Jonathan Cartmell?

* Why not compare Cartmell with , the local candidate who was more qualified than Cartmell but who wanted Healey to recuse himself from the interview panel?

“The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.”
V.S. Naipaul,
The Indo-Trinidadnian writer and Nobel laureate, in
A Bend in the River

The following poem by Nikhat Shameem, published in 1995, captures the plight of the Indo-Fijians in
Sitiveni Rabuka's Fiji:

The war of words broke out over this Facebook posting that Rabuka used to pick bottles at the sea wall and sell coconuts for a living after the Bainimarama regime cut off his Prime Ministerial pension.
'He still does it today'