Fijileaks: Full details to follow soon! Now you can see why Media Decree was brought in and there was a 48 hour news blackout before the poll in September, aided and abetted by pro-regime media propagandists! The FNU scandals were put on the back burner for FNU's Dr Mahendra Reddy had put himself for election to Parliament as Fiji First Party candidate
4 Comments
MR TEFLONS MELT UNDER WORLD RUGBY TV SCRUM: Let's Play Spot The Difference or 'What about Mai TV?'14/12/2014 * Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to World Rugby Ltd in his letter of December 3 2014: ‘As explained in our 10 October 2014 letter to chairman of the World Rugby (International Rugby Board at that time), the Television (Cross Carriage of Designated Events) Decree 2014 (Law) ensures that any event which is of national importance is shown through all broadcasting entities." * Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum in his Ministerial statement to Parliament, December 9 2014 [Youtube clip] from 15:08: ‘The law that is in question sets out a number of designated events which requires all free to air television stations to televise these events.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=peQJK6Yif28 * Only four days and much public anger later - Frank Bainimarama’s speech at the opening of the Punjas Biscuit factory on December 13 2014: ‘As you will have all heard, we reached an agreement yesterday with World Rugby to end the impasse that deprived everyone of coverage of the first game in Dubai. The remaining games will all be seen on our two free-to-air TV stations.’ [Exactly when did Mai TV stop being one of Fiji’s free-to-air TV station, Mr Prime Minister?] The sheer scale of the self-dealing nepotism and corruption at the heart of the Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum regime-within-a-regime, and his wicked attack on Fiji TV, Fiji TV’s shareholders and the wider rugby-supporting public, is laid clear by the silent removal of Mai TV from the compromise arrangements cobbled together to head off public revolt. Mai TV is the second of Fiji’s three free-to-air broadcasters by date of launch, has been entirely privately funded, and unlike the vastly wasteful FDB-funded FBC TV. The great irony of this government media policy (which operates all of its bashing through the Orwellian-named Media Industry Development Authority) is that on a tiny, advertising-led budget Mai TV has unearthed and launched exceptional local TV talent like news broadcaster Stanley Simpson, chef Dominic Sansom [Mai Kana] and storyteller Manoa Rasigatale’s programme Manoa We Ni Yava. However in the brother-help-brother world of the Sayed-Khaiyums that means nothing. This new deal now benefits only FBC TV. The station – headed by the Attorney-General’s brother - has picked up the remaining tournaments in the IRB 7s Series and the Rugby World Cup later in the year. For MAI TV, though, there is nothing. This follows in line with similar brother-helps-brother wheezes - The Television Amendment Decree 2012 put Fiji Television (principal competitor to FBC TV as a free to air station, and the country’s only pay TV operator) on a six-month long licensing leash. Fijileaks can’t think of any country in the world where the CEO of one broadcast station has his brother in charge of deciding whether the government extends or not the short-term licence of its main competitor. - The Media Industry Development (Amendment) Decree 2013. In February 2013 Sayed-Khaiyum formally exempted his brother’s TV station from the harsh provisions of the so-called ‘Get Murdoch’ 2010 Media Decree, which set maximum foreign ownership at 10 percent of the company, with 90 percent of the company to be owned by Fiji citizens permanently residing in Fiji. Under the February 2013 exemption, government-owned FBC (and FBC alone) are allowed to partner up with a foreign company, with the foreign company having up to 85 percent of the entity (leaving FBC a minimum required stake of 15 percent and one seat on the board of the joint venture). http://www.fiji.gov.fj/getattachment/912651ac-fd80-4d40-a1c4-75e8c10860e4/Decree-No-10---Media-Industry-Development-(Amendme.aspx Just to recap! In the dark days of the Dubai 7s blackout, rugby fans had been told in an increasingly shrill and desperate voice by the Attorney-General that this was about ‘all broadcasting entities’ having access to the events listed within his legally risible and much-hated Television (Cross-Carriage of Designated Events) Decree 2014. The AG’s one-for-all, and all-for-one principle was why rugby fans were denied television coverage of the Dubai 7s, as the Attorney-General went to war with World Rugby Ltd. In fact (as we were to discover in due course) ‘all’ broadcasters actually meant ‘one’ broadcaster – the government TV mouthpiece run by brother Riyaz – which is teetering under the burden of crippling interest payments. As they starred at blank TV screens during the Dubai 7s, the Attorney-General did his best to convince a completely disbelieving Fiji public with a barrage of lies about audience share – provided at huge cost by the Qorvis in-house research team. But those who understood the pure venality of Sayed-Khaiyum powerbase knew better. · The first event captured under the Decree allowed FBC TV ceo Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to pick the pocket of MAI TV who were the exclusive licensee of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the biggest TV sports property in the world by value. · The Decree was rushed through (enacted May 29 2014) just a couple of weeks before the start of the FIFA World Cup (June 12) · The consequence was, with no consultation with them as rightsholders, or FIFA, MAI TV were compelled by the government decree to share their exclusive rights with FBC TV (and Fiji TV) · To complete the fiction that the decree was about treating all broadcasters equally, MAI TV had to be included as one of the free-to-air broadcasters that would also benefit by receiving shared rights for the key designated events from FBC TV and Fiji TV · So MAI TV contributed their FIFA World Cup rights to this collective in the genuine expectation they would at least receive something in return – because the decree said so · But under the embarrassing climbdown authored by the Attorney-General Mai TV’s reciprocal interest was quietly sacrificed in the interest of saving face, delivering live coverage of the 7s, as well as propping up the crumbling financial edifice that is FBC TV. Tough lessons that we learnt from ‘7s-gate’: 1. If, at one stage, the Attorney-General appeared blessed with nine lives, his ham-fisted defence of the indefensible has seen him sacrifice most of those lives (perhaps all of them) as far as the wider electorate is concerned. 2. Don’t count on the Opposition to be able to tackle the government effectively. Never has the complete shamelessness of the Bainimarama regime been more exposed – and more obviously at odds with the interests of the citizenry. But Sodelpa did not marshal Parliamentary procedure, nor put together their facts or effectively use the privilege they were entitled to as MPs (which would have helped media like the Fiji Times), to draw out the overlapping and cynical roles of Qorvis and the Sayed-Khaiyum brothers. 3. As is now the government’s familiar course, stripping out i-Taukei participation in so many areas of public life, the fate of the i-Taukei and their access to their national sport was left entirely in the hands of a weird triangle of non i-Taukei rugby agnostics: two Fiji-Indian brothers deeply in each others pockets, and Nouzab Fareed, the Sri Lankan who heads Fijian Holdings, the 61-percent majority owner of Fiji TV. Fareed led his station’s desperate discussions with World Rugby in the hope of winning a roll-over of Fiji TV’s six-month licence. [‘We are trying to satisfy the government and we are hopeful that in December they will give us a licence.’ Fareed told the Fiji Times last month.] Of longer term significance is the financial situation of FBC and FBC TV. FBC TV was set up with the primary purpose of delivering a democratic mandate to the 2006 coup leader Frank Bainimarama by controlling and manipulating the voters’ understanding of the issues facing the country in the September elections. That only a government TV station could deliver the election result needed (as opposed to the shackling of the Fiji Times, and the cheer-leading of the Fiji Sun) was born out by the Qorvis’ media survey: 64 percent got their news from the TV ‘most of the time’, more than newspapers and magazines combined. So control over television and the creation of FBC TV gave Bainimarama and his regime supporters the best chance possible to set the agenda, harass the opposition, and avoid the legal sharpening of the knives that would follow if the staggering excesses of his military-backed government (spending on the armed forces alone, now at $200m per year) were ever examined by a genuine civilian government. So FBC TV has fulfilled its first (short-term) function: the winning of the election. Now the question is how to pay for the thing over the long run. In the last figures seen by FijiLeaks, the Fiji Development Bank had injected a staggering $22,696,465 into the creation of FBC TV. Assuming a fairly standard commercial interest rate of 6.8 percent, FBC TV would be paying out $150,000 per month principal and interest. But Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has admitted in a published interview with a business magazine that the interest FBC is on the hook for is more like 12 percent. This means a monthly repayment of almost $300,000 a month, a staggering amount potentially, before any other expenditure is made. Under government pressure FDB has been instructed to accept part of this $300k per month repayment in the form of contra-advertising through the FBC network. Which is bizarre because the FDB is strictly a business-to-business lender but now has one of the highest profiles of any of the banks in Fiji. CAUGHT IN THE SHOOT OUT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND WORLD RUGBY: The Sri Lankan born FHL CEO Fareed who represented Fiji TV in the discussions for FBC to share rugby feed! Q&A with Nouzab Fareed
Nouzab Fareed discusses why he joined Company Directors’ Fiji Committee and what it plans to offer members. Company Director (CD): What is your background? Nouzab Fareed (NF): I dropped out of school and started as a computer instructor. My first professional examination was with the Australian Computer Society. This was followed by qualifications from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants of UK, then a Master of Business Administration and a Master of Arts in International Economics. I am now a Chartered Accountant (Fiji), Chartered Management Accountant (UK) and a Fellow of CPA (Australia). I am also a licenced investment adviser (Fiji) and certified fraud examiner (US). The General Manager Program at the Australian Graduate School of Management (AGSM) at the University of New South Wales made it all happen for me. Before joining the Fijian Holdings Group, where I am now group CEO, I was the director of business development at Mercantile Merchant Bank in Sri Lanka and a director of FedEx, Western Union and NIIT in Sri Lanka. CD: What is the value of an Australian Institute of Company Directors’ membership to you? NF: My relationship with Australia through the Australian Computer Society, CPA and AGSM made me think an involvement with Company Directors would be great. Out of curiosity, I attended a Company Directors Course in Darwin in 2012 and that was a turning point. Immediately after the course, I made changes to my company, from the board meeting agenda to directors’ training. To date, Fijian Holdings Group has at least 18 Company Directors members, which is almost one-third of all members in Fiji. CD: Why did you decide to join the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ Fiji Committee? NF: Fiji has gone through difficult times in terms of company directors and we have seen plenty of legal cases. Joining the committee was an ideal opportunity to improve the quality of corporate governance in Fiji. When the role was offered, I jumped at the opportunity and to date we have done well. It is a fantastic team. We are confident we will improve membership in Fiji two-fold within the next two years. CD: What kind of support does the committee provide to local members? NF: The committee is still in its early stages, but we are planning to host a few local workshops for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as for provincial companies. This will happen in the coming year. The committee aims to find ways to launch and deliver Company Directors’ education programs and to identify opportunities for new programs. We are responsible for ensuring the professional development and networking activities for directors and senior business leaders to undertake. CD: In addition to chairing the Fiji Committee, what other roles do you have? NF: I am the group CEO for Fijian Holdings Group and a director of more than 20 companies, including Goodman Fielder Fiji, Marsh Fiji and Golden Manufacturing. I have directorships in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Samoa. I am council member for Fiji Institute of Accountants, CPA Fiji Branch, Fiji-PNG Business Council and Suva Chamber of Council. In addition, I sit on the University of South Pacific and MBA Advisory Board. CD: What do you enjoy about being a director in Fiji? What are the challenges? NF: It is a great experience as all companies are unique in some way. While it is a learning experience, it is also an opportunity to contribute. The challenge is to implement changes and adopt new thinking. But we have managed. CD: Who inspires you? NF: Business leaders from Mike Smith to Ann Sherry have inspired me. Of course, I am fan of Warren Buffet as well as Richard Branson. CD: What are your passions outside of work? NF: I love deep-sea scuba diving, international travel and being a member of Toastmasters, a group that focuses on improving one’s public-speaking skills. I am also an avid Freemason FILIMONE WAQABACA had also called a meeting last week with his top Finance Ministry staff and Khaiyum did not like it. Waqabaca told BBB that he can call a meeting with his staff anytime, he does not have to know or attend these meetings. It has also emerged that Bainimarama had deliberately left Fiji so he did not have to stand up in Parliament and explain or defend the Budget - too complicated for HIM. STILL MISSING: Fiji Labour Party
#And now its reward time for FF financiers and bootlickers! The regime has lost no time in rewarding its big financiers and supporters in the 2014 general elections as evident in the appointment to the Fiji Airways board announced today. The new names on the Fiji Airways board are: Sandip Patel of CJ Patel, Aslam Khan just retired Vodafone CEO, Stefan Pichler just retired Fiji Airways CEO continues as board member, and (believe it or not) Solicitor General Sarvanand Sharma. Several of the appointees are clearly questionable. There are three major issues with the new appointments: #1 There is no indigenous Fijian member on the Fiji Airways board- this is a radical and clearly racist departure from past practice which ensured that membership of statutory boards and State-owned companies were racially balanced. Note: Nalin Patel continues as board member. #2 The problem of absentee members - Aslam Khan now resides in Geneva (or so we believe), Pichler is leaving to take over as CEO of Berlin Airlines, and Sandip Patel reportedly spends most of his time in Brisbane. What kind of commitment will these absentee board members have to Fiji Airways and to Fiji Tourism? Another noticeable departure from convention is the absence of any tourism representative on the board of the national airline. #3 What is the Solicitor General doing sitting on the board of the national airline. For god's sake he is the Solicitor General - he must retain his independence and impartiality. He cannot be sitting on boards of State owned companies. This is similar to Chief Justice Gates and DPP Pryde going to Geneva to make representation before the working committee of the UN Human Rights Commission in favour of the State. What if a case appears before Gates challenging the violation of the very human rights issues he went to Geneva to support the State's stand on? This is just the beginning, folks. Jobs for the boys and reward for services rendered to th e regime! Brace yourselves for more brazen violation of sound past practices and State regulations as rewards are handed out left, right and centre. HE was also heard allegedly saying "what the Government did Thursday passing 15 Bills will come back to haunt them". REMOTE CONTROL FIJI AIRWAYS BOARD? One resides in Sydney, another in Geneva, and another soon in Germany
Fiji’s Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma and Sundip Patel, Director of CJ Patel Group of Companies have been appointed to the Board of Air Pacific Limited Trading As Fiji Airways. The appointments come following the airline's Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Shareholders in Nadi last night. Sharma and Patel replace Greg Taylor and Elizabeth Powell whose tenure on the board ended with effect from today. The new members join Chairman Nalin Patel, Managing Director and CEO, Stefan Pichler, and Aslam Khan. Meanwhile, the search continues for a new managing director and CEO to replace Pichler is in progress. Pichler will remain on the board following his return to Germany at the end of January 2015. Source: Fijilive, 12/12/2014 PS: TWO board members currently live outside Fiji. Sundip Patel, also owner of Fiji Sun, lives most of the time in Australia and Aslam Khan in Geneva. Pichler will live in Germany. There is also a conflict of interest between Nalin Patel, chairman of Fiji Airways, and Sandip Patel being on the board. Nalin Patel's G Lal & Co are auditors for CJ Group. There is no native Fijian nor other non-Indo-Fijian representation on Fiji's national airline. They will get free access to Fiji Airways and a 60 per cent discount on other carriers. It would cut their travel costs enormously. Fijileaks: We apologize for stating Brussels and not Geneva, which we have corrected now. Meanwhile, Dr Mahendra Reddy, while lecturing Opposition in Parliament, is yet to respond to allegations of extra-marital affair with cabbie's wife; Reddy is also accused of interfering with FICAC investigation into FNU; he has been accused of abusing his Ministerial position by phoning FICAC for regular updates! FICAC raided FNU the day Modi spoke there! Fijileaks to Narendra Prasad, FNU's Director Finance and Human Resources: This FICAC investigation (below) was conducted and completed in 2012, and a new one was launched recently into FNU From: Fiji Leaks [mailto:editor@fijileaks.com] 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. Housing Authority's chairman to the board, Fiji Times, 22 February 2014
Narendra Prasad has been appointed chairman to the board of directors for the Housing Authority and the Public Rental Board. Commenting on the appointment, the Attorney-General and Minister for Housing, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, said Mr Prasad would bring a wealth of financial and operational experience to the management of the Housing Authority and the Public Rental Board. "Mr Prasad's background and expertise, including his previous tenure as CEO of the Housing Authority from 1999 to 2003, will be a valuable asset to the team and we look forward to him advancing the Bainimarama government's and the authority's mission to help Fijians, in particular those in the lower socio-economic brackets, to own their own home," Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said. Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has been caught on camera lying not just once, nor twice but three times to Parliament and while giving a Ministerial statement in defence of his and his brother’s controversial Television (Cross-Carriage Designated Events) Decree which seeks to enrich the heavily indebted FBC TV by depriving Fiji TV of valuable live sports rights. See for yourself as Sayed-Khaiyum tells three flagrant lies within a 30-second burst of fiction-telling, and all within the supposed sanctity of Parliament. From 18.01 he talks about the research done by a specialist polling company based in Washington. 1. 18:22 He tells Parliament the company doing the research ‘was not Qorvis’. But it was Qorvis – even Clarus’ own website acknowledges that they are the in-house polling company of Qorvis. 2. 18:27 Again he tells Parliament the company doing the research was not Qorvis. But this time the untruth is told to the Speaker. ‘It was not Qorvis Madam Speaker’. From the Qorvis corporate site: ‘Here at Qorvis we built our own in-house polling and research company: Clarus Research Group.’ 3. Then Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum talks about the research findings that Qorvis/Clarus concluded which put the audience share at 50 percent, 43 percent and 7 percent between FBC TV, Fiji TV and Mai TV. Nowhere in the Qorvis/Clarus document do the report’s authors find, report or summarise any audience share that match what the A-G untruthfully represented to Parliament. Hypocrisy continues: Khaiyum wants Fiji TV to share rugby broadcast but FBC claims he speaks 'exclusively' to them - why didn't he call a press conference and share his views with other media?
Taken from/By: FBC News Report by: Shanal Sivan The government is hoping for a favorable response from the World Rugby in the next few hours. Speaking exclusively to FBC NEWS Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, reveals the World Rugby has asked the government for certain undertakings, which the government has given, in order to get the rugby sevens coverage back into Fiji. ‘’We have had a fairly long teleconference, yesterday evening with World Rugby present, and we had some very fruitful discussions and they subsequently wanted to have a separate meeting with the Fiji Television, which obviously has the rights in Fiji, we have now subsequently has further correspondence.’’ Fiji Television Limited executives, Fijian Holdings Limited Chief executive Nouzab Fareed, the Solicitor General and the Director for Communications also attended the teleconference. In the last correspondence with world rugby, we have been told; their position still remains the same, and will not provide Fiji the feed, till further notice. The South Africa Sevens kicks off tomorrow night. - See more at: http://www.fbc.com.fj/fiji/25248/world-rugby-to-reply-in-few-hours-time-#sthash.PXrk5WzE.dpuf “There are lots of land that are owned by foreigners and is left vacant. What this amendment proposes to do in fact it says that within 24 months of acquisition or implementation of this Act, there must be building on this land of substantial value of 250 thousand dollar plus...The purpose behind this amendment is to see the land develop. As soon as I motion that foreigners will be restricted, there is a lot of interjections from the other side. I may ask them did the Fijians vote for them or foreigners voted for you" - Ashneel Sudhakar “Lets keep the freehold land as they are. Its integral to our place in the community, don’t touch it. These Bills have to be all rejected in the way they are submitted." - Opposition MP, Viliame Gavoka Lorna Eden in the hot seat December 8, 2014 The freehold land ban is set to bite the Government. Announced without any consultation, it has got a lot of residents in Savusavu up in arms. Group spokesperson Aren Nunnink claims there was no prior consultation with the public, especially large freehold estate owners in places like Savusavu and Taveuni which holds some of the country’s largest privately owned freehold blocks of land. We know that Frank was boasting about the sale of a large private estate to Kiribati, and now he wants to ban all land sales to foreigners. Lorna Eden and others know that this will scare off investors who were just beginning to dip their toe into the water again, only to find that the sharks are still there. Lorna is really in the hot seat and may be regretting throwing her lot in with the Khaiyum Kamp. From the Fiji Times, 11 December 2014: Letters over Bill No.1 SOME freehold property owners in Savusavu on Vanua Levu, mostly non-citizens who've called Fiji their home, have voiced their concerns over the Government's proposal to amend the Lands Sales Act. Some property owners have written to American ambassador Frankie Reed, assistant Minister of Trade and Tourism Lorna Eden, Prime Minister Rear Admiral (Ret) Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum expressing their concern. In a letter addressed to Ms Reed and the embassy's consular chief Leah George, American freehold property owner in Savusavu Kurt and Joanne Zimmerman described the Bill as one that brings a bleak future to foreigners like them. "By not allowing the sale of our freehold property to other foreigners who can afford such properties, the Government would effectively make our properties near worthless," they stated in their letter. "We are one of many who in good faith, and with encouragement from the Fiji Government, have brought money and jobs to Fiji. "We have not broken any laws and we received the Minister for Land's consent to buy and build and have followed all rules and requirements." Mr and Mrs Zimmerman also claimed in their letter there were many jobs at stake, particularly in the Savusavu region where foreign residential investment was prevalent. In another letter to Mr Bainimarama and Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, Lomalagi Resort (Fiji) Ltd managing director Andrea Grad pleaded with them not to introduce legislation that would prohibit the sale of residential freehold land to non-Fiji citizens. Another property owner Carol Gordon also wrote a letter from her Greenhithe home in Auckland saying she is deeply troubled by the Government's intention to pass Bill No.13. "This bill, if passed, will impact on Fiji as a country and also on me personally. By restricting foreign ownership of land you will discourage investment in Fiji," Ms Gordon said. "Many foreign owners of freehold in Fiji have reached retirement age. They purchased property and built homes with the intention of living in Fiji for at least a couple of months every year." When contacted last night, Mr Bainimarama said he was not aware of the letters. Attempts to obtain a comment from Mr Sayed-Khaiyum and Ms Eden via their mobile phones last night were unsuccessful. Fijileaks Editor: Victor Lal was on the verge of revealing in the Fiji Sun the massive land sales fraud committed by local businessmen on Tavenui Island, some who later joined post-coup Bainimarama regime, when Government organized the abduction and deportation of then Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter out of Fiji in 2008. They concluded that after the revelation of Chaudhry's tax details, Fiji Sun had other highly incriminating materials on them and their coup supporters. Sadly, the new post Hunter team at Fiji Sun not only removed all of Lal's writings from its archives but the paper has become the most SHAMELESS champion of the regime, forgetting the meaning of investigative journalism - the only place they hide is via "Coconut Wireless" - not to hold Government to Account but to Discredit anyone trying to hold Government to account. We hope to reveal Lal's findings one of these days in Fijileaks on how these local businessmen sold freehold lands at whopping profits to foreign nationals Fijileaks Editor (Excerpt from Lal's unpublished findings backed by confidential documents): "Basically no-one really knows what a lot of land is worth on Taveuni. A one-acre "residential" lot in an Indo-Fijian settlement could be worth say $5,000, another "absolute waterfront", one-acre lot in Taveuni Estates could be worth $300,000. They both appear on the register of land sales as one-acre lots. As Fijian citizens (name withheld) and (withheld) can only take $20,000 out of Fiji each year so what they do is establish a company in NZ (or in _____case 10 or 12 companies) and sell the lot to the company. Any property less than an acre in size does not require Ministerial approval so the sales never come to the attention of the authorities and don't look out of place because of the widely ranging sale prices. Once the property is safely under the ownership of a foreign company, the owner of the company can sell it at its full value in NZD, AUD or USD. There may also be substantial tax savings - certainly the Fijian tax-payer is losing out.There is no difference between doing this and smuggling gold out of the country." From the Archives
By VICTOR LAL, Fiji Sun, 19 November 2006 THE GREAT LAND DEBATE "The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers. It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries." ‘Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’. His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief." The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs. The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent. The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term. However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa. It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism. As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’. The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so. In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating: ‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’. The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk. He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912. The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it. Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills. The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’. The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866. The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared - the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau. Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown. The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers. Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu. The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless. The missionaries were not behind - they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation. It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could framed. The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’ In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji. Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874. The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers. It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries. The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship. According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’. It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people. Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei - a land owning chief in the country? Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact. By VICTOR LAL Fijileaks Investigation Team A COPY of the Qorvis research document (prepared by their in-house polling company Clarus) is at the heart of the standoff between the Sayed-Khaiyum brothers and World Rugby/IRB over television coverage of the World 7s Series – and which again sees rugby fans starring at blank TV screens for a second weekend. The Qorvis document is the crucial piece of misdirection that the Attorney-General Khaiyum has relied on to divert attention from a straight-forward commercial broadcast rights land-grab. The purpose of this brazen land-grab, titled the Television (Cross-Carriage of Designated Events) Decree is to disadvantage the already enfeebled Fiji TV, with less than 3 weeks of its current 6-month license remaining, while propping up the heavily-indebted FBC TV station run in profligate fashion by brother Riyaz. But to achieve this, Aiyaz Khaiyum needed some kind of justification. So he reached out to the favourite political advisory and lobbying firm of repressive regimes around the world, Qorvis, who duly obliged. According to the Qorvis document more than one thousand adults were polled by telephone and mobile over a two-week period in April and May, and the results tabulated and analysed by a Qorvis/Clarus research team headed by Dr Ron Faucheux, one-time MD of Qorvis, now a full partner in the company. Faucheux’s biography says ‘he is a recognized expert in using polling and research for strategy and message development’. [It’s not clear who did the polling – an individual or entity in Fiji, a team from Qorvis/Clarus from Washington, or a third party in another country. Or what language was used for the questions. Or how the telephone and mobile numbers were sourced.] The key to Khaiyum’s aggressive position with World Rugby – remarkably helpful to the government broadcaster FBC – is that the Qorvis research company produced a set of results showing that FBC TV had the larger audience share. The audience share between FBC TV and Fiji One that has been repeatedly referenced within local media and in communication with World Rugby/IRB is FBC TV on 50 percent, Fiji TV on 43 percent (and Mai TV on 7 percent). First lie – nowhere in the Clarus document is the 50: 43 percent split between FBC TV and Fiji TV’s audience share presented as a finding of the survey. There is not a single reference to, or conclusion drawn by Clarus in the document that reflects Khaiyum's assertion that the audience share between the two stations is 50:43. But anyway, audience share means nothing in the context of live TV sport (acknowledged by the survey as the most popular programming of all). Audiences switch channels to whichever station is showing the live sport, which is why live sport is known amongst broadcasters as so-called ‘killer’ content. [Especially in Fiji where the spirit of doing whatever it takes to get where the TV signal is, in order to see the Fiji rugby team play, was referred to by letter writer Donald Pickering in the Fiji Times on December 10 – ‘MAYBE the Attorney-General has never heard the legendary stories about generators being carried to the top of mountains so that remote villagers could watch the Hong Kong Sevens.’] But Khaiyum's usual smoke-and-mirrors and frequent references to Qorvis/Clarus being an ‘internationally-respected survey research firm’ allowed Khaiyum to present the issue as being about giving access to those who might be stuck with Fiji TV only. Or as he told FBC News on December 3: ‘There are many people for example in Naitasiri and Wainibokasi, who do not catch (the) Fiji TV signal.’ What the AG is talking about is audience reach, the technical ability of a broadcast signal to reach its audience. Second lie – the Clarus survey does not measure audience reach of any particular TV station and certainly does not indicate that FBC TV’s reach is stronger – quite the opposite, in fact, because of …. Third and Biggest Lie – which you only find if you drill into the small print on page 26 and 27 of the 36-page document. The Clarus survey broke down the geographic spread of the 1000+ respondents into the four administrative divisions (North, East, Central, West) and also four population density groups (Urban, Peri Urban, Rural and Maritime). If Khaiyum’s aggressive message to World Rugby/IRB is to be believed then FBC TV should be easily the most popular TV station in the Rural and Maritime groups (‘Naitasiri and Wainibokasi …’). In fact, the survey completely undermines Khaiyum's bold claims for his brother’s TV station: 7 percent of Rural communities and 11 percent of Maritime said they ‘Never’ watched FBC TV (i.e. can’t watch or won’t watch) versus 6 percent and 13 respectively for Fiji TV. Given that the survey acknowledged a sampling error of +/- 3 percent, Clarus could show no statistical difference whatsoever between the two stations’ popularity in the remotest areas of the country, whose rugby fans the Khaiyum brothers say they are waging war on behalf of. In fact – given that the sampling error may ‘over-state’ FBC TV’s popularity in the Rural and Maritime – there is the possibility that in these remote areas Fiji TV has both the more popular and better technical service. As letter writer Pickering concluded to the Fiji Times: ‘If we don't get to watch the Dubai or Port Elizabeth Sevens because of some decree, then all I can say is, "lucky the elections were not held next week"’. Fijileaks Editor: http://www.fijileaks.com/home/despite-being-shown-the-red-card-and-match-blackout-the-khaiyum-brothers-continue-to-assert-they-are-right-and-no-mention-of-polling-company-clarus-research-link-to-qorvis In his signed letter (3 December 2014) to World Rugby, Khaiyum claimed that viewers in rural and outer islands would be better off with FBC TV to catch signal, adding that Fiji TV agrees, but just look at Clarus Report (below): the survey noted that over 80 per cent were satisfied with their TV reception in rural and outer islands! In 2013 and 2014, Khaiyum dished out to Qorvis $1.39M, $19,900 and $1M respectively; the money belonged to the people of Fiji - how much was paid to Clarus Research Group?
Where is the Separation of Powers? The 'Cross TV Decree' can't be challenged in Chief Justice Gates' COURTS - for he signed it off! Like his order that HIS DECREE can't be questioned, Khaiyum should PLAY FAIR and accept Rugby World RULING. He can't have it both ways, one for HIM and one for World Rugby! Anyway, WHERE IS THE MINISTER OF SPORT IN THE WHOLE SORDID AFFAIR - THE RESULT OF KHAIYUM'S DECREE? The declared aim of the 2006 treasonous coup included an end to nepotism, corruption, and misrule. At the time of the coup, military dictator Frank Bainimarama swore that no military officer would benefit from the coup – later proved to be a hollow sham. There was no mention of civilian coup beneficiaries. One of the many civilians to come out of the woods was Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, one of the two authors of the Doctrine of Necessity document that he and Brigadier-General Mohammed Aziz had prepared for the dictator long before the coup. Khaiyum became the new interim Attorney-General and later Minister for All Posts, including media and communications.
It was only a matter of time before others unmasked their coup faces. One of them was Riyaz Saiyad Khaiyum, the brother of Aiyaz. Long before his name was announced as the new CEO of the Fiji Broadcasting Commission, a journalist colleague of his on TVNZ’s Down Under had tipped me off that Riyaz was planning to return to Fiji for “top FBC job – nepotism bro!”, with me quipping, “I liked his style on Fiji TV Close Up”. His NZ journo colleague retorted: “He will sacrifice all to become mouthpiece of the illegal lot, bro – his brother is getting him the FBC job”. He was stating the bleeding obvious that in the near future Riyaz would become his “brother’s news keeper”. FBC Board in dark: Dictator appoints Riyaz Khaiyum as CEO On 15 November Bainimarama, then Fiji’s interim Prime Minister announced the appointment of Riyaz as the new CEO of the radio station before informing the FBC Board. His permanent secretary Parmesh Chand claimed that Bainimarama made the appointment after he (dictator) reviewed the scrutiny and process that was followed by the FBC Board. Daniel Whippy disputes – charged by regime for alleged corruption The FBC’s official website had jumped the gun and had announced Riyaz’s appointment before the Board made a formal announcement. An unhappy Daniel Whippy, the then chairman of FBC, told the media: “The problem is that the Prime Minister's office has changed the conditions and we were not told about the announcement. We need to tell the applicant about this significant development as he may not accept the conditions in its present form." Whippy said the package was slightly lower than the one which former chief executive Francis Herman received before he resigned in June of that year. He said it was a bad idea that government companies competing in the commercial market were aligned to a permanent secretary as emoluments that attract the right candidate who could achieve the company's objectives needed to fill in the vacancy. Riyaz and and former radio executive and media sales manager Esava Cakau had been shortlisted for the CEO position. Regime lackey Parmesh Chand covers appointment Parmesh Chand said Riyaz was recommended by the Board and endorsed by Bainimarama. “The advertising, short-listing, interviews and recommendation of appointment of a suitable candidate are all made by the board (FBCL). They are, with the support of the Public Enterprise Minister, submitted to the Prime Minister for endorsement,” Chand said. He said matters such as a conflict of interest were non issues as far as the office of the interim Prime Minister was concerned. Basically, the law of the dictator ruled supreme in post-coup Fiji. The big brother Aiyaz passed any questions to the FBC Board saying the appointment of any person in a government statutory body was done by the appropriate authority. “As such, queries regarding the procedures followed in the appointments should be directed to the appropriate authority. In this case, questions regarding the appointment of Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum should be addressed to the board of FBCL.” Fiji Islands Council of Trade Unions secretary Attar Singh, while praising Riyaz’s journalistic credentials said he did not know what business experience or qualifications Riyaz held. Singh said he also hoped it was not a case of nepotism because it “is the very thing that the interim Government has been trying to eradicate”. Whippy was looking for someone with solid business background. It was not long after the desired outcome, the illegal regime’s one-time warm supporter Whippy was singled out for persecution. The “Brothers” used FICAC, their “conveyor belt to the court house” to charge Whippy, along with his deputy Champak Kapadia. It is alleged that two intended to defraud the FBC by making a false document namely an extract of minutes of a meeting of the FBCL board purported to be held on March 19, 2004 knowing that such a meeting was not held. FICAC alleges that Whippy and Kapadia– with intent to defraud – procured the offer of an advance of $1,030,000 from Westpac Banking Corporation for the FBC on the basis of a fictitious resolution. There is however evidence to suggest that some FICAC officers were against the charges, arguing that the pair had acted on the collective board resolutions of FBC, one of which was a Board resolution endorsing the seeking of financing from Westpac. FBC TV: The Khaiyums venture into television It was long before Riyaz’s appointment, the FBC announced of plans of venturing into the television industry. Whippy said the FBC had all the infrastructure and resources to operate a TV station. The Fiji Development Bank was armed twisted by the regime to fork out $17million, with Whippy’s replacement Yaminiasi Gaunavou stating that it would be able to meet the yearly loan repayment of $1million based on projected revenue. Riyaz later told a business magazine that the FBC had to undertake the FDB loan at an extremely high interest rate – twelve per cent. In November last year the dictator launched the FBC TV amid glitz and glamour saying “competition brought by FBC TV would be good for everyone”. He omitted to mention that big brother Aiyaz was planning to introduce a television decree to stifle the rival Fiji TV. Little brother Riyaz told the launch audience that the journey from the initiation of FBC TV was not an easy one and thanked everyone who had been a part of the journey, especially the support of family and friends. Name Change to FBC On 25 August 1999 the Registrar of Companies (ROC) was informed that it was resolved that the name of the company be changed from Island Networks Corporation Ltd to Fiji Broadcasting Ltd. And its business address was listed as Broadcasting House, Gladstone Rd, Suva. In June 2002 the ROC was notified that the nominal capital of the company had been increased to $9,900,000. Four years later, in June 2006, and six months before the coup, the FBC’s Return of Allotments to the ROC read as follows: Number of (b) 3,913,555 ordinary shares allotted payable in cash $3,913,355. Amount to be paid on each share was $1. Name, Description and Address of the Allottees: Parmesh Chand, CEO for Ministry of Public Enterprises, P O Box 2278, Government Builidings, Suva, Ordinary shares: 1,956,678. The other allottee was Paula Uluinaceva, CEO for Ministry of Finance, Ordinary shares 1,956,677. After the coup, the following were listed as Board of Directors: Daniel Whippy, Fane Niumataiwalu, Aktar Ali, Kini Qorovakatini Marawai, Manoa Rasigatale, Parmesh Sharma, Dr Vivekanand Sharma, Abdul Hakik and Sitiveni Ratulala. Ali and Marawai were terminated from their positions in April 2007, and Sharma had passed away in September 2006. Rasigatale resigned from the Board in June 2008. The secretaries of the Board were listed as Luisa Verevou, who resigned in August 2007; she was replaced by Naomi Vuibureta (resigned in March 2008) and was replaced by Veronika Singh. Khaiyum Brothers raid on the FDB to start FBC TV With the arrival of little brother Riyaz at the helm of FBC, FDB was instructed to make available a loan of $17,846,315 to the company for it to embark on the television project. The property mortgaged or charged was the company’s assets and undertakings including its uncalled and unpaid capital. The debenture of 26 August 2009 was the following: Crown Lease No 2748 being Lot 2 Section 12 (Pt of) Suva City, Rewa, Area: 1 Rood 19.2 Perches LD Ref 8/59. By 11 May 2011, the Khaiyum brothers had obtained from the FDB a staggering $22,696,465.05 for the FBC to build a rival television station in post-coup Fiji. It was only a matter of time before Fiji TV was going to be targeted by them, especially by Aiyaz with the recent infamous television amendment decree. The freedom blog Fiji Democracy Now has spoken on behalf of the suffering majority regarding the Television (Amendment) Decree 52 of 2012: “It’s nothing more than a blunt instrument designed to brutally suppress our broadcast media and it’s clearly tailor-made for application against Fiji TV. And the content and timing of the Decree have exposed Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s huge ego, vanity and contempt for Fijian values. He is sending out a clear message: “Look at me! I am the big man! Between us, my brother Riyaz and I can control what you see and hear on Fiji’s broadcast media. What I say is law and there’s nothing you inferior minions can do about it!” What Fiji Democracy Now did not remind us are transcripts of television scripts? We may recall the fate of Fiji TV during the 2000 attempted coup, when it was smashed up by a mob while reporter Riyaz Sayed Khaiyum was chairing the Close UP programme. His guests were Jone Dakuvula and William Parkinson. The mob was angered by Dakuvula’s courageous and forthright denunciation of the perpetrators of the 2000 coup. What Dakuvula, who later worked for the National Council for Building a Better Fiji Technical Secretariat, and had also served as Chief Assistant Secretary and Press Secretary to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and later worked for the Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, noted is equally apt to describe the Khaiyum brothers. When Riyaz had asked what naked interest, Dakuvula had answered: “The naked interest is, a bunch of people who want to get to power through unlawful means and they couldn't get it through the constitution, and therefore they want it through a coup and they want to impose a system of government here in the name of indigenous rights.” The brothers, Aiyaz and Riyaz are where they are, not on merit but through the barrel of the gun and the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution – with Aiyaz doing the bidding for Riyaz’s FBC TV against Fiji TV. Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum was recently lecturing his critics: “Fiji TV, like all other media organisations, needed to adhere to the Media Code of Ethics and Practice and be balanced and fair, not just in form but in substance,” The 2000 slogan of indigenous rights has been replaced by “brotherly blood rights” in 2012. “Good Morning, Fiji-Welcome to The Khaiyum Airwaves”: What’s new: Fijiwood blockbuster featuring the Khaiyums, and directed by Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum. Clip 52: Television (Amendment) Decree 52 of 2012. Editor's Note: It's business as usual at Fiji TV today although there has been no formal word on the law of the land after Khaiyum's threat to the station after it gave Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudhry air time. To Frank Bainimarama, then post 2006 coup Prime Minister: While refusing to admit or deny that he 'bought off' the angry taxi driver with $18,000 house in Sakoca in Tamavua, and employed the driver's wife as tea lady at the Commerce Commission, Reddy however defended himself over other allegations thrown at him: From: Mahendra Reddy [mailto:mahendra.reddy@govnet.gov.fj]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2014 4:00 PM To: Mikaele Leawere Cc: aparama turaqa; Basundra Kumar; pdelaibatiki@gmail.com; eroni.loganimoce@govnet.gov.fj; parmesh.chand@govnet.goc.fj; pmsoffice@connect.com.fj; Eroni Loganimoce; Vijay Nath Subject: RE: Concrete Answers Dear Mika: I have asked you several times to come and see me to clarify issues before you write to others but you refuse to do that for reasons known to you. I now take the liberty of responding to your allegations: a) My Executive Support Team: You should understand that I have the right to establish aN advisory team that I think has the knowledge and qualifications to advise me on the reforms that I wish to undertake. In this light, I have transferred two officers from High Schools to this unit: Yogesh Krishna (Commerce) and Dharmend Dayal (Science). You can cry till cows come home but you have no understanding of the value of getting these two officers. They have assisted me getting the promotions matrix done as well has assisting in two other reforms. You raise the issue that Yogesh had some sexual allegation against him when he was at Saraswati College. I am asking if that is true, then why is he still in the system? Why have you been sleeping till now? It is because you are just throwing dirt at others because you can see the progress we have made in the Ministry since my appointment. b) Salary and rank of Yogesh and Dharmend: I had asked the A/PS to transfer them sideways. The change in rank is regretted and I had asked the A/PS to correct the change two weeks back following the last meeting with Unions. She did not do it for reasons known to her. I have, just now, instructed HR to do this change. c) Evelyn’s Appointment: She was working with me at FNU and she did an excellent job. You continue to make base less allegations about her. She was appointed by A/PS and the staff Board and I was not in that meeting. I also note that you have raised the issue that her husband campaigned for me in the last election. Yes that’s true but what’s that has to do with her appointment? Did she campaign? When the husband saw the advert, he may have said that the job best fits his wife so what’s the problem? d) The Promotions Matrix: You have raised the question about the promotions matrix that we have developed and are using now. The matrix was developed because of major problems with the old matrix. It is because of these problems, we have major anomalies in a number of appointments that have been made in the MoE. The rot stinks and it will be there until these under qualified people don’t get out of the system. You are now questioning this new matrix but this is the same matrix that has received overwhelming support from every member of the Education Forum..the Unions, academics, and all stakeholders. You should go back and first consult your own Union before making any allegations; e) Bypassing of Post Processing Unit in processing of Posts: They were not bypassed. In fact these positions were advertised in July and its now 5 months and nothing was done. I then got the ESU staff to assist and we made major progress. The Post processing unit was involved in the whole process. They have just woken up from the slumber sleep. f) My authority in Appointments: I suggest you read section 127(8) of the 2013 Constitution and you will enlighten yourself. After that, you should then find out how many irregular appointments has been done by the Ministry prior to my appointment. What do you plan to do with those appointments? g) Appointment of Evelyn’s Brother: Yes he was appointed by a properly appointed Committee. Why should he not be appointed just because he happens to be brother of Evelyn? In fact he has been appointed in the accounts section. Why didn’t you question a husband and wife team who was working in CDU? h) Scaling of marks: I invited both Dr. Vanualailai and Prof Paul to present their findings to media. Both of them did and the media covered both. Go and read the papers. I have not released any report to media so stop lying. I had told Dr. Vanualailai it is his prerogative to release the report if he wishes to. Mika if you remove the racial garb and look at things objectively, you will be a better man. You will do much good to this country if you support the reforms we are doing to lift up the standard of education in this country. I look forward to your support. If you don’t want support, then I suggest you stop wasting my time. With kind regards, Dr. Mahendra Reddy, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, HERITAGE AND ARTS. |
editor@fijileaks.comARCHIVES
September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 October 2012 September 2012 |