Blog Archives

Doublespeak: In 2010 Ganesh Chand said those sacked for poor performance did not deserve wage or a living; now in he is demanding FNU pay him one and half years salary!

26/12/2014

SOME workers in Fiji, even after being sacked for poor performance, still believe they are owed a wage or a living.

This was the opinion of Fiji National University vice chancellor Doctor Ganesh Chand who spoke on "Competencies of Successful Human Resource Professional in today's Changing Scenario" yesterday at the Fiji Human Resources Institute Convention at the Warwick Fiji Resort.

For these workers, Dr Chand said, they cared less if they had performed poorly which resulted in the non-renewal of their contracts, they would still look for other means to get their jobs back.

The means include using church connections to influence those in authority, the unions or even writing letters to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption with allegations.

Dr Chand claimed such practices were rife in Fiji.

The academic also raised his concerns on the mentality certain people have- which was if they could not do the job, no one should be hired to do it.

Dr Chand gave an example of his own backyard two years ago when the then Fiji Institute of Technology offered the same cases as the Training Productivity Authority of Fiji but where the latter was compatible and way ahead of the FIT.

He said the FIT could have done better by offering degree courses as other technical institutions in the world do.

Dr Chand said the existing staff couldn't do that and were against the recruitment of staff who had the capability to do so.

The economist cautioned that most organisations had staff with such mentality. Source - Saturday, October 23, 2010 Fiji Times

The present Minister Jone Usumate and Yogesh Karan had lost their jobs (terminated) after Ganesh Chand had taken over National Trade and Productivity Organisation. He had brought in his cousin Kamlesh Prakash as Director.

Hi Fijileaks,

Western Heat has just posted a comment on your blog post and you need to approve it:

Kamlesh appeared from nowhere and got the job - we clearly remember JUsamate reading to us the Govt Document confirming the merger between TPAF and FNU - where it was stated that the former TPAF Director General will officially become the new Director of NTPC - this was part of the merger. However, after the merger two new posts were created to everyone's surprise. One was the Director NTPC and the other one was Director Standards. All this was Ganesh's work and from that day he lost face to everyone at TPAF...I also remember a document that floated around well before the merger where a letter was written by Ganesh to Netani Sukanaivalu regarding the transfer of TPAF's Fixed deposit of $10M to FIT in order to purchase the incomplete FIT Namaka Campus. When they failed to achieve that deal - (TPAF put up a strong resistance and that idea was shelved) their next move was to rope in TPAF into the merger so that they could grab hold of that money which they successfully did thru their cunning ways. Indeed Ganesh manipulated those in power. When the announcement was made it was mode none other than Netani Sukanaivalu who was acting as Min of Education while Bole was out of the country. Ganesh knew that he and Netani cooked up the idea of the merger and TPAF joining in later so they waited for the right time to present the paper in the interim cabinet meeting. It was approved in that meeting and we were all adviced that afternoon that TPAF no longer existed and we were to prepare for the merger in the new year. a few days later, we got a visit from Ganesh where he told us that he was going to fast forward the merger during the XMAS break so that we could start operating as NTPC in the new year. fast forward to today - we have only around 100 odd staff at NTPC from the 300 plus we used to have at TPAF - he has closed a few depts. and transferred some ot Samabula - his cunning ways is to close NTPC for good but the inevitable has come to early for him. he is on his way out even before closing NTPC down and we say "good riddance" he should be investigated, convicted and jailed. After that, investigate his cunning appointments and show them the door too coz they came in under controversial circumstances.

This FICAC investigation (below) was conducted and completed in 2012, and a new one was launched recently into FNU

From: Fiji Leaks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:55 PM
To: Director Human Resources
Subject: FICAC Investigation, Date: 28th June, 2012 to 8th August, 2012.

Bula Narendra

Would you like to comment on the following

Editor:

5.1.Director Human Resource and Finance.

Mr. Narendra Prasad, former Housing Authority CEO (Dr Ganesh’s acquaintance and appointee as CEO Housing Authority) a New Zealand citizen and close friend of Dr. Ganesh was appointed as Director Finance and Human Resources of FNU. Mr. Narendra Prasad’s appointment needs investigation as there are a lot of able qualified people for the two positions he is holding. Issuance of work permit to Mr. Narendra Prasad has to be scrutinised to establish the merit.

Remuneration

Mr. Narendra Prasad is on a salary of F$150,000.00. Was there a Higher Salaries Commission approval sought? No. F$150,000.00 would have to to be approved by HSC. The two positions are inter related and in this case it is conflicting for one individual to hold two positions. However, it has a micro chip attached for the two positions which simply means that it would make decision making easier on non ethical basis. It is evident that integrity and transparency ethics have been compromised. Other perks attached to these two positions will have to be tabulated to justify payment. It must also be determined as to whether he is medically fit for employment or other wise, establish any health related payments which is outside FNU HR Policy.

5.1.1Medical Evacuation

In accordance with the FNU HR policy, inpatient sick leave is only 30 days per calendar year.

Quote Policy Number 19 Sec 4 (Sub Section 4.1) – Any employee requires to undergo treatment as an inpatient in hospital or required by a registered Medical Practitioner appointed by the university to be confined at home on grounds of illness, is entitled to a period of up to 30 consecutive days of sick leave on full salary on any one year of service”Unquote.

In March, 2011, Mr Narendra Prasad has been paid F$30,000.00 for medical treatment in New Zealand and received salary for normal hours when in fact, he should have been paid as an inpatient.

Mr. Prasad was again paid $30,000.00 for medical treatment in New Zealand in June, 2011 and this time his leave was treated as InPatient Sickleave. Further investigations would reveal whether or not a medical review board is in place to determine medical evacuation for employees of FNU.

There is no medical insurance cover in place for employees of FNU and in all such cases taxpayers fund is being abused to fund medical treatment of employees of FNU. Mr. Prasad, a New Zealand resident, had been referred to New Zealand hospital, however, all other employees, have been refereed to India for treatment.

Findings:

a) Mr. Narendra Prasad was not treated as an inpatient for the first payment of $30,000.00. He was paid normal hours salary.

b) Mr. Narendra Prasad was paid a second payment of F$30,000.00 within a span of three months for medical treatment in New Zealand.

c) As a Director for Finance and HR, he would have been the best person to understand the HR/Finance Policy.

d) Accordingly, he has abused his authority insofar as the double payment of $30,000.00 for medical treatment is concerned.

Fijileaks: Narendra Prasad, who was beneficiary of Aiyaz Khaiyum's Dual Citizenship gift has FLED to New Zealand, and tendered his resignation to the FNU Senate last week, which was accepted!

14 Comments

PARENTS ANGUISH AT THE HANDS OF FNU : Fijileaks receives unsolicited e-mails from 'frustrated parents' after reading scandals at their son's university!

24/12/2014

2 Comments

Dear Fijileaks,

Below is my email to FNU and till date there has been no reply by FNU to my email or reimbursement of fees paid. Many parents have suffered this same fate by FNU thugs and robbers.

Cheers
(Fijileaks has withheld the parents names)

To [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mar 27

Dear Filimone,
Further to our meeting today, you have asked us to present our concerns in writing to you. Here is our 3 major concerns;

1. Our son had enrolled at FNU for Certificate IV in Automotive Engineering in January 2012 and has completed all his units successfully except for one which is computer studies which was not made available for him during the course of his studies and now he has been asked to pay a re-enrollment fee to do this unit which we strongly am against paying this fee as this was paid as part of the whole course.

2. Can FNU explain why mid way through this course has changed the required Total Program Credits of 64 to 71. This is an unacceptable practice. The obligation for FNU is to complete the Program as offered to us the customer which is 64.

3. Why is that FNU has not provided us with official Notification of Examination Results on completion of each Penster except for the first. Our son was made to run around, have his own results printed from the computer and then run back to the campus to have it verified and stamped. This is atrocious behavior and should not be condoned. We ask when would we receive his Official Notification of Examination Results from FNU.

We have booked to send our son to Suva to complete this final unit to attain his qualification, however time is of the essence because this unit is offered at your Suva campus commencing next week and we seek you confirmation by 4.30pm today in order to purchase his travel tickets. Here again we are penalised because we are unable to purchase relatively cheaper advance fares. In the first place we have no intentions to send our son away to Suva because of cost and affordability factors and with the current dengue epidemic but with your institutions delays we as parents are duty bound to give our son an early start in life and not waste his youth with your delays.

When seeking information of when the unit will be run from your Labasa campus we were told that there is no tutor available, or room available or there needs to be a minimum of students before this unit can be run.

We will be seeking redress on this issues raised, your efficient and early confirmation of issues raised will be appreciated.

Frustrated Parents
(Names withheld by Fijileaks)
______________

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More me To [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Apr 3
Dear Filimone,

Further to our meeting on 27 March and the subsequent email, can you please advise us of the concerns we have raised.

You have failed to get back to us before 4.30pm on 27Mar as promised in the meeting and also failed to acknowledge receipt of our email or respond to our email and phone message.

Frustrated Parents

2 Comments

HIT AND RUN MINISTER: Sunbeam Transport sources tell Fijileaks Education Minister Reddy bumped into one of their buses in late November but failed to STOP!

24/12/2014

1 Comment

Reddy was driving a Government vehicle from Nadi to Suva when he grazed the Sunbeam bus while overtaking! He did not stop nor report the incident as required of him by LAW!

NOTHING TO REPORT!

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the launch of the new Sunbeam buses in Lautoka

1 Comment

HOLDING BACK PRESS RELEASE: Education Minister Reddy holding back media release over Ganesh Chand's dismissal as FNU VC; Reddy doesn't want Fijileaks to get credit!

24/12/2014

12 Comments

Reddy is still hiding from Fijileaks over serious allegations of sexual misconduct against HIM; Fijileaks Editor: We will break with tradition and REVEAL the names of all those implicated in Ficac files, letters to Bainimarama and others regarding sexual misconduct etc at FNU. We have had ENOUGH of these people who think the coup and the election result has given them the right to do as they PLEASE!

12 Comments

By VICTOR LAL: As FICAC closes in on Ganesh Chand, FNU Senate and Council appoint Professor Ian Rouse as acting FNU Vice-Chancellor; Professor Richard Coll - DVC for USP!

23/12/2014

5 Comments

MONEY DEMAND: Pithily, Ganesh Chand demanding
One & Half Years Salary! Human Resources Director Narendra Prasad, implicated with Chand, and wanted by FICAC, tenders resignation after fleeing to New Zealand, holding Dual Citizenship

5 Comments

SWORD AND SHIELD: Did FNU and its Vice-Chancellor Ganesh Chand hide behind Khaiyum's Employment Decree 2007 to 'terrorise and hire and fire' staff with impunity?

23/12/2014

3 Comments

'4. That in reply to paragraph 4(a) to (q) of the plaintiff's (Ganesh Chand's) statement of claim I state that the meaning of my letter has been twisted and turned to make it look defamatory, furthermore writing any letter to the Honourable Prime Minister or FICAC should not be tried in the Court of Law, but proper investigation should have taken place to justify my grievances therefore I deny the same.'

Lal v Chand [2012] FJHC 859; HBC160.2011 (7 February 2012) IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 160 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
RAJESH LAL of Drasa Vitogo, Lautoka, Lecturer at Fiji National University.
PLAINTIFF
AND:
GANESHWAR CHAND aka DR. GANESH CHAND Vice Chancellor / Academic, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji.
1ST DEFENDANT
AND:
FIJI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY an Educational Institution incorporated under the Higher Education Act, Suva, Fiji.
2ND DEFENDANT
AND:
SISH RAM NARAYAN Saint Giles Psychiatric Hospital, Suva. Doctor.
3RD DEFENDANT
AND:
MINISTRY OF HEALTH Dinem House, 88 Amy Street, Toorak, Suva.
4TH DEFENDANT

ORDER

1. The plaintiff, by his writ of summons dated 05 October 2011, instituted action seeking inter alia a declaration against the 2nd defendant that the plaintiff's employment was terminated by the 2nd defendant without a lawful excuse or justification. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that such termination was mala fide, unlawful and was in breach of rules of natural justice.

2. The plaintiff also sought a declaration against the 3rd defendant on the basis that the 3rd defendant's actions were uncalled for, malicious and disrespectful.

3. The plaintiff, accordingly, sought to found claims for damages, both general and aggravated, against the 2nd and the 3rd defendants.

4. In his pleas for special damages, he claimed a sum of $ 10, 00,000.00 against the 2nd defendant; and, a sum of $ 150,000.00 against the 1st defendant (Ganensh Chand) on alleged bases of unlawful, malicious, disrespectful and derogatory actions. The plaintiff, in addition, sought a sum of $ 150,000.00 against the 3rd defendant, who is a medical practitioner at St. Giles Psychiatric Hospital in Suva under the 4th defendant-Ministry of Health, on alleged grounds of malpractice and negligence.

5. The basis of the claims is admittedly founded on the termination of the plaintiff's employment with effect from 01 November 2010 at the 2nd defendant-university. It could be deduced from the statement of claim, as pleaded by the plaintiff, that the termination of his employment was the culmination of an unsavoury relationship that he has had with the 1st defendant (Ganesh Chand). The plaintiff further pleaded that the alleged conduct of the 1st defendant caused him anxiety, depression, sleeplessness and instilled traumatized fear of uncertainty and uneasiness.

6. The plaintiff stated that, as the above symptoms surfaced, he took leave for medical treatment in August 2010 and consulted Dr Kiran at St. Giles Hospital. The 3rd defendant too assessed his condition at the hospital.

6. The plaintiff stated that he had requested for a report on the diagnosis of his alleged conditions; but, the 3rd defendant refused to give such report. The plaintiff claimed that the 3rd defendant was acting on dictation and that the refusal by him to issue a report was a breach of his professional duty and that he was acting beyond his jurisdiction.

7. The 1st defendant, in his statement of defence, denied the allegations. The 1st defendant, by his notice of motion dated 07 November 2011, moved that the action be struck-out in terms of O 18 r 18 of the High Court Rules as the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against him and asked that costs be awarded on indemnity basis.

As revealed by Fijileaks, a catalogue of complaints were filed against Ganesh Chand with the regime, and some even went to the High Court for redress but were TOLD by the court that it had no powers to hear their cases under Khaiyum's illegal Employment Relations Promulgation 2007; did this give Chand and his FNU cronies to bully and terrorize staff with impunity, knowing they had powerful allies in
Bainimarama/Khaiyum regime

11. At the hearing, Mr Anu Patel, learned counsel for the 1st and the 2nd defendants strongly contended that this court did not have jurisdiction insofar as employment-related matters are concerned after the enactment of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007. Mr Jeremaia Lewaravu, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd and the 4th defendants, associated himself with the submissions of Mr Patel and submitted that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of employment relationships in light of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007. I agree with the submissions of Mr Patel, learned counsel for the 1st and the 2nd defendants, that this court had ceased to have jurisdiction over the employment-related matters with the enactment of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007. In the circumstances, I hold that the writ of summons and the statement of claim against 2nd defendant are misconceived and constitute an abuse of process of court. I accordingly permanently stay the proceedings against the 2nd defendant. As regards the 1st defendant, the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and it is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and also constitutes, in the circumstances, an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, in the exercise of power under O 18 r 18 of the High Court Rules, I strike-out the statement of claim against the 1st defendant and dismiss the action.

Priyantha Nāwāna, Judge High Court

http://www.paclii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/fj/cases/FJHC/2012/859.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=ganesh%20and%20chand

Case Two

GANESH CHAND (father's name Hira Lal) Vice Chancellor of the Fiji National University, Kings Road, Nasinu in the Republic of Fiji Island.
PLAINTIFF
AND:
PUSHP CHAND (father's name Shiu Narayan) of 113 Rewa Street in Suva in the Republic of Fiji Island.
DEFENDANT
BEFORE: Master Deepthi Amaratunga

Date of Hearing: 24th November, 2011
Date of Ruling: 16th January, 2012

RULING

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The Plaintiff (Ganesh Chand) filled this action against the Defendant for alleged defamation. The Defendant wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (and it was referred to various agencies including Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) alleging certain abuses and corrupt practices of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the Vice Chancellor of the University, where the Defendant was employed. The Plaintiff filled this action for defamation and obtained default judgment against the Defendant and at the time of assessment of damages Defendant filled this summons for setting aside of the default judgment.

'4. That in reply to paragraph 4(a) to (q) of the plaintiff's statement of claim I state that the meaning of my letter has been twisted and turned to make it look defamatory, further more writing any letter to the Honourable Prime Minister or FICAC should not be tried in the Court of Law, but proper investigation should have taken place to justify my grievances therefore I deny the same.'

C. PREJUDICE TO THE PLAINTIFF 12. The Plaintiff has followed the procedure correctly and obtained default judgment and it is a regular default judgment. If the default judgment is set aside there is a delay, but even if that is not set aside still the Plaintiff needs to prove damages and assessment of damages needs to be proved with necessary oral and or documentary evidence. In the circumstances, if the default judgment is set aside it cannot be considered as a prejudicial to the Plaintiff, other than delay. The delay can be compensated by an award of cost against the defaulting party. Considering the circumstances of the case, I will allow the application to set aside the default judgment subject to a cost of $ 500 being paid by the Defendant to the plaintiff.

D. CONCLUSION

13. The proposed statement of defence alleges justification which is a legally acceptable defence for a claim against defamation. The defence of justification needs to be tested with proper evidence, subject to cross examination and this can only be done in the trial. The Defendant who had worked under the Plaintiff has alleged certain irregularities in the institution and this evidence needs to be tested in the trial. The default judgment needs to be vacated in the circumstances. There is no prejudice alleged by the Plaintiff, that cannot be compensated by an award of the cost. The Default judgment entered on 10th March, 2011 is set aside. The Defendant is ordered to pay a cost of $500 to the Plaintiff within 14 days and to file and serve the statement of defence within 14 days from today.

E. FINAL ORDERS

a. The Default Judgment entered on 10th March, 2011 is set aside.

b. The Defendant is ordered to pay a cost of $500 within 14 days from today.

c. The Defendant is ordered to file and serve the statement of defence within 14 days from today.

d. There after the matter will take normal cause.

Dated at Suva this 16th day of January, 2012.

Mr. Deepthi Amaratunga
Master of the High Court
Suva

http://www.paclii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/fj/cases/FJHC/2012/3.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=ganesh%20and%20chand

3 Comments

CHEERS! Another regime sucker Aisake Taito given the boot by Khaiyum as FNFP CEO; Fijileaks says these 'b*******' deserve their Xmas presents!

23/12/2014

0 Comments

The all pervasive Sri Lankan chairman Ajit Kodagoda shows the native treasonous Fijian the door out of the FNFP building! Taito had propped up the regime, cutting and signing all sorts of deals, using FNFP cash!

CHEERS: Ajit Kodagoda - Khaiyum's hit man - gets rid of Taito!

0 Comments

KICK HIM OUT: Aiyaz Khaiyum tells FNU Chancellor Mahendra Reddy to give his former treasonist buddy Ganesh Chand the boot by end of the week from his job!

22/12/2014

5 Comments

But Education Minister Mahendra Reddy is next on Khaiyum's firing list after coup buddy Reddy went around telling all his friends that he was not credited with preparing the recent Budget and also that he was cheated out of the post of Minister of Trade; Bainimarama also under pressure to sack Reddy after revolt at Education Ministry for his dictatorial behavior and planned sweeping changes; trying to get
rid of Divisional Education Officers and DPS!

From: Mikaele Leawere [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2014 4:50 PM
To: Mahendra Reddy ([email protected])
Cc: 'Maika Namudu'; [email protected]; [email protected]; PS PM's Office ([email protected])

Subject: REFORMS AND REMOVAL OF POSITIONS

Dear Dr Reddy

Greetings from FTA!

We are writing to voice our concern regarding issues which are highlighted below. Our issue is the removal of the post of Deputy Secretary For Education, Primary/Secondary and Divisional Education Officer Positions and as well as your proposed restructure of posts in Ministry of Education without consultations which were ratified by previous democratic governments and has led to write to you quoting relevant sections of the Education Commission Report 2000,Chapter 24, Section

24.4, Page 373 where it specifically states that whatever changes to be made, it is the system that needs to be reviewed and what it does not suggest is discarding these positions but rather to look at them in terms of effectiveness.

a)     Pursuant to this as stated herein, the 1993 Job Evaluation Agreement which also recognized the importance of the said positions had classified them under the generic ED Classification.

b)     One of the striking facts about these changes is that, it lacks consultations and the most pitiful thing about it is the lack of vision by the Permanent Secretary who should be strong to inform your office of your unilateral decisions being made which demoralises the entire staffs that are affected in your Ministry. As a consequence, it has resulted in making your people powerless and to make it worse, you have not considered the positive contributions they have made to the whole Education System. Such clear lack of policies often leads to confusion about education strategies that are being pursued by your Ministry.

c)     Under ERP 2008, Section 14 – (1) and Fiji Constitution 2013, Section 20 – (1), (4) we have the right, to challenge in court your undemocratic decisions.

As often suggested by you as Minister of Education regarding reforms, we are informing you that some of these changes you are introducing without dialogue and consultations with relevant bodies; shows a lack of respect for our individual and workers’ rights including Unions right to bargain collectively. You have not followed due process as you have now made yourself judge and jury. This is challengeable in a court of law.

We do not approve of withdrawal of the DSPS position and etc without consultations as their roles help distribute supervision at PS level to ensure quality education and being mindful of rural and disadvantaged populations.

Where is the logic in these reforms? Why are you dismantling everything at MOE? You have virtually dismantled the structure currently available, from post processing (as Chair which undermines the authority of the Permanent Secretary under relevant section 127 (1-8) and PEO positions (PEO Eastern and PEO ESU), interfering in the interview of these posts as well as Divisional Education Officers.

Furthermore whist we agree with the proposed movements of Master Seci Waqabaca and Mrs Fotofili, we are wary and apprehensive of their replacements as these positions should be filled from within.

Budget has already been set and such changes are done before budgets to ensure we are sincere and transparent with government Annual budgets.

It is evident, you are doing consultations on the above issues outside education circles and forcing them [despite the new democracy] in the education system without consulting stakeholders . This arrogance we will not accept and must rise to challenge with what the laws permit us to do, if you fail to respect and consult us.

Our fear is not the reform but the negative effects of an untested theory loaded with in-genuine motives to drive quality education.

We will await your response as we feel that you have breached the very constitution that you have boldly professed that you had contributed to its compilation.

We need to remind you that FTA will seek legal redress should you fail to address our concerns.

……………………

Mikaele Leawere

FTA

Suva

Golden handshakes turning to dust

Power had gone into their heads!

History repeating itself: Mahendra Reddy and Ganesh Chand had taken over Chaudhry's hat and were behaving like they were the new warlords of Fiji post-coup!

5 Comments

Is MIDA an Oxymoron? Letter to MIDA Chairman and Media Editors - Professor Wadan Narsey

21/12/2014

3 Comments

Fijileaks Editor: Health Warning-“Readers interested in comprehending what Ashwin Raj regularly asseverates to the public should have no difficulty in understanding what “oxymoron” means as by now they have all been forced by the western neo-colonial imperative to invest in English dictionaries in order to understand his gnomic pronouncements over the last two years. That is of course, when he is not gallivanting around in Geneva (telling pack of lies against Radio New Zealand International) or the AG’s conferences spouting forth on issues that are as far from germane to his allegedly independent dynamic gladiatorial role as MIDA Chairman, as he is to a genuine media specialist”.

Narsey

Mr Ashwin Raj
Chairman (MIDA)

Dear Sir

While your communication of 19th December 2014 (via a cc to me) declares with respect to my complaints that “the case is closed”, I disagree.

I hereby submit this set of formal complaints to you, including one that you as Chairman of MIDA, have failed to satisfactorily address my previous complaints to you, contrary to the requirements of the Media Decree 29 of 2010, and you are thereby yourself personally responsible for the continuing disturbances so publicly evident in the media industry.

Requirements of the Media Industry Development Decree (Decree 29 of 2010)

Paragraph 8 (a) states that the authority is required to “encourage, promote and facilitate the development of media organizations and media services in Fiji”.

I suggest that this requires, for instance, that the professional staff of the media organizations must be treated fairly in their employment, without any arbitrary termination without due cause (see Complaint 1).

It also requires that targeted media organizations are not treated unfairly by government in the disposition of tax payer funds for official advertisements or subsidies or fulfilment of lawful contracts (refer to Complaints 2 and 3 below).

Paragraph 8 (d) requires MIDA to “ensure that media services are provided at a high standard in all respects and, in particular, in respect of the quality, balance, fair judgment and range of subject-matter of their content”.

This requires that Editors of media organizations, must not arbitrarily refuse to print Letters to the Editor which are in the public interest and ensure balance in content, which are also required by the Media Decree No. 29 of 2010 (refer to Complaint 4 below).

Paragraph 9 (a) requires MIDA to “conduct research and investigations necessary for the improvement and development of media in Fiji”. Paragraph 9 (b) requires MIDA to develop and monitor codes of practices relating to content of technical standards for media services or to standards of fair market conduct in the media industry, and monitor compliance with such codes”. Both of these have now been reneged upon by you (refer to Complaint 4).

Paragraph 8 (b) of the 2010 Media Decree LSO requires MIDA to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on any pertinent matters, measures and regulations connected to the media (refer to Complaint 7 below).

I hereby make the following formal complaints to you, in respect of your statutory obligations as Chairman of MIDA.

Formal Complaints

Complaint 1

I request you to conduct a formal inquiry into the causes of the termination of Fiji TV CEO (Tevita Gonelevu) and Head of Content (Tanya Waqanika) by the Board of FHL, as also called for by some elected members of the Fiji Parliament.

I call on you to also investigate whether the recent suspension of these two Fiji TV staff has been encouraged by your refusal to investigate my previous complaint about the suspension of Mr Anish Chand by Fiji TV (see Complaint 3 below) as well as the clearly intimidating renewal of the license of Fiji TV on a six monthly basis (also in Complaint 3 below).

Complaint 2

I request you to investigate the recent disturbances caused by government interference with the contractual right of Fiji TV to broadcast Rugby Sevens, as also called for by some elected members of the Fiji Parliament.

I call on you to also investigate whether this disturbance has been encouraged by your refusal to investigate my previous complaint about a similar disturbance and undermining of a broadcast rights contract that Mai TV had won from FIFA (see Complaint 3 below).

Complaint 3

I wish to register with MIDA my complaint that you as Chairman, despite the requirements of Clause 8 (a) of the 2010 Media Decree, continue to refuse to reply to previous complaints I have made to you (as on 3 July 2014) about the lack of a level playing field in the media industry, whereby I had requested (I quote below):

“could you please inform the public what is your position on:

(a) tax payers’ advertisement funds being channelled by the Bainimarama Government only to Fiji Sun with The Fiji Times, the oldest Fijian newspaper, being totally denied

(b) outright subsidies given to FBC via government budget and government guarantees of loans from FDB, with no such subsidies given to either Fiji TV or the other radio broadcasters, Communications Fiji Ltd.

(c) the clearly intimidating renewal of the license for Fiji TV on a six monthly basis, while FBC TV suffers from no such restriction

(d) While Fiji TV’s accounts are available to the shareholders, FBC accounts are not available at all to the taxpayers who supposedly own FBC.

(e) Mai TV’s “scoop” at obtaining rights to the broadcast of FIFA World Cup (a legitimate entrepreneurial transaction admired in the business world) being forcibly shared by decree among the other broadcasters, on financial terms dictated by the Bainimarama Government rather than negotiated amongst themselves as a market transaction.

I remind you that you have steadfastly refuse to respond on the above matters to me personally or through the media and I request you again, to respond to these complaints.

I further request that if you are indeed now “Executive Chairman” as the 19th Dec. 2014 email from the Publisher/CEO of Fiji Sun (Peter Lomas) addresses you as, then I suggest that you ask the Board of MIDA (if there is one), to establish how a complaint against you as Chairman is to be addressed.

Complaint 4

When I had previously complained to you as MIDA Chairman that the two newspapers were not publishing some of my Letters to the Editor which ought to have been published as they were clearly in the public interest and satisfying the “balanced content” requirement of the 2010 Media Decree, you responded to the newspapers (Peter Lomas and Fred Wesley) and merely cc’d to me (17 Dec. 2014) stating the following:

“I wish to reiterate that as much as the media is free to publish, it equally has the right not to publish. .. any interference by MIDA in this process would ordinarily be deemed as an assault on the independence of the media by Wadan Narsey amongst others…. The matter is now closed.”

It is patently ridiculous of you to claim that requiring the newspapers to publish Letters to the Editor which are legitimately raising matters of public interest amounts to “an interference by MIDA in this process” and “an assault on the independence of the media by Wadan Narsey amongst others.”

Perhaps you might like to explain which of MIDA’s interventions on in the media industry can be seen as “interference” and which are legitimate under the 2010 Media Decree.

Furthermore, I suggest that it is quite inappropriate for you to declare dictatorially that “the matter is now closed” when you have patently not responded to my specific complaints.

I request you yet again to obtain from the two newspapers (The Fiji Times and Fiji Sun), in keeping with paragraphs 9 (a) of the 2010 Media Decree, detailed information on the content of my Letters on which they have exercised their discretion to not publish, and to explain to me and the public, how publishing these Letters to the Editor would have constituted an “assault on the independence of the media” as opposed to providing “balanced content” raising “legitimate questions in the public interest”.

Complaint 5

Just prior to the elections I complained to you (on 20 August 2014) that the media journalists who were interviewing political candidates, and MIDA itself did not appear to be neutral during the elections, despite your pronouncements that you would ensure that the media was neutral during the elections.

One Fiji Broadcasting Corporation journalist, Veena Bhatnagar, soon after showing her pro-Bainimarama bias when hosting an FBC hosted debate between two political candidates (Professor Biman Prasad of NFP and Aiyaz Khaiyum of FFP), herself became a candidate for FFP (and is now an elected MP). The MIDA CEO (Matai Akauola) also become a candidate for FFP.

I asked you to explain when exactly your CEO began discussions with the FFP to stand as their candidate, and to ask the FBC CEO (Riyaz Khaiyum) when he was informed by his journalist Veena Bhatnagar that she was having discussions with Fiji First Party to stand as a candidate for them.

You did not reply to these questions which ought to have received your close attention as MIDA Chairman, given all your many utterances in the media how you were going to ensure that the media was fair to all parties and candidates.

I request you again to answer these questions.

Complaint 6

I request you to explain why you have reversed your position of several months ago that you were calling on the editors of newspapers to furnish you with their editorial policies on Letters to the Editor (as required by the 2010 Media Decree, paragraphs 9 (a) and (b), to one today where you are declaring that they are totally free to publish or not publish, without any accountability to you which you are now strangely labeling as “interference”.

Complaint 7

Since you are required to act proactively (as you amply displayed over the alleged “hate speech” of Ratu Timoci Vesikula), can you inform the public whether you have advised or made any recommendations on any of the issues involved in Complaints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, above to the Minister for Communications, as you are required to do by the 2010 Media Decree, Clause 8 (b).

Complaint 8

I request you to make known your position on clear possibility of conflict of interest, when the Minister for Communications frequently makes decisions on the media industry which directly impacts on the welfare of Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, whose CEO is his own brother. This has also been criticized by elected Members of Parliament.

I also suggest to the Opposition political parties that while they wait for you to respond (and that may well be delayed because of your other well-publicized activities on behalf of the Fiji Government), they simultaneously use their abundance of lawyers and apply to the courts to obtain justice from MIDA, given that reasonable requests from individual tax payers are now being construed by you as an “assault on the independence of the media”.

Is MIDA an oxymoron?

It is abundantly clear that the weaknesses in the media industry as outlined in my specific complaints continue to create media undesirable “disturbances” which are not conducive to harmonious development of either the media industry or social objectives served by a sound media industry.

Should you continue to refuse to respond to these complaints above, then I suggest through this Open Letter to the Editor, that students of journalism and English ought to investigate whether MIDA, under your chairmanship, is a good example of an “oxymoron”.

Professor Wadan Narsey
Suva

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/resign-you-lying-media-bully-mida-chairman-changes-tune-against-radio-new-zealand-after-lying-to-un-that-the-radio-station-had-apologized-and-retracted-stories

3 Comments

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: The Work and the Power of Professors and Journalists" in coup plagued Fiji!

21/12/2014

7 Comments

By Professor Wadan Narsey

Introduction

It has been a personal paradox that this professor can be castigated by a university management for being too “journalistic”, and at the same time be criticized by journalists for being “too academic”, allegedly having “only text-book knowledge”.

This paradox took on more significant dimensions recently, when elected parliamentarians, without any challenge, openly ridiculed a parliamentary professor of economics and trade expert, over his knowledgeable 2015 Budget criticism that the Bainimarama Government was protecting unsustainable industries.

The strange juxtaposition of these events poses wider questions not just for our universities, but also for our communities and taxpayers, who usually value the “learning” that university academics provide their children, enough to pay the high costs of training them with certificates, diplomas and degrees.

First, do our universities value “journalists” as worthy professionals just as they do lawyers or professors of economics?

Second, what do USP’s stakeholders (governments, students, people USP Council) expect as “appropriate” work from any “professor” and does that exclude “journalistic” media contributions directed at the wider community?

Third, what practical steps should universities and the media industry take, in order to enhance the developmental contribution of both journalists and academics through the popular media?

What are the underlying social conditions which allow the knowledge and learning of the only two local professors of economics to be publicly ridiculed, by journalists and parliamentarians without any opposing public voices?

USP and journalism

In 2011, under pressure from the Bainimarama Government because of my criticisms of their policies, the management of The University of the South Pacific strangely complained about my “overly journalistic writing instead of academic analysis” as a good enough reason for wishing me gone.

They warned that my “journalistic writings could “bring disrepute to the professoriate because some people have said, is this what you expect from professors?”

Of course, journalists can take comfort that a military dictatorship implicitly fears the power of popular media, while articles in academic journals by the same academics would not even be on their radar.

But USP management’s disparagement of “journalistic” writings was astonishing, given that USP has developed a well-respected School of Journalism and programs which had been approved by the University management and Council, after rigorous accreditation.

Indeed, the USP Journalism School, its academics, and students had been winning awards and recognition regionally and internationally.

It was also surprising given that the USP management (including the Vice Chancellor and two Deputy Vice Chancellors) were experienced educators and administrators who ought to have been fully aware of the important role that journalism (whether by dedicated journalists or academics) played in community education and development, and especially as a watchdog on government.

Why would any university think that “journalistic” writing did not befit “professors”?

What work should professors do?

While it is generally accepted by universities that professors need to teach and conduct research and publish, the nature of the publications and where they are to be published have been an issue at many universities internationally as at USP.

Several years ago, an Appeal Committee ruled that USP was wrong in denying a promotion to the solid academic, Professor Jayaraman (now of FNU) because he was publishing in journals which while relevant to the Pacific, were supposedly not “A” grade according to some universities’ narrow definitions. A similar ridiculous controversy affected the reputable Pacific Economic Bulletin journal at ANU, whose downgrading was eventually reversed.

Of course it is accepted that publication in regional and international academic journals is important, and I have continued to do my bit there.

But after three years as Shadow Finance Minister in Parliament between 1996 and 1999, my research and writings became far more focused on applied policy research and analysis, and my writing leaned more towards community education through newspaper articles, and TV and radio interviews.

USP management was well aware that many of my so-called “journalistic” articles were based on solid academic research and analysis, for example of Fiji Bureau of Statistics national household surveys on incomes, expenditure, or employment, or their census reports, and had launched many of my research monographs. Two years previously, this professor had also been awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Prize for Research.

For me, these “journalistic” newspaper articles played the critical role of communicating serious research findings and policy implications to governments, NGOs, the private sector and the communities at large, and in simple jargon-free language that the public could understand.

This last step was indeed critical in ensuring that the public understood and valued the end result of the time-consuming detailed Fiji Bureau of Statistics questionnaires they filled out for two weeks, enough to not chase them away from their doorsteps.

The USP management was well aware that USP’s Mission and Vision statements required its academics (and I quote from both):

“…to provide relevant and sustainable solutions across the spectrum of contemporary challenges in the Pacific… (with) applications for the Pacific region and benefits the people who occupy it; … to effectively engage with stakeholders throughout the Pacific region, particularly with our Member Countries, to enhance political, economic, social and cultural development”.

It cannot be questioned at all that many of my “journalistic” articles were fulfilling the core objectives of USP’s Mission and Vision Statements.

It could even be argued that these community education articles are far more useful for the taxpayers who fund USP, then irrelevant articles in international academic journals.

Indeed, in 2010, when my contract had not been renewed normally, an Appeal Committee of USP Council (chaired by Ikbal Janif, the current Chair) expressed similar sentiments in criticizing USP management:

“that the criterion of publishing internationally was over-emphasized … that the matter of teaching, research and publications in areas of regional relevance ought to have carried “more weight” … The Committee also noted that he was an exemplary academic and a teacher of very high caliber”.

This is an issue that needs serious debate by USP stakeholders including USP Council, staff, students and the people of the region, and would be critical in determining the nature of the KPIs that universities set for their academics.

It is a pity that my economics colleagues at USP have shown little inclination in communicating their research findings to the public, through the popular media.

The few who have tried, probably understand very well how much more difficult it is to write a thousand word “journalistic” article that the ordinary public will understand and find interesting enough to read, than reams of academic articles.

Journalists’ contempt for professors

The contempt shown by a few journalists for academics has been quite a new development, sadly unchallenged by the Fiji public.

A particular newspaper columnist has commented at various times, as follows: “the opinionated Wadan Narsey”; who “does not fail to pontificate on the media”; who “writes about everything under the sun”; the “unhappy Narsey” complaining that MIDA Chairman (Ashwin Raj) has “allegedly not taken action over some of his complaints”.

This columnist was probably not born when this academic began writing newspaper articles on Fiji’s economic, political and social issues, most of which are still relevant today.

There is a wider problem here than criticism of me personally, as the same newspaper also regularly disparages Professor Biman Prasad, an elected parliamentarian, Shadow Finance Minister and Chairman of the important Public Accounts Committee, as do some of his parliamentary colleagues.

Parliamentarians’ contempt for academics

The contempt for academics has caught on in the Fiji Parliament, where Professor Prasad’s knowledgeable contributions on the international failure of badly targeted protectionism have been rubbished by the Minister of Finance and several of his Fiji First Party colleagues, as being too academic, theoretical, and “text bookish”.

Despite his well-known academic record on development issues and personal sacrifice in leaving USP to contribute to national development through parliament, his parliamentary critics even accused him of having little concern for the livelihoods of the protected dairy farmers or the workers employed by the so-called “manufacturer” of exercise books.

Their views are understandable, even if incorrect, as my “journalistic” article explained two years ago to The Fiji Times readers:
https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/the-costs-and-hidden-hand-outs-of-protectionism-the-fiji-times-14-august-2002/

That article explained in simple language why it is easy for the public to see the visible benefits of protectionism for employment and local business survival, but far more difficult to understand that the value of these benefits may be worth far less than the invisible extra costs to consumers who pay higher prices, often for lower quality products.

Of relevance to the 2015 Budget, this so called “text-book theory” applies to both the protection of imported milk products which Professor Prasad was talking about, as it does to the tariff protection of exercise book “manufacturers”.

It is a tragedy that the economists in the Ministries of Finance, Planning, Trade, the Reserve Bank of Fiji, and even the CEO of Consumer Council are not able (for whatever reason) to explain to the public the unacceptable costs of protectionism.

It is a bigger tragedy that the Minister of Finance and some FFP Members of Parliament, displaying their ignorance of economics, suavely and gleefully rubbish the advice of professors of economics, without being questioned by the apathetic public.

Of course, merely being professors does not entitle academics to respect, but surely their considered opinions deserve greater scrutiny from parliamentarians than superficial barbs such as “too academic” “too theoretical” or “that’s just text-book stuff” or “why don’t they become businessmen.”

I suppose in the context of the protectionism debate, some Fiji businessmen will understand only too well how contributions of a few hundred thousand dollars to powerful political parties, can easily generate dividends of millions of dollars of profits through tariff protection, while costing millions extra to consumers.

The need to recognize “journalistic” contributions

The last eight years of military dictatorship in Fiji has severely curtailed public discussion of many policy issues, by both journalists and academics.

Yet there continue to be many contentious issues on which academics and analytical journalists can, through articles in the popular media, help form public opinion and influence government decisions.

For example, where should one draw the line between commercial development creating jobs and incomes and mangrove and environmental protection; what will be the costs and benefits of banning foreigners from buying freehold land in urban and peri-urban areas or even rural areas; should young children be taught in their mother tongues or in English; should the State interfere with legal contracts such as between Fiji TV and World Rugby; and the list goes on.

However difficult it may be politically, the media must give time to its own journalists to do the kinds of investigative analysis and feature articles that used to be so common before the media censorship.

All tertiary educational institutions (not just universities) must also encourage their academics to write popular media articles on serious policy issues, by giving them due credit during staff assessments.

The media industry in co-operation with tertiary institutions, can encourage these trends by giving awards and cash prizes for best journalist and academic contributions in print, video and radio.

To ensure wide developmental impacts, the awards could be differentiated by economics, politics, society, environment, sports, education, gender, and whatever other fields the media industry and tertiary academic institutions deem relevant.

There will surely be no shortage of sponsors of the prizes and awards.

With a well publicized annual media event, the public at large might also begin to think differently about the value of popular media contributions by both journalists and academics.

7 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Reddy was driving a Government vehicle from Nadi to Suva when he grazed the Sunbeam bus while overtaking! He did not stop nor report the incident as required of him by LAW!

MONEY DEMAND: Pithily, Ganesh Chand demanding One & Half Years Salary! Human Resources Director Narendra Prasad, implicated with Chand, and wanted by FICAC, tenders resignation after fleeing to New Zealand, holding Dual Citizenship

The all pervasive Sri Lankan chairman Ajit Kodagoda shows the native treasonous Fijian the door out of the FNFP building! Taito had propped up the regime, cutting and signing all sorts of deals, using FNFP cash!

Archives

MONEY DEMAND: Pithily, Ganesh Chand demanding
One & Half Years Salary! Human Resources Director Narendra Prasad, implicated with Chand, and wanted by FICAC, tenders resignation after fleeing to New Zealand, holding Dual Citizenship