And SODELPA candidates who missed out on election tickets, and those still waiting to hear, demand answers from Rabuka on PDP's Lynda Tabuya. When did she apply to join SODELA? When did she send her application to stand as an election candidate? When was she interviewed? Who interviewed her? Is she still PDP or SODELPA? Above all, SODELPA supporters are demanding to read the so-called MOU signed between Sitiveni Rabuka and Lynda Tabuya and Vijay Singh
0 Comments
People’s Democratic Party leader Lynda Tabuya yesterday (7 December 2017) brushed aside rumours claiming she was joining the Social Democratic Party (SODELPA). “I am not a member of SODELPA, I remain a leader of PDP,” she said. “As a party leader it is in the mandate of the management board to continue talks with other parties and it is the mandate of my management board to continue talks with SODELPA just like I am with NFP (National Federation Party) and the smaller parties about the way forward.” Ms Tabuya said she was not amongst the 51 candidates approved by SODELPA. Fiji Sun, 8 December 2017A day later after her Lasulasu |
1. Adi Narayan 2. George Shiu Raj 3. Pastor Ezekiel Sharma 4. Arvind Singh 5. Anare Jale 6. Viliame Gavoka 7. Ro Kiniviliame Kiliraki 8. Semesa Karavaki 9. Tanya Waqanika 10. Salote Radrodro 11. Berenado Daveta 12. Ropate Ligairi 13. Pio Tabaiwalu 14. Jope Koroisavou 15. Dr Mere Samisoni | 16. Aseri Radrodro 17. Peceli Rinakama 18. Ratu Suliano Matanitobua 19. Mikaele Liawere 20. Meretui Ratunabuabua 21. Simione Drole 22. Peceli Vosanibola 23. Mitieli Bulanauca 24. Mosese Bulitavu 25. Ratu Tevita Niumataiwalu 26. Niko Nawaikula 27. Reverend Jone Kata 28. Ratu Jone Seniloli 29. Dr Antonio Lalabalavu 30. Lynda Tabuya |
As anticipated, Peceli Rinakama, the 2000 convicted coupist with George Speight is now SODELPA candidate. And Simione Drole? Is he the same Drole who, while serving his time on Nukulau Island for his role in the Speight coup, had turned State witness and had testified against other coup accomplices Timoci Silatolu and Jo Nata? Drole had told the Silatolu-Nata TREASON trial that it was Silatolu who gave the final go-ahead for the overthrow of the Mahendra Chaudhry government on 19 May. Drole told the court that the day before the coup they met Silatolu at the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party's office in central Suva. Rabuka had led his SVT party into the 1999 general election, only to be trounced at the poll. In 2003, Rinakama alleged that Rabuka's SVT party was behind the 2000 coup, and that it had plotted to overthrow the Chaudhry government even before it took office. And, is Mitieli Bulanauca the same Bulanauca who, in the political upheaval that followed the Speight coup, was appointed to the interim Cabinet formed by Laisenia Qarase as Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources?
Welcome to COUPCOUP Politics, with SODELPA, led by Father of Coups, Sitiveni Rabuka, already having lost the moral high ground to raise the issue of 2006 coup in the 2018 election
Despite Fiji’s great progress, the old forces that once sought to divide us still lurk beneath the surface.
Those are the words of Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama while opening the 19th Attorney General’s Conference at the Intercontinental Hotel in Natadola today.
Bainimarama says our bond, as one nation and one people, must only grow stronger in the face of the threat of the old forces dividing the people of the country.
The Prime Minister says we cannot take even one step backward.
Bainimarama says we cannot slip back into the dark years of ethnic and religious division and weak institutions.
He also says that we must condemn — powerfully and openly – any who seek to drag us back to that destructive, backward and personalised way of thinking.
Bainimarama says the constitution establishes our common national identity, as equals, as Fijians.
He says as a result, we stand together today, more united than at any other time in our history. FijiVillage News, 8 December 2017
Those are the words of Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama while opening the 19th Attorney General’s Conference at the Intercontinental Hotel in Natadola today.
Bainimarama says our bond, as one nation and one people, must only grow stronger in the face of the threat of the old forces dividing the people of the country.
The Prime Minister says we cannot take even one step backward.
Bainimarama says we cannot slip back into the dark years of ethnic and religious division and weak institutions.
He also says that we must condemn — powerfully and openly – any who seek to drag us back to that destructive, backward and personalised way of thinking.
Bainimarama says the constitution establishes our common national identity, as equals, as Fijians.
He says as a result, we stand together today, more united than at any other time in our history. FijiVillage News, 8 December 2017
OPERATION KIDACALA (Surprise) was the code name Sitiveni Rabuka had assigned to his treasonous plan when he overthrew the
Dr Timoci Bavadra government in 1987
SITIVENI RABUKA ON TABUYA AND SINGH:
“They have accepted the challenge to resign from PDP and join the SODELPA ranks. Their loyalty still lies with their original party and they’re coming with the basic and real platforms which the PDP is run on. We find that those are in harmony and that the principals [Fijileaks: Its PRINCIPLES] and the values of SODELPA and we have received them with open arms and this morning I’ve been authorized to sign the
MOU with PDP.”
LYNDA TABUYA ON RABUKA:
“We with SODELPA has come to an agreement that this will be our united fight to continue to fight for the rights of workers and there are rights that are currently in the labour laws will be reviewed and made more fair to workers and this we have come together in unity and cooperation and in this spirit we are here today. Now I’ve been asked the question, why support Rabuka? I dont know if Rabuka’s ever been asked a question why support Tabuya or Prasad? Why support Rabuka? We support Rabuka and Rabuka supports us.”
TRANSLATION |
"After berating me for asking a question the Anare Jale Committee said that I had no evidence? That is true, I had no evidence at the time. But I was suspicious enough, that I asked the question which they did not answer and instead turned my questions into accusations. But now 16 months later, the evidence that proves my suspicions to be accurate has surfaced by way of an email sent to Adi Litia by Hon Mosese Bulitavu on August 15th 2015. Adi Lita Qionibaravi knew about Gaunavinaka all along, and withheld this vital and incriminating bit of evidence from both Anare Jale’s Investigating team and the Disciplinary committee" - Beddoes, 7 December 2017
"I recently came into possession of a copy of an email from Hon Mo Bulitavu to Adi Litia Qionibaravi and Sainiana Radrodro dated August 15th 2015 in which he stated that Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu had been sent the same email at 11pm the night before. The contents of this email are telling and it allows me finally [to] be in a position to put together the missing pieces of the jigsaw called Gaunavinaka. All of the characters who participated in and helped orchestrate this abuse of due process remain in the party management today. All of us who were wrongly accused by Hon Mo Bulitavu were simply ignored. My only motivation for doing this at this time is to finally establish the ‘TRUTH’ about what happened and to expose those individuals who remain in SODELPA today who collectively fabricated the report called Gaunavinaka and orchestrated an entire investigation to hoodwink the unsuspecting members, into believing they were trying to establish the truth when in fact their investigation was an effort to ‘discredit; Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca, the late Adi Laufitu Malani, our parliamentary staff and me." -
MICK BEDDOES, 7 DECEMBER 2017
'Although the Disciplinary Committee at a Management Board meeting did recommend the expulsion of Hon Mo Bulitavu in its final recommendations, Adi Litia fervently defended Hon Mosese Bulitavu and quickly moved a motion to Pardon him. He was made Deputy Whip' - Beddoes |
BY MICK BEDDOES
INTRODUCTION
I recently came into possession of a copy of an email from Hon Mo Bulitavu to Adi Litia Qionibaravi and Sainiana Radrodro dated August 15th 2015 in which he stated that Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu had been sent the same email at 11pm the night before. The contents of this email are telling and it allows me finally be in a position to put together the missing pieces of the jigsaw called Gaunavinaka.
My only motivation for doing this at this time is to finally establish the ‘TRUTH’ about what happened and to expose those individuals who remain in SODELPA today who collectively fabricated the report called Gaunavinaka and orchestrated an entire investigation to hoodwink the unsuspecting members, into believing they were trying to establish the truth when in fact their investigation was an effort to ‘discredit; Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca, the late Adi Laufitu Malani, our parliamentary staff and me.
INTRODUCTION
I recently came into possession of a copy of an email from Hon Mo Bulitavu to Adi Litia Qionibaravi and Sainiana Radrodro dated August 15th 2015 in which he stated that Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu had been sent the same email at 11pm the night before. The contents of this email are telling and it allows me finally be in a position to put together the missing pieces of the jigsaw called Gaunavinaka.
My only motivation for doing this at this time is to finally establish the ‘TRUTH’ about what happened and to expose those individuals who remain in SODELPA today who collectively fabricated the report called Gaunavinaka and orchestrated an entire investigation to hoodwink the unsuspecting members, into believing they were trying to establish the truth when in fact their investigation was an effort to ‘discredit; Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca, the late Adi Laufitu Malani, our parliamentary staff and me.
- Sixteen months ago, I was accused along with the Leader of the Opposition Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa, the late Adi Laufitu Malani, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca and our opposition parliamentary office staff of gross abuses and mismanagement among other things.
- We were all exonerated of any wrong doing by the Party’s own internal disciplinary committee, unfortunately this came after our accusers and their co-conspirators within the Party and management board mounted a series of outrageous public attacks with malice and disrespect especially against Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa and to a lesser extent us.
- What became obvious to all was that all of this was allowed to go on without any of the MP’s involved being cautioned or pulled into line by the President, the General Secretary, the Management Board or the MP’s. They were all silent!
- Although the Disciplinary Committee at a Management Board meeting did recommend the expulsion of Hon Mo Bulitavu in its final recommendations, Adi Litia fervently defended Hon Mosese Bulitavu and quickly moved a motion to Pardon him.
- Also, members of Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure’s CBM constituency who were present at the meeting threatened the Management Board into forgiving Hon Mosese Bulitavu and muzzle the Report or they would walk out of SODELPA.
- All this was conveniently hushed up. Hon Mo Bulitavu was forgiven and promptly rewarded for his wrong doing and appointed Deputy Whip.
- All of the characters who participated in and helped orchestrate this abuse of due process remain in the party management today.
- All of us who were wrongly accused by Hon Mo Bulitavu were simply ignored.
INJUSTICE In a letter to me dated April 16 2016, SODELPA General Secretary L.Q.Qionibaravi, outlined the 5 issues I was accused of and investigated for. Against each of these issues she included the findings of the Anare Jale Investigating Committee as well as the findings of the Disciplinary Committee. Their findings are so different it is clear that the Anare Jale Committee was out to find us guilty of what we had been accused of, whereas the Disciplinary Committee looked at the rules and the evidence and ruled accordingly. [Refer Example Table 1 below] |
1. The fifth issue referred to in Table 1 was made up by Adi Litia or the Management Board because there were not issues but 2 questions that I had asked the Management Board in my formal complaint against Hon Mo Bulitavu dated August 17th 2015. [Refer to Table 2 below]
2. The conclusions drawn by the Anare Jale team was obviously flawed because I never accused anyone, I just asked if anyone of them were involved, had knowledge of, or lent support to Hon Bulitavu.
3. After berating me for asking a question the Anare Jale committee said that I had no evidence? That is true, I had no evidence at the time, But I was suspicious enough, that I asked the question which they did not answer and instead turned my questions into accusations.
4. But now 16 months later, the evidence that proves my suspicions to be accurate has surfaced by way of an email sent to Adi Litia by Hon Mosese Bulitavu on August 15th 2015. Just 3 days after the Gaunavinaka report was leaked.
5. The final determination of the Disciplinary Committee was on December 5th 2015 meaning Adi Lita Qionibaravi knew about Gaunavinaka all along, and withheld this vital and incriminating bit of evidence from both Anare Jale’s Investigating team and the Disciplinary committee [Refer new email evidence Tables 3 & 4
2. The conclusions drawn by the Anare Jale team was obviously flawed because I never accused anyone, I just asked if anyone of them were involved, had knowledge of, or lent support to Hon Bulitavu.
3. After berating me for asking a question the Anare Jale committee said that I had no evidence? That is true, I had no evidence at the time, But I was suspicious enough, that I asked the question which they did not answer and instead turned my questions into accusations.
4. But now 16 months later, the evidence that proves my suspicions to be accurate has surfaced by way of an email sent to Adi Litia by Hon Mosese Bulitavu on August 15th 2015. Just 3 days after the Gaunavinaka report was leaked.
5. The final determination of the Disciplinary Committee was on December 5th 2015 meaning Adi Lita Qionibaravi knew about Gaunavinaka all along, and withheld this vital and incriminating bit of evidence from both Anare Jale’s Investigating team and the Disciplinary committee [Refer new email evidence Tables 3 & 4
THE BIG PICTURE
Armed with this new information I went back over the past 16 months and the sequence of events that led to the distribution of the “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean-up Campaign report that was later dubbed the Gaunavinaka report and the various encounters I had with people at different times. I wanted to as much as possible connect the dots and get to a position where I feel I can, beyond a reasonable doubt put the finger on who it is I think ‘Gaunavinaka’ was.
So here are the facts:-
1. Sequence of events
2. By his own words, Hon Mo Bulitavu says that he, with members of the CBM and Naitasiri Constituency, spent time strategizing and soliciting support for the removal of Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa as Leader of Opposition and plans to discredit her closest allies in the Party and effectively pave the way for Sitiveni Rabuka to come in as Party Leader.
3. Hon Mosese Bulitavu confesses that he compiled a report which he leaked. And that he was given the blessing to do what he did by Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure. The report he refers to was aimed at cleaning up the Opposition Office. So I assume he is talking about the 6-page report titled “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean-up Campaign” later known as the GAUNAVINAKA REPORT. There is no other report.
4. In the email he also reveals that he and some members of the SODELPA Parliamentary Caucus decided to endorse the Gaunavinaka Report, Initially they had hoped to have the matter investigated as an anonymous report, however I had drawn the GS’s attention to the fact that only registered member’s complaints could be investigated and Gaunavinaka was not a member. Shortly after I said that in the presence of at least 2 of the 5 complaining MP’s the joint letter was filed.
Armed with this new information I went back over the past 16 months and the sequence of events that led to the distribution of the “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean-up Campaign report that was later dubbed the Gaunavinaka report and the various encounters I had with people at different times. I wanted to as much as possible connect the dots and get to a position where I feel I can, beyond a reasonable doubt put the finger on who it is I think ‘Gaunavinaka’ was.
So here are the facts:-
1. Sequence of events
- August 12th: A 6 page report titled “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean-up Campaign” was released to selected media and SODELPA members. It included, a) a 3-page letter to the Leader of the Opposition and signed by the Tui Cakau with the subject “Disappointment on the Opposition’s Stand regarding Resignation of the Military Commander and Appointment of Viliame Naupoto to Act as Military Commander and b) a copy of the Parliamentary office’s bank statement.
- August 12th at 5.36pm in replying to Niko Nawaikula who emailed his concerns about how things were unfolding, Mo Bulitavu signed off as ‘Gauna’
- August 13th: The Gaunavinaka Report as it became known, was covered in both the Fiji Sun and FBC
- August 14th: The 5 MP’s filed their Complaint No 1
- August 15th: Hon Mo Bulitavu’s emails to Sai Radrodro and Adi Litia Qionibaravi [just released]
- August 17th at 9.30am Hon Mo Bulitavu emails details to Victor Lal of Fijileaks
- August 17th: I lodge my formal complaint against Hon Mo Bulitavu and the other MP’s
- August 19th: Their Complaint No 2 - Opposition Issues & Concerns
- September 8th: My response to the allegations in their Complaint No 2
2. By his own words, Hon Mo Bulitavu says that he, with members of the CBM and Naitasiri Constituency, spent time strategizing and soliciting support for the removal of Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa as Leader of Opposition and plans to discredit her closest allies in the Party and effectively pave the way for Sitiveni Rabuka to come in as Party Leader.
3. Hon Mosese Bulitavu confesses that he compiled a report which he leaked. And that he was given the blessing to do what he did by Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure. The report he refers to was aimed at cleaning up the Opposition Office. So I assume he is talking about the 6-page report titled “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean-up Campaign” later known as the GAUNAVINAKA REPORT. There is no other report.
4. In the email he also reveals that he and some members of the SODELPA Parliamentary Caucus decided to endorse the Gaunavinaka Report, Initially they had hoped to have the matter investigated as an anonymous report, however I had drawn the GS’s attention to the fact that only registered member’s complaints could be investigated and Gaunavinaka was not a member. Shortly after I said that in the presence of at least 2 of the 5 complaining MP’s the joint letter was filed.
5. Hon Mosese Bulitavu claims in Paragraph 3 that he compiled the report, and that Hon Karavaki compiled the complaint. The words here that make the distinction of the two documents are ‘ivola’ (in P1) and ‘repote’ (in P3). It is interesting that during discussion I had with Hon Karavaki, he indicated he was just asked to put his signature on the documents and nothing else, however according to Hon Mosses’ email, Hon Karavaki was definitely involved! |
6. One of the emails was sent to Adi Litia Qionibaravi (who at the time was heavily involved in reforming the SODELPA Constitution and was a special advisor to SODELPA President Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu. This email proves that Adi Litia knew that Hon Mosese Bulitavu had written the 6-page report titled “Investigations and Findings – Opposition Office Clean Up Campaign” known to us as the infamous GAUNAVINAKA REPORT.
7. The email Adi Litia Qionibaravi received from Hon Mosese Bulitavu in which he detailed everything was dated August 15th, just 2 days later on August 17th I filed my notice of Grievance against Hon Mosese Bulitavu and in my letter I asked if the General Secretary and/or Management Board, individually or collectively had any knowledge of, participated in, sanctioned or lent support directly or indirectly to the author of the report or any other individuals including Hon Mosese Bulitavu or the person known as Gaunavinaka.
8. They did not respond to this question, but thanks to Hon Mosese Bulitavu’s email, I now know that Adi Litia did have contact with Hon Mosese Bulitavu via his August 15th email.
9. Adi Litia I believe, drafted the Terms of Reference for the Independent Investigating Committee, and when I read the TOR it was obvious to me that Adi Litia had already decided that Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa and us, her allies were guilty. So the Investigating team led by Anare Jale operated on the basis that their mission was to find us ‘guilty’ of all the false charges.
10. Certainly that was the experience I encountered as far as my interviews with the committee were concerned.
11. According to members of our team who attended the Management Board meeting where the findings of the Independent Disciplinary Committee was presented, Adi Litia fervently defended Hon Mosese Bulitavu and moved a motion for his Pardon.
12. Members of Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure’s CBM constituency [who I now know from Mo’s email helped him with the report and supported his actions] threatened the rest of the Management Board to forgive Hon Mosese Bulitavu and muzzle the Report or they would walk out of SODELPA.
13. That is what happened in that Management Board meeting and it was hushed up.
THE UNSOLICITED LEGAL OPINION
Adi Litia was the one who wrote a legal opinion and presented it to the Management Board
1. Adi Litia Qionibaravi has been agitating for regime change in SODELPA since the outcome of the 2014 Elections.
2. In fact she is the one who had written a Legal opinion and took it to the Management Board meeting, calling for Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa to step down and resign. Her logic being, Hon Ro Teimumu failed to lead SODELPA into government?
3. If we were talking about a fully functional democracy in Fiji, I would agree, but we are talking about a dictatorship and having to lead a newly established party out of 8 years of suppression and 'zero' representation and securing 30% of the seats in parliament and 28% of total votes cast in the 2014 elections.
That is what I consider an achievement against the odds, and to my mind it was definitely not a failure, Hon Ro Teimumu punched a sizable hole in the side of the Fiji First armory.
4. The only failure that Hon Ro Teimumu encountered came from within, and it came via the authors and coconspirators of Gaunavinaka and their collective effort to undermine Hon Ro Teimumu’s leadership at every opportunity to further their own agenda and not the greater good of the party and its members.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is now obvious to me that what we went through with the Gaunavinaka saga although unwarranted and unjust was just one phase of a multi phased objective which started out with Gaunavinaka to justify our removal, then came the amendments to the party constitution to give effect to their new ‘control’ strategy, followed by Rabuka’s election after a number of earlier failures.
Next will be the removal of Hon Ro Teimumu, and ultimately there will be a restructure and renaming of SODELPA and the re-emergence of CAMV. That’s what I believe their real objective is, and that’s the full picture as I see it.
So thanks to Hon Mosese Bulitavu’s email we now know that the people involved in the Gaunavinaka saga included – Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, Adi Litia Qionibaravi, Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure, Hon Karavaki, Hon Kiliraki, Hon Bulitavu Hon Radrodro [Although recent developments indicate he may be on the way out], Hon Leawere, Mrs Sainiana Radrodro, CBM supporters and former CAMV supporters within SODELPA, all quietly waiting for the ultimate resurrection of CAMV and the demise of SODELPA,
Peter Waqavonovono got it right the first time, when he told me, at the very beginning, that all this was to pave the way for Rabuka and they are prepared to destroy SODELPA to do it
Mick Beddoes
Sabeto, Nadi
7. The email Adi Litia Qionibaravi received from Hon Mosese Bulitavu in which he detailed everything was dated August 15th, just 2 days later on August 17th I filed my notice of Grievance against Hon Mosese Bulitavu and in my letter I asked if the General Secretary and/or Management Board, individually or collectively had any knowledge of, participated in, sanctioned or lent support directly or indirectly to the author of the report or any other individuals including Hon Mosese Bulitavu or the person known as Gaunavinaka.
8. They did not respond to this question, but thanks to Hon Mosese Bulitavu’s email, I now know that Adi Litia did have contact with Hon Mosese Bulitavu via his August 15th email.
9. Adi Litia I believe, drafted the Terms of Reference for the Independent Investigating Committee, and when I read the TOR it was obvious to me that Adi Litia had already decided that Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa and us, her allies were guilty. So the Investigating team led by Anare Jale operated on the basis that their mission was to find us ‘guilty’ of all the false charges.
10. Certainly that was the experience I encountered as far as my interviews with the committee were concerned.
11. According to members of our team who attended the Management Board meeting where the findings of the Independent Disciplinary Committee was presented, Adi Litia fervently defended Hon Mosese Bulitavu and moved a motion for his Pardon.
12. Members of Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure’s CBM constituency [who I now know from Mo’s email helped him with the report and supported his actions] threatened the rest of the Management Board to forgive Hon Mosese Bulitavu and muzzle the Report or they would walk out of SODELPA.
13. That is what happened in that Management Board meeting and it was hushed up.
THE UNSOLICITED LEGAL OPINION
Adi Litia was the one who wrote a legal opinion and presented it to the Management Board
1. Adi Litia Qionibaravi has been agitating for regime change in SODELPA since the outcome of the 2014 Elections.
2. In fact she is the one who had written a Legal opinion and took it to the Management Board meeting, calling for Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa to step down and resign. Her logic being, Hon Ro Teimumu failed to lead SODELPA into government?
3. If we were talking about a fully functional democracy in Fiji, I would agree, but we are talking about a dictatorship and having to lead a newly established party out of 8 years of suppression and 'zero' representation and securing 30% of the seats in parliament and 28% of total votes cast in the 2014 elections.
That is what I consider an achievement against the odds, and to my mind it was definitely not a failure, Hon Ro Teimumu punched a sizable hole in the side of the Fiji First armory.
4. The only failure that Hon Ro Teimumu encountered came from within, and it came via the authors and coconspirators of Gaunavinaka and their collective effort to undermine Hon Ro Teimumu’s leadership at every opportunity to further their own agenda and not the greater good of the party and its members.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is now obvious to me that what we went through with the Gaunavinaka saga although unwarranted and unjust was just one phase of a multi phased objective which started out with Gaunavinaka to justify our removal, then came the amendments to the party constitution to give effect to their new ‘control’ strategy, followed by Rabuka’s election after a number of earlier failures.
Next will be the removal of Hon Ro Teimumu, and ultimately there will be a restructure and renaming of SODELPA and the re-emergence of CAMV. That’s what I believe their real objective is, and that’s the full picture as I see it.
So thanks to Hon Mosese Bulitavu’s email we now know that the people involved in the Gaunavinaka saga included – Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, Adi Litia Qionibaravi, Ratu Kilipati Vakalalabure, Hon Karavaki, Hon Kiliraki, Hon Bulitavu Hon Radrodro [Although recent developments indicate he may be on the way out], Hon Leawere, Mrs Sainiana Radrodro, CBM supporters and former CAMV supporters within SODELPA, all quietly waiting for the ultimate resurrection of CAMV and the demise of SODELPA,
Peter Waqavonovono got it right the first time, when he told me, at the very beginning, that all this was to pave the way for Rabuka and they are prepared to destroy SODELPA to do it
Mick Beddoes
Sabeto, Nadi
Fijileaks: We are yet to obtain comment from Mosese Bulitavu | TRANSLATION Many people are blaming the Fiji sun for discrediting the party however the truth is that the caucus has been at the root of it all. We have been made a fool of as we have not been involved in any decision making. Our thinking is that Ratu Yavala comes in as replacement to the opposition leader. If the inquiry is not well conducted hon Aseri Radroro's role in PAC will be weakened. We have no more confidence in the opposition leader or whip. Many people are asking as to who is the author of the (Gaunavinaka) report, I am requesting that the party deals with this issue. We have asked GS to stand up straight and she is awaiting a decision from you. My apology for the negative light cast on the party and your name (Desperate times needs desperate measures) The caucus at this time is minus us. I am requesting your decision be straight and clean. Wishing you all the best. Your obedient servant, Mo |
From Fijileaks Archive, 20 August 2015:
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/gaunavinaka-report-bulitavo-tells-ro-kepa-stop-your-selfishness-and-deceit-and-wait-for-sodelpa-internal-inquiry-ro-kepa-mp-bulitavo-collaborating-with-fiji-firsts-propaganda-arm-the-fiji-sun-to-smear-me
From Fijileaks Archive, 10 December 2015:
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE REPORT
Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa today broke her silence on the ongoing issue of the Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro led Gaunavinaka report.
Ro Teimumu said she attended the SODELPA Management Board meeting held on Saturday 5th December [2015] when the Disciplinary Committee tabled its final determination and recommendations on the Bulitavu, Radrodro Gaunavinaka Report.
Ro Teimumu said Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro and others made damaging and false accusations against her and others with their discredited document.
The Disciplinary Committee involves senior members of the party and the lawyer in the group is a respected member of the legal fraternity. The following is what the Committee recommended:-
On financial mismanagement, the members reaffirmed that the claims were false and unsubstantiated, and dismissed all allegations against me, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca, Hon Salote Radrodro, Laufitu Malani and Mick Beddoes.
They recommended the expulsion of Hon Mosese Bulitavu.
That is essentially what the Executive Summary of the report spelt out.
Compare the facts of the Executive Summary that I have outlined with the official statement issued by the General Secretary of SODELPA and it becomes obvious that certain officials in the party have for reasons best known to them, hidden the truth from our people.
This is totally unacceptable and it goes against the basic principles and values of the party and sadly these elements were missing from the Management Board's decision and media release which were made without the concurrence of all of its members.
The Disciplinary Committee had full powers to make its recommendations and in the interests of justice and fairness and to maintain its impartiality the Management Board should have fully endorsed the recommendations.
After the tabling of the Disciplinary Committee’s report I, and others, who had been exonerated were asked to leave the meeting room.
What followed was the Management Board's 'pardon' of Hon Mosese Bulitavu for his reprehensible and disloyal behaviour. The pardon came after northern delegates threatened to leave SODELPA if Hon Bulitavu was expelled as recommended.
This decision by the Board is regrettable because they allowed themselves to be blackmailed. There is no evidence to indicate any of our accusers made any apology and neither had any of them shown remorse. Decisions made under 'threat' are flawed and compromised. Once this type of precedent is set, a political party exposes itself to further threats. It puts itself on a slippery slope.
No one is forced to become a member of SODELPA and neither are members forced to stay with the party. If they don't like the outcome of the party's Disciplinary Committee, they are free to resign.
SODELPA members have been looking forward to the resolution of the dispute involving the discredited allegations by Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro and others. The Disciplinary Committee did the task entrusted to it.
However the Management Board’s actions in ignoring the recommendation on Hon Bulitavu has brought SODELPA into greater disrepute.
This ongoing disorder and dysfunctionality within the party executive must stop now, we cannot and must not allow disloyal members and disruptive elements to hold the entire party to ransom. The only benefactors to this deliberately created crisis continuing is Fiji First and we must all oppose this vigorously.
I call on all our loyal party supporters to rally behind us and help me bring about a change in SODELPA away from its current secretive, divisive and destructive stance to a more credible, accountable and transparent party.
Authorized By:
Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa
Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa today broke her silence on the ongoing issue of the Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro led Gaunavinaka report.
Ro Teimumu said she attended the SODELPA Management Board meeting held on Saturday 5th December [2015] when the Disciplinary Committee tabled its final determination and recommendations on the Bulitavu, Radrodro Gaunavinaka Report.
Ro Teimumu said Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro and others made damaging and false accusations against her and others with their discredited document.
The Disciplinary Committee involves senior members of the party and the lawyer in the group is a respected member of the legal fraternity. The following is what the Committee recommended:-
On financial mismanagement, the members reaffirmed that the claims were false and unsubstantiated, and dismissed all allegations against me, Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca, Hon Salote Radrodro, Laufitu Malani and Mick Beddoes.
They recommended the expulsion of Hon Mosese Bulitavu.
That is essentially what the Executive Summary of the report spelt out.
Compare the facts of the Executive Summary that I have outlined with the official statement issued by the General Secretary of SODELPA and it becomes obvious that certain officials in the party have for reasons best known to them, hidden the truth from our people.
This is totally unacceptable and it goes against the basic principles and values of the party and sadly these elements were missing from the Management Board's decision and media release which were made without the concurrence of all of its members.
The Disciplinary Committee had full powers to make its recommendations and in the interests of justice and fairness and to maintain its impartiality the Management Board should have fully endorsed the recommendations.
After the tabling of the Disciplinary Committee’s report I, and others, who had been exonerated were asked to leave the meeting room.
What followed was the Management Board's 'pardon' of Hon Mosese Bulitavu for his reprehensible and disloyal behaviour. The pardon came after northern delegates threatened to leave SODELPA if Hon Bulitavu was expelled as recommended.
This decision by the Board is regrettable because they allowed themselves to be blackmailed. There is no evidence to indicate any of our accusers made any apology and neither had any of them shown remorse. Decisions made under 'threat' are flawed and compromised. Once this type of precedent is set, a political party exposes itself to further threats. It puts itself on a slippery slope.
No one is forced to become a member of SODELPA and neither are members forced to stay with the party. If they don't like the outcome of the party's Disciplinary Committee, they are free to resign.
SODELPA members have been looking forward to the resolution of the dispute involving the discredited allegations by Mosese Bulitavu, Aseri Radrodro and others. The Disciplinary Committee did the task entrusted to it.
However the Management Board’s actions in ignoring the recommendation on Hon Bulitavu has brought SODELPA into greater disrepute.
This ongoing disorder and dysfunctionality within the party executive must stop now, we cannot and must not allow disloyal members and disruptive elements to hold the entire party to ransom. The only benefactors to this deliberately created crisis continuing is Fiji First and we must all oppose this vigorously.
I call on all our loyal party supporters to rally behind us and help me bring about a change in SODELPA away from its current secretive, divisive and destructive stance to a more credible, accountable and transparent party.
Authorized By:
Hon Ro Teimumu Kepa
On the other hand, Whip-Ratu Isoa Tikoca (MP) a fall out from Bainimarama’s administration being Ambassador to PNG and the master-mind of the iTaukei Foundation established at the Bosevanua in Bau to sign a memorandum with the government under the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) with intention to undermine the Yanuca Resolutions. The Yanuca letter was endorsed by the Vitivou Forum Inc. and the Fiji Native Tribe Congress to prove to the ILO Convention 169 Committee of Experts that the argument by the Bainimarama government that majority of indigenous Fijians had accepted the reforms directed to remove their group rights through the adoption of the People’s Charter is not true, indigenous peoples were not consulted of the imposed changes. Both indigenous groups are co-chaired by the Leader of the Opposition and Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu (MP) with many heads of chiefly domes in Kubuna, Burebasaga and Tovata Confederacies. Opposition Whip-Ratu Isoa Tikoca (MP) after he was sacked and his passport held until he fully settled the money he used for his son’s tuition fees who was studying in Australia, presented his iTaukei Foundation concept to negotiate on behalf of Tailevu province to the Government, but failed to convince Bainimarama. He brought his concept to SODELPA and was allowed to present it the party headquarters trying to convince the party with Bainimarama’s abusive emails. It was only in January, 2014 that Ratu Isoa Tikoca (MP) entered the SODELPA movement - Reclaiming Fiji. How can these individuals be trusted and given very key decision making positions at the Opposition Office? -
The Gaunavinaka Report
"It is unfortunate to state that the appointment of Richard Naidu as the Opposition’s nominee was the decision of the Leader of the Opposition alone and did not reflect any consensus with the caucus or the party. She pushed her way through to get her choice despite members of the caucus suggesting other nominees...In the recent resignation and the appointment of the new RFMF Commander, the Opposition Office acted without the direction, knowledge and permission of the party by publically saying in the media that the acting appointment of Viliame Naupoto as new Commander was ‘in order’ because it was procedurally agreed at the Constitution Commission. The Leader of the Opposition and her nominee Richard Naidu made a blanket undertaking that the Chairperson is allowed to make interim three months appointments. The President [Ratu Naiqama] had expressed his disappointment and questioned the Leader of the Opposition in a written letter on 3 August 2015 on the validity of the position of the Opposition Office taken especially one done without his understanding, without consultation as to the position of the party." - THE GAUNAVINAKA REPORT | "Without the consultation of the caucus and the management board of the party she announced that the leader of the National Federation Party [Biman Prasad] is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Leader of the Opposition gave away a key position of every opposition majority party that will give the National Federation Party (NFP) mileage for the 2018 elections. The conspiracy was later revealed to be created by Laufitu Malani and Eci Kikau of the NFP. This is a serious breach of the party constitution." |
"Without the consultation of the caucus and the management board of the party she announced that the leader of the National Federation Party [Biman Prasad] is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Leader of the Opposition gave away a key position of every opposition majority party that will give the National Federation Party (NFP) mileage for the 2018 elections." - Gaunavinaka Report
"Ratu Sai" was responding to allegations against Sakiusa Raivoce in the Gaunavinaka Report. Raivoce is on the Selection Committee to select SODELPA candidates for the 2018 general election
From Fijileaks Archive, 20 August 2015:
UPDATE: "I have read your latest statement in the blog-site and I agree with the report, because that is the amount the SODELPA Opposition Office in Parliament borrowed from me. I did not even ask for an interest, they offered it to me. I don't know where the $30k and the $10k interest came from as reported by Gaunavinaka." - Sakiusa Raivoce to Fijileaks
Fijileaks Investigation Team's finding:
* Raivoce paid for the Opposition Office staff wages & petty cash from the date that the General Secretary of Parliament terminated all staff on 9 January 2015 until the Opposition received their $225,000 deposit.
* Raivoce stepped in to provide a bridging loan and Sodelpa agreed to the nominal interest rate in exchange.
* Sodelpa provided a wage listing and petty cash reimbursement each week and he advanced the money.
* In March Sodelpa refunded him $13,261.24 plus 5% interest of $663.07. He was paid $13,924.31 in total.
* Had Raivoce not stepped in, Sodelpa would have had to close the office or ask the staff to work for free.
* Raivoce had agreed to loan $10,000 initially and the interest was to be $500
"I prepared the GAUNAVINAKA Report and organised its leak as our mouths have been shut." | TRANSLATION |
"The Caucus has decided that a letter of complaint, already drafted by Karavaki, be forwarded to the GS [General Secretary of SODELPA, Adi Litia Qionibaravi, on the leadership in the office. I state here that the caucus masterminded operation Gaunavinaka. I prepared the report and organised its leak as our mouths have be."
SODELPA (Rabuka) will release the remaining list of candidates today
(Saturday, 9 December 2017)
The FULL GAUNAVINAKA REPORT:
www.fijileaks.com/home/the-gaunavinaka-report-fijileaks-publishes-the-report-which-is-causing-rupture-in-sodelpa-ranks-and-jubilation-in-fiji-sun-newsroom-and-in-fijifirst-theft-party-as-khaiyum-yet-to-reveal-truth-on-midlife-investments-ltd-which-he-claimed-sold-him-th
BY MICK BEDDOES
Opening a Regional Training Workshop on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights and Human Rights Indicators in Denarau this week, the AG went on an excursion into the Land of the Big Lasulasu (Lie).
He was quoted in a Fiji Times report as having said Fiji's 1987 and 2000 coups were a result of people's inability to access basic socio economic rights.
Lasulasu No 1: There were not two coups, but three, 1987, 2000 and 2006 -The Kai-Bai Coup in which he was a key player along with Voreqe Bainimarama.
Lasulasu No 2: The reason for the first, second (and third) coups had nothing to do with lack of access to socioeconomic rights. The 1987 takeover was because an Indian-dominated government won the elections of that year. The second coup was to remove our first Indian elected Prime Minister. It had nothing whatsoever to do with socioeconomic rights. The Kai-Bai Coup was motivated by different reasons and was essentially a power grab.
For the record, when the 1987 coup happened Fiji was coming off the back of a 7.75% growth in 1986, four months later came Rabuka’s Coup No 1 and we nose-dived to a (-6.62%) negative growth.
Similarly with coup 2, the country had an 8.8%; growth in 1999 then after the Speight 2000 Coup it took a nosedive to (1.6%)
And again in 2006 the growth rate was 1.9%, then the Kai-Bai coup occurred and it slumped to (0.09%) leading to a devaluation.
In each case the economic damage was directly caused by the three coups; the people had nothing to do with them. Each of the coups were planned and executed by a handful of people who wanted to grab power, pure and simple (although with different motivations).
The AG says, quote: “In Fiji, we've had disruptions to Government in 1987 and in 2000. If you see the genesis of that and if you look at why these things have happened it's because of people's inability to access very basic socioeconomic rights
Lasulasu No 3: ‘Disruptions to government’ in 1987 and 2000, but again no mention of their own 2006 ‘disruption’. I mean seriously he now wants to call ‘coups and acts of treason’ ‘disruptions! Who is he kidding!
This new spin by the AG is part of a plan by the Fiji First Government and its $1 million a year p.r. company QORVIS to ‘socially re-engineer’ the minds of the gullible among us into believing that 2006 never happened.
Have a look at the Prime Minister’s bio in the COP23 website and there’s not a single mention of the 2006 military takeover of an elected government by Bainimarama. Yet this is the defining action of his entire career. What should this omission be called? A falsification? Or a rejection of reality? The truth, of course, is that Bainimarama wants to conceal what he did in 2006 because perpetrating an act of treason is hardly an achievement he would want to draw attention to on his bio details for COP23.
At the workshop where the AG broke with reality, he veered off into Lasulasu Land again when he spoke of the need for certain rights, including “cultural” rights, to be “mainstreamed” into policies. The 2013 imposed Constitution, of which Sayed-Khaiyum was the principal author, lists 45 items under its Bill of Rights. There is no reference to cultural rights.
The 1997 Constitution, which may still be in force, had a section on group and customary rights, which are an important part of indigenous Fijian culture. But these cultural rights were left out of his 2013 Constitution, with the agreement of Voreqe Bainimarama.
And sadly the UN and other International players appear willing to give credence to the orchestration of all this Denial by Deception.
One wonders whether they have the well-being of we the people at heart. Perhaps they think we can be cast side?
Well we WILL NOT!!
Opening a Regional Training Workshop on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights and Human Rights Indicators in Denarau this week, the AG went on an excursion into the Land of the Big Lasulasu (Lie).
He was quoted in a Fiji Times report as having said Fiji's 1987 and 2000 coups were a result of people's inability to access basic socio economic rights.
Lasulasu No 1: There were not two coups, but three, 1987, 2000 and 2006 -The Kai-Bai Coup in which he was a key player along with Voreqe Bainimarama.
Lasulasu No 2: The reason for the first, second (and third) coups had nothing to do with lack of access to socioeconomic rights. The 1987 takeover was because an Indian-dominated government won the elections of that year. The second coup was to remove our first Indian elected Prime Minister. It had nothing whatsoever to do with socioeconomic rights. The Kai-Bai Coup was motivated by different reasons and was essentially a power grab.
For the record, when the 1987 coup happened Fiji was coming off the back of a 7.75% growth in 1986, four months later came Rabuka’s Coup No 1 and we nose-dived to a (-6.62%) negative growth.
Similarly with coup 2, the country had an 8.8%; growth in 1999 then after the Speight 2000 Coup it took a nosedive to (1.6%)
And again in 2006 the growth rate was 1.9%, then the Kai-Bai coup occurred and it slumped to (0.09%) leading to a devaluation.
In each case the economic damage was directly caused by the three coups; the people had nothing to do with them. Each of the coups were planned and executed by a handful of people who wanted to grab power, pure and simple (although with different motivations).
The AG says, quote: “In Fiji, we've had disruptions to Government in 1987 and in 2000. If you see the genesis of that and if you look at why these things have happened it's because of people's inability to access very basic socioeconomic rights
Lasulasu No 3: ‘Disruptions to government’ in 1987 and 2000, but again no mention of their own 2006 ‘disruption’. I mean seriously he now wants to call ‘coups and acts of treason’ ‘disruptions! Who is he kidding!
This new spin by the AG is part of a plan by the Fiji First Government and its $1 million a year p.r. company QORVIS to ‘socially re-engineer’ the minds of the gullible among us into believing that 2006 never happened.
Have a look at the Prime Minister’s bio in the COP23 website and there’s not a single mention of the 2006 military takeover of an elected government by Bainimarama. Yet this is the defining action of his entire career. What should this omission be called? A falsification? Or a rejection of reality? The truth, of course, is that Bainimarama wants to conceal what he did in 2006 because perpetrating an act of treason is hardly an achievement he would want to draw attention to on his bio details for COP23.
At the workshop where the AG broke with reality, he veered off into Lasulasu Land again when he spoke of the need for certain rights, including “cultural” rights, to be “mainstreamed” into policies. The 2013 imposed Constitution, of which Sayed-Khaiyum was the principal author, lists 45 items under its Bill of Rights. There is no reference to cultural rights.
The 1997 Constitution, which may still be in force, had a section on group and customary rights, which are an important part of indigenous Fijian culture. But these cultural rights were left out of his 2013 Constitution, with the agreement of Voreqe Bainimarama.
And sadly the UN and other International players appear willing to give credence to the orchestration of all this Denial by Deception.
One wonders whether they have the well-being of we the people at heart. Perhaps they think we can be cast side?
Well we WILL NOT!!
VICTOR LAL: 'If native Fijians and traitor Indo-Fijians want history to repeat itself, sure, go ahead and embrace this racist, coupist, treasonist Sitiveni Rabuka to lead Fiji. We will continue our fight, opposing COUPISTS who have brought so much death, destruction, and decay to our native Fiji. And, don't try and tell me, of all people, Fiji belongs to native Fijians. Waqatairewa, I am not the QUEEN OF FIJI. The real Queen was deposed by Rabuka so that he could reduce Indo-Fijians to second class citizens, become Major-General, and turn Fiji into a Republic, supported by chiefs and NBF thieves in 1987. Oh, as a petty commoner, he also became 'Queen' of Chiefs - chairman of Great Council of Chiefs. There is no denying that shortly after his coup, Rabuka and his followers had embarked on a mission of cultural genocide against Indo-Fijians.'
We had resisted partaking in news reports that had been pumped out against SODELPA MP ASERI RADRODRO by bottle picker Sitiveni Rabuka's 'wheel-barrow boys' and the media
* The devil is in the details: Radrodro scored the highest total score, in equal percent, with another candidate but coupist Rabuka has been trying to infiltrate SODELPA candidacy list with the likes of Peceli Rinakama who was elected to Parliament in the 1999 election, representing the constituency of Naitasiri for the Fijian Association Party
* During the 2000 failed coup, he joined the Cabinet of George Speight.
* Following the coup, he switched his allegiance to Ratu Naiqama's the Conservative Alliance, but failed to win re-election in the 2001 election
* In 2003, he alleged that Rabuka's Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party was behind the 2000 coup, and that it had plotted to overthrow the Chaudhry government even before it took office
* Shortly afterwards he was charged with taking an unlawful oath for purporting to join Speight's Cabinet, and in 2004 he was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment
* Rinakama was granted early release for good behaviour in December 2005, having served half his sentence
* In 2005 it was alleged that Rinakama had benefitted from a US$13 million fraud in the agriculture ministry in 2001
* In 1987, the deposed Prime Minister Dr Timoci Bavadra had predicted that Rabuka's coups would unleash tribalism and provincialism whose effects will be felt for years to come
* No where is this more pronounced than in the make up of the SODELPA Selection Committee
* They hail from Lau, Rewa, Tailevu and Cakaudrove, led by coupist Sitiveni Rabuka, who should NEVER have been chosen to lead the party
* What is his CV for the job. Zilch. The opportunist and coupist had been hiding from the Bainimarama regime since 2006, and is now charged with selecting and shaping the SODELPA candidate list for the election
* It was none other than Rabuka who dragged the sorry saga of his daughter and her former husband Aseri Radrodro's bust up into the public domain in his resignation letter (published by Fijileaks) when he was forced to withdraw from SODELPA
* Since then, not a day passes when his "wheel barrow boys" have not stopped demonizing Aseri Radrodro regarding Rabuka's daughter
* What they have not disclosed is that she was no "angel" - and that is why Rabuka chose NOT to take the matter up with the Police. Go and ask the KUBUABOLAS. We will rest the case, for the time-being. Rabuka must not be allowed to get his way against SODELPA MP Aseri Radrodro
* WE CALL ON SODELPA TO KICK THE BOTTLE PICKER OUT AS LEADER OF THE PARTY, IF IT WANTS TO WIN ELECTION. He should be appointed Frank Bainimarama's COP23 BOTTLE PICKER AMBASSADOR
FIJI IS STILL PICKING UP THEIR 'COUP RUBBISH'
"People are commenting [on social media] on comments without even checking out the facts. If somebody says today a frog has eaten a horse, then people will start commenting, "Oh my God what color was the frog?" as opposed to actually checking out the fact if the frog had eaten the horse or not. And frankly, you can verify those facts very, very easily." - Khaiyum
In his keynote address at the International Anti-Corruption Day celebrations in Suva, Aiyaz Khaiyum stated that there is a culture in Fiji of people commenting on social media posts without verifying their facts. It was vital, he said, that people addressed issues in a factual manner instead of just basing their information on rumors.
Fijileaks: In the last five years we have presented to him and the world a series of factual stories (including our Founding Editor-in-Chief VICTOR LAL informing him in 2008 that his fellow Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry was hiding $2million in Australia) but like our analogy of the FROG and the MONKEY, he not only makes no effort to verify our facts but condescendingly dismisses them, and ensures through his media decree that these revelations remain hidden from Fiji's local media readers. Why didn't he, as a lawyer, and a fellow Muslim, make any effort to verify the credentials of the Islamic cleric scholar and 'barrister' Zain Siddiqi? Since 2011, he has been hob-nobbling with Siddiqi at Indo-Fijian Muslim gatherings. Has he now issued a banning order against Siddiqi? Since when has he woken up to preach about transparency and accountability? What about the Auditor-Generals Reports? What about the Ministerial Salaries? What about the Prime Minister's Cyclone Winston Funds? The list is endless, and Fijians like the FROG IN THE WELL, are struggling to get the facts out from him
BUT THE FROG STILL BELIEVES THAT IT IS
KING OF THE WELL (Raja!)
In March 2017, the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England intervened into Siddiqi's practice at Saints Solicitors LLP in Birmingham to protect clients' interests. | Why was Siddiqi allowed to preach to Maunatul Islam Fiji in 2011, and in 2017? FIJI: A PARADISE FAST LOSING ITS SOUL TO SHADY CHARACTERS |
In 2011, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Aiyaz Khaiyum was the chief guest when Siddiqi spoke at the Maunatul Islam Fiji. He acknowledged Khaiyum's attendance in his opening remarks. In March 2017, the Solicitors Regulation Authority [SRA], UK, had stopped Siddiqi's legal firm Saints Solicitors LLP from operating, took possession of all documents and papers held by the firm, and took possession of all money held, to protect clients' interests and money, in the public interest. In 2007, Siddiqi and two others had pleaded guilty in the Manchester Magistrates Court in England to various charges of providing or aiding and abetting the illegal immigration advice or services. The TRIO had set up a bogus immigration advice service in Cheetham Hill, Manchester. They pretended they were being regulated by the British government when they were not, Manchester Magistrates Court heard. On what grounds did the Fiji Immigration Department admit Siddiqi into Fiji in 2011, and most recently, to preach during the Prophet Mohammed's birthday celebrations? One of the Siddiqi bothers, Shaykh Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, in 2007, established MAT - Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, and is chairman of its Governing Council. Unlike most sharia councils and tribunals, MAT has legal status under the 1996 Arbitration Act and its rulings can be enforced by the British courts, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. Many opponents of MAT argue that the tribunal condones domestic violence and physical abuse against Muslim women, and that it undermines equal rights and protection under the law, and often rules unfairly in favour of men. MAT has denied the charges. According to the tribunal's website, it specialises in Islamic divorce, inheritance law and Islamic wills, family meditation and mosque dispute resolution. Faizul Siddiqi has been branded a hardline cleric, who led a thousand-strong, gender-segregated march in protest at Charlie Hebdo’s use of images of Prophet Mohammed after 11 of the magazine’s staff were murdered by terrorists in Paris
In March 2017, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in England intervened into Siddiqi's practice at Saints Solicitors LLP in Birmingham. Reasons/basis: Siddiqi had failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011 which are rules made under Sections 31 and 32 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (as amended). In April 2017, the suspension of Siddiqi's practising certificate for 2016/2017 was terminated subject to conditions | The screeching headline in The FIJI SUN |
An intervention is a step taken to protect clients' interests and money, in the public interest. In March 2017, the SRA had stopped the firm from operating, took possession of all documents and papers held by the firm, and took possession of all money held.
In March 2017, a statement from the SRA said the company and its managers "failed to comply with the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 and the SRA Principles 2011 which are rules made under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985". Afifa Kiran, Safdar Akhtar, Zain Siddiqi and Nusrat Hussain, who practiced at Saints Solicitors in Birmingham, were all subject to the intervention order. James Dunn of London firm Devonshires had been appointed as intervening agent.
Fijileaks: Siddiqi's CV is at odds with his Facebook profile and Fiji media headlines that he is a Barrister of High Court of England and Wales. On his Facebook profile he claims he has an LLM from Staffordshire University. But on his LinkedIn page he states he has a LPC (Legal Practice Certificate) from Staffordshire University (1996-97). If so, then he is a SOLICITOR and NOT a BARRISTER of the High Court of England and Wales. In fact, he has to be a SOLICITOR, for it was the Solicitors Regulatory Authority which first suspended his practising certificate for 2016/2017. Has the 'Shaykh' taken the Fiji Muslim League, the Fiji media, and the Indo-Fijian Muslims in Labasa for a ride during Prophet Mohammed's Birthday celebration?
A TRIO who set up a bogus immigration advice service in Cheetham Hill, Manchester, have been brought to justice. They pretended they were being regulated by the government when they were not, Manchester Magistrates Court heard.
The three men, Gurvinder Singh Suthi of Handsworth, Birmingham, Tasib Yusaf of Snienton, Nottingham and Zain Siddiqi, a solicitor also based in Handsworth, pleaded guilty to various charges of providing or aiding and abetting the illegal immigration advice or services.
By law, anyone offering immigration advice or services must be regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) unless they are a member of a designated professional body, such as the Law Society. Although, as a solicitor, Siddiqi was qualified to provide immigration advice or services, his two co-defendants were not. As the court heard, however, Mr Siddiqi had at one point owned the business that allowed Suthi and Yusaf to provide immigration advice illegally.
Operating as Doctor Qureshi & Company and trading from offices on Cheetham Hill, Manchester, the trio were claiming the business was regulated by the OISC and even displayed an OISC logo in their window as proof. Despite a visit from the OISC clarifying that they were not regulated and that as such they were breaking the law, they continued to offer immigration advice and services regardless.
Immigration Services Commissioner, Suzanne McCarthy, said: "The law exists to protect people from incompetent immigration advisers. It is my office's responsibility to enforce that and we will prosecute those who deliberately flout the law and take advantage of their clients."
Ms McCarthy went on: "This group all knew that they needed to be regulated by my office. Instead they chose to operate outside the law and without regard for the protection of their clients, so I am delighted with the outcome of this case. I think it sends a clear message to other people considering providing immigration advice without being appropriately regulated - either act within the law or you will find yourself in court."
The Saints Solicitors had a branch office at 78 Dickenson Rd, Manchester
Zain Aqtab Siddiqi speaking to | Siddiqi speaking in 2011 at Maunatul Islam Fiji. Khaiyum was chief guest |
His description of Aiyaz Khaiyum as "King" (said in jovial style) should also be interpreted in the context of his request that since he [Khaiuym] was the acting Prime Minister - "King, as they would say in India" - he should grant Indo-Fijian Muslims the permission for them to march on Prophet Mohammed's birthday, as is the practice in many Muslim countries. Unfortunately, the SODELPA RACISTS are making a mountain out of a molehill. For God's sake, at least the Maulana was not claiming that Allah had whispered in his sleep to make the request to "KK - King Khaiyum". Remember SODELPA leader Sitiveni Rabuka's claim: 'God whispered in my sleep to carry out the coup, for Hindus and Muslims are pagans who must be converted to Christianity." He had planned the coup in utter secrecy and had termed his treasonous plan as 'Operation Kidacala'. The Maulana, on the other hand, could have approached Khaiyum in secrecy to obtain a marching permit from the police. But he did not do so, and only mentioned the idea of a march on Prophet Mohammed's birthday in passing during his sermon. We must also not forget that the peaceful Maunatul Islam Association has been in Fiji since 1942, long before the racist Rabuka was born. The Association was led by that great late Indo-Fijian leader Siddiq Moidin Koya, including his father Hajji Moidin Koya. The MIA can not be equated with many dubious Christian groups operating in Fiji. The Maulana was simply speaking as an Indian Muslim to Indo-Fijian Muslims, many who told Fijileaks afterwards that they were struggling to understand his long winded sermon in Arabic/Urdu fiery tongue. There is nothing in the full video which is inflammatory, except him jovially referring to Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum as "King - Fiji ke Raja" in an All India setting. The Maulana forgot that he was speaking to an Indo-Fijian Muslim audience. According to the sources, even Faiyaz Koya and Aiyaz Khaiyum were struggling to comprehend most of his preaching until he mentioned "Raja". But as we pointed out previously, the Maulana should have been corrected on some of his misinformed statements. However, he did not once refer to FFP government or Fijian politics. Nor did he explain to his audience that SAYED, Arabic sayyid, means 'master', 'lord' or 'chief'. Ironically, after losing the 1999 general election, it was Rabuka, a petty commoner, who became chairman of the Great Council of CHIEFS [SAYYIDS], and later a life-member. In September 2006, Rabuka called for the abolition of Fiji's chiefly system and for the nationalisation of land owned by native Fijians: "The indigenous Fijians will argue that this will leave them with nothing but in the end, it's for the good of all. We'll all benefit in the end."
Fijileaks: We have a history of falling for the well healed 'heavenly messengers' - remember the South Korean Reverend Moon and his counterpart Pastor Benny Hinn fighting for the soul and wallet of Fijians in 2006:
The president of the Methodist Church was quoted as saying he would direct Benny Hinn to the St Giles Psychiatric Hospital and the Colonial War Memorial Hospital in Suva because these are the places where people require urgent healing.
"There is no doubt that many people in Fiji will be falling and fainting in January at the hands of Hinn, although his detractors claim that his whole show is a charismatic delusion, and he is a charlatan. He is not a faith healer but a fake healer, they say. The Methodists in Fiji have reservations about the televangelist, and the leader of the Indian Division of the Methodist Church, Reverend Emmanuel Reuben, said Fiji did not need overseas preachers since many different churches in the country provided the gospel to those who hunger for it. He said overseas evangelists like Hinn and Binn do more damage than good when they come to the country. The Methodist Church, in general, while it welcomes the Hinn visit, is concerned about the various new methods of worship being introduced into the country."
VICTOR LAL, Fiji Sun Opinion Column, December 2005
BY VICTOR LAL
The Fiji Sun,
December 2005
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon and Pastor Benny Hinn
Why the double standard for ‘the messiah’ and the ‘faith-healer’?
The Fiji Muslim League should call on Government to ban Hinn for equating Muslims with ‘The Devil’ and claiming ‘The Muslim population is going down’.
The red carpet reception, with [Qarase] Government’s offer of security guards to the controversial televangelist miracle healer from God channel, the Lebanese-born American Pastor Benny Hinn next January, is in stark contrast to the controversial treatment of the North-Korean born ‘messiah’, Dr Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, first established as the Unification Church on 1 May 1954, in Seoul, South Korea. He was banned from entering the country, despite his mission to publicise his new organisation, the Universal Peace Foundation, which he claims is dedicated to resolving the ever-growing and violent global conflict.
As one of his followers, the Leader of the Opposition Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has protested, claiming that by refusing to allow Reverend Moon and his wife to enter Fiji, the Government was denying Moon’s followers the freedom of association and assembly. Besides Chaudhry, some prominent local politicians have been revealed to be associated with the Federation’s Fiji Ambassadors for Peace Committee. They include Paula Sotutu, Taito Waqavakatoga and Ratu Filimone Ralogaivau. Moreover, as Chaudhry has proclaimed, Moon wasn’t a terrorist or a criminal to be treated in this manner, especially given his commitment to the International Inter-religious Federation for World Peace. In expressing his outrage, Chaudhry also claimed that the Cabinet had buckled under pressure from the ‘uninformed group’.
On the other hand, although Moon is not a terrorist, he is definitely a convicted criminal in the eyes of the law, for he was convicted of criminal tax fraud, and given an 18-month jail sentence and a $15,000 fine. He served 13 months of the sentence in a minimum-security prison and because of good behaviour was released to a halfway house. Moons supporters regarded the tax case as politically motivated, pointing out that American prosecutors had even offered to drop the case in return that Moon surrendered his green card. In 1982, US federal prosecutors had charged Moon with criminal tax fraud, which stated that Moon had failed to declare as income (and pay taxes on) $112,000 in earned interest on a Chase Manhattan bank account, $55,000 of corporate stock. The prosecution maintained that both the money and stock were his personal property, and that his non-payment of approximately $22,000 in taxes was deliberate and thus criminal. Moon claimed that the funds were not really his, but were held in trust for members of the Japanese Unification Church.
Meanwhile, the treatment meted out to Reverend Moon by the Government, on the grounds that he might be a threat to national security while, on the other side, allocating funds for the safety and security of Pastor Hinn, cannot be justified, and it smacks of gross double standard and hypocrisy on the part of the Government. Why was Moon banned from being the chief guest speaker at a dinner at the Sheraton Hotel? Was it because it had come to the notice of the authorities that Chaudhry was a member of the Moon reception committee? Or was it because, whereas Hinn will be playing and allegedly preying on the predominantly Christian Fijians in the year of the general election, Moon’s message was directed towards an all-inclusive multi-racial listeners and followers?
According to the Department of Immigration, which has a pathetic record of monitoring and controlling hundreds of illegal Chinese migrants and criminal gangs into Fiji, Reverend Moon had not fulfilled the requirements for entering the country, because religious groups had expressed concern at the visit. Which groups and individuals? Were there Hindu and Muslim groups among the Christian group objectors. The Immigration Department said the decision was final, since it only was the final arbiter to deny Moon entry into the country. ‘The Ministry considered the representations made from individual and religious organisations, who have expressed serious concerns regarding the repercussions of some of Dr Sun Moon’s ideologies, beliefs, practices and how he conducts his personal life. In short, Dr Sun Moon’s doctrines are considered misleading, repugnant and divisive and would affect peace, good order, public safety and public morality of the Fiji Islands. On that premise, Dr Sun Moon is considered as not a fit and proper person to enter the country.’
What harm would Moon’s presence and message have done on the morality of the country when it is already at the pits end – with convicted politicians passing edicts on morality and sermonizing and legislating bills on law and order in the country? His message would have been an extension of the Government’s much vaunted but controversial Reconciliation and Unity Bill. If I were to choose between Moon and Hill, I would have gone to the Sheraton for a plate of ‘full chow’ than to be ‘healed’ by Hill, knowing that there would be a financial hole in my pocket if I were to make the visit to Suva.
Now, Moon’s supporters are threatening legal action against the Fiji Government for denying their ‘messiah’ entry into the country. They say the Government’s information on Moon was incorrect. A spokesman said, ‘How could Fiji have a problem with Dr Moon when so many other major countries allow him in?’ Moon is on a global tour of 100 cities that began in September to promote the Universal Peace Federation. Under the European Schengen Treaty, Moon is forbidden to major European continental countries. However, several European countries have overruled it. Japan refuses to let him in. However, in December, during a visit in 13 European countries – part of a 100 City World Tour – Moon and his wife were allowed to enter Great Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark.
Pastor Benny Hinn: Faith Healer or a Fake Healer?
Like Moon, Benny Hinn is an extremely rich man of ‘God’. He reportedly has an income of $100million a year, lives in a $10million home on the ocean in California, owns a private jet, and stays in the royal suites of five star hotels. The Assemblies of Christian Churches in Fiji is bringing in Benny Hinn in January. On 3 September 1991, Hinn proudly stated to the Christianity Today that ‘My upbringing, of course, was Catholic in that I attended the Catholic school in Jaffa, Israel. And so my mentality basically is a Catholic mentality. When I was born again, I was Catholic in many ways. I was very Catholic in my ideas, in my behaviour’.
On 25 December 1976, he told the Toronto Globe and Mail in an article about his first speaking engagement. This supposedly occurred on 7 December 1974, at the Trinity Pentecoastal Church in Oshawa. His words were, ‘I held up my hands to pray and the 100 people present fell on the floor. That’s when I became aware of my tremendous power’. He claims that God first appeared before him when he was eleven years old. Although Hinn calls himself a pastor, he has no theological training and therefore cannot have his claims of healing censured by higher religious authorities.
There is no doubt that many people in Fiji will be falling and fainting in January at the hands of Hinn, although his detractors claim that his whole show is a charismatic delusion, and he is a charlatan. He is not a faith healer but a fake healer, they say. The Methodists in Fiji have reservations about the televangelist, and the leader of the Indian Division of the Methodist Church, Reverend Emmanuel Reuben, said Fiji did not need overseas preachers since many different churches in the country provided the gospel to those who hunger for it. He said overseas evangelists like Hinn and Binn do more damage than good when they come to the country. The Methodist Church, in general, while it welcomes the Hinn visit, is concerned about the various new methods of worship being introduced into the country.
In the US, the ‘disbelievers’ have marred his church and concert hall performances by protesting outside venues and accusing him of preying on the sick and elderly. They claim he is a false prophet and a ferocious wolf. The Holy Bible, they say, warns us: ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves’. His supporters have rubbished such allegations. And thousands of people will save to travel to Suva hoping for some kind of healing of body, mind or spirit.
Should Hinn be barred from entering Fiji?
I would generally support his entry, including that of Moon, for the Constitution of Fiji provides an individual a right for freedom of conscience, profession and religion. Since Hinn is a preacher, he has every right to propagate Christianity, irrespective of his nationality.
The Government says Hinn’s visit will further strengthen the country’s tourism industry. And it is prepared to spend over 90,000 dollars to ensure that the show must go on.
I fear the opposite effect on the tourist industry. We might be attracting the wrath of Islamic militants because of Hinn’s views. The Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans: The Post September 11 Backlash, September 11 2001-Ocotber 11, 2002, published by the Arab-American League cited Hinn among a group of Christian preachers for spreading ill will against the Muslims.
The Report cited the comments of Hinn at the American Airlines Centre, Dallas, Texas, in 2002, where he told his cheering crowd: ‘The Muslim population is going down!’ He then invited an Israeli tourism official on stage and offered his support: ‘We are on God’s side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It’s a war between God and the Devil.’
The Fiji Muslim League should be in the forefront of resisting his visit to the country.
And the authorities should seriously consider banning him on security grounds in the aftermath of the Bali bombings.
The Muslims in Fiji are no ‘Devils’.
The Fiji Sun,
December 2005
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon and Pastor Benny Hinn
Why the double standard for ‘the messiah’ and the ‘faith-healer’?
The Fiji Muslim League should call on Government to ban Hinn for equating Muslims with ‘The Devil’ and claiming ‘The Muslim population is going down’.
The red carpet reception, with [Qarase] Government’s offer of security guards to the controversial televangelist miracle healer from God channel, the Lebanese-born American Pastor Benny Hinn next January, is in stark contrast to the controversial treatment of the North-Korean born ‘messiah’, Dr Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, first established as the Unification Church on 1 May 1954, in Seoul, South Korea. He was banned from entering the country, despite his mission to publicise his new organisation, the Universal Peace Foundation, which he claims is dedicated to resolving the ever-growing and violent global conflict.
As one of his followers, the Leader of the Opposition Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has protested, claiming that by refusing to allow Reverend Moon and his wife to enter Fiji, the Government was denying Moon’s followers the freedom of association and assembly. Besides Chaudhry, some prominent local politicians have been revealed to be associated with the Federation’s Fiji Ambassadors for Peace Committee. They include Paula Sotutu, Taito Waqavakatoga and Ratu Filimone Ralogaivau. Moreover, as Chaudhry has proclaimed, Moon wasn’t a terrorist or a criminal to be treated in this manner, especially given his commitment to the International Inter-religious Federation for World Peace. In expressing his outrage, Chaudhry also claimed that the Cabinet had buckled under pressure from the ‘uninformed group’.
On the other hand, although Moon is not a terrorist, he is definitely a convicted criminal in the eyes of the law, for he was convicted of criminal tax fraud, and given an 18-month jail sentence and a $15,000 fine. He served 13 months of the sentence in a minimum-security prison and because of good behaviour was released to a halfway house. Moons supporters regarded the tax case as politically motivated, pointing out that American prosecutors had even offered to drop the case in return that Moon surrendered his green card. In 1982, US federal prosecutors had charged Moon with criminal tax fraud, which stated that Moon had failed to declare as income (and pay taxes on) $112,000 in earned interest on a Chase Manhattan bank account, $55,000 of corporate stock. The prosecution maintained that both the money and stock were his personal property, and that his non-payment of approximately $22,000 in taxes was deliberate and thus criminal. Moon claimed that the funds were not really his, but were held in trust for members of the Japanese Unification Church.
Meanwhile, the treatment meted out to Reverend Moon by the Government, on the grounds that he might be a threat to national security while, on the other side, allocating funds for the safety and security of Pastor Hinn, cannot be justified, and it smacks of gross double standard and hypocrisy on the part of the Government. Why was Moon banned from being the chief guest speaker at a dinner at the Sheraton Hotel? Was it because it had come to the notice of the authorities that Chaudhry was a member of the Moon reception committee? Or was it because, whereas Hinn will be playing and allegedly preying on the predominantly Christian Fijians in the year of the general election, Moon’s message was directed towards an all-inclusive multi-racial listeners and followers?
According to the Department of Immigration, which has a pathetic record of monitoring and controlling hundreds of illegal Chinese migrants and criminal gangs into Fiji, Reverend Moon had not fulfilled the requirements for entering the country, because religious groups had expressed concern at the visit. Which groups and individuals? Were there Hindu and Muslim groups among the Christian group objectors. The Immigration Department said the decision was final, since it only was the final arbiter to deny Moon entry into the country. ‘The Ministry considered the representations made from individual and religious organisations, who have expressed serious concerns regarding the repercussions of some of Dr Sun Moon’s ideologies, beliefs, practices and how he conducts his personal life. In short, Dr Sun Moon’s doctrines are considered misleading, repugnant and divisive and would affect peace, good order, public safety and public morality of the Fiji Islands. On that premise, Dr Sun Moon is considered as not a fit and proper person to enter the country.’
What harm would Moon’s presence and message have done on the morality of the country when it is already at the pits end – with convicted politicians passing edicts on morality and sermonizing and legislating bills on law and order in the country? His message would have been an extension of the Government’s much vaunted but controversial Reconciliation and Unity Bill. If I were to choose between Moon and Hill, I would have gone to the Sheraton for a plate of ‘full chow’ than to be ‘healed’ by Hill, knowing that there would be a financial hole in my pocket if I were to make the visit to Suva.
Now, Moon’s supporters are threatening legal action against the Fiji Government for denying their ‘messiah’ entry into the country. They say the Government’s information on Moon was incorrect. A spokesman said, ‘How could Fiji have a problem with Dr Moon when so many other major countries allow him in?’ Moon is on a global tour of 100 cities that began in September to promote the Universal Peace Federation. Under the European Schengen Treaty, Moon is forbidden to major European continental countries. However, several European countries have overruled it. Japan refuses to let him in. However, in December, during a visit in 13 European countries – part of a 100 City World Tour – Moon and his wife were allowed to enter Great Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark.
Pastor Benny Hinn: Faith Healer or a Fake Healer?
Like Moon, Benny Hinn is an extremely rich man of ‘God’. He reportedly has an income of $100million a year, lives in a $10million home on the ocean in California, owns a private jet, and stays in the royal suites of five star hotels. The Assemblies of Christian Churches in Fiji is bringing in Benny Hinn in January. On 3 September 1991, Hinn proudly stated to the Christianity Today that ‘My upbringing, of course, was Catholic in that I attended the Catholic school in Jaffa, Israel. And so my mentality basically is a Catholic mentality. When I was born again, I was Catholic in many ways. I was very Catholic in my ideas, in my behaviour’.
On 25 December 1976, he told the Toronto Globe and Mail in an article about his first speaking engagement. This supposedly occurred on 7 December 1974, at the Trinity Pentecoastal Church in Oshawa. His words were, ‘I held up my hands to pray and the 100 people present fell on the floor. That’s when I became aware of my tremendous power’. He claims that God first appeared before him when he was eleven years old. Although Hinn calls himself a pastor, he has no theological training and therefore cannot have his claims of healing censured by higher religious authorities.
There is no doubt that many people in Fiji will be falling and fainting in January at the hands of Hinn, although his detractors claim that his whole show is a charismatic delusion, and he is a charlatan. He is not a faith healer but a fake healer, they say. The Methodists in Fiji have reservations about the televangelist, and the leader of the Indian Division of the Methodist Church, Reverend Emmanuel Reuben, said Fiji did not need overseas preachers since many different churches in the country provided the gospel to those who hunger for it. He said overseas evangelists like Hinn and Binn do more damage than good when they come to the country. The Methodist Church, in general, while it welcomes the Hinn visit, is concerned about the various new methods of worship being introduced into the country.
In the US, the ‘disbelievers’ have marred his church and concert hall performances by protesting outside venues and accusing him of preying on the sick and elderly. They claim he is a false prophet and a ferocious wolf. The Holy Bible, they say, warns us: ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves’. His supporters have rubbished such allegations. And thousands of people will save to travel to Suva hoping for some kind of healing of body, mind or spirit.
Should Hinn be barred from entering Fiji?
I would generally support his entry, including that of Moon, for the Constitution of Fiji provides an individual a right for freedom of conscience, profession and religion. Since Hinn is a preacher, he has every right to propagate Christianity, irrespective of his nationality.
The Government says Hinn’s visit will further strengthen the country’s tourism industry. And it is prepared to spend over 90,000 dollars to ensure that the show must go on.
I fear the opposite effect on the tourist industry. We might be attracting the wrath of Islamic militants because of Hinn’s views. The Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans: The Post September 11 Backlash, September 11 2001-Ocotber 11, 2002, published by the Arab-American League cited Hinn among a group of Christian preachers for spreading ill will against the Muslims.
The Report cited the comments of Hinn at the American Airlines Centre, Dallas, Texas, in 2002, where he told his cheering crowd: ‘The Muslim population is going down!’ He then invited an Israeli tourism official on stage and offered his support: ‘We are on God’s side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It’s a war between God and the Devil.’
The Fiji Muslim League should be in the forefront of resisting his visit to the country.
And the authorities should seriously consider banning him on security grounds in the aftermath of the Bali bombings.
The Muslims in Fiji are no ‘Devils’.
"For whatever problems he may have faced and even generated himself, there is little doubt that Dr. Ganesh Chand has improved the provision of tertiary education to the poorest communities in Fiji, regardless of their ethnicity, religion and region, and broadened the choice of academic outlets for research and publications, great entrepreneurial achievements" |
Most entrepreneurs try to make money. They usually take a risk in creating and owning their business, put up their own capital or borrow; they make the decisions to employ, promote, demote or fire the staff; they decided on what to produce and how; they decide on who to sell to; and they are also entitled to any profits being made, and liable for all debts (usually).
But an academic entrepreneur starting a university is not out to make money. Moreover, he has none of the advantages that the typical business entrepreneurs have.
With most universities, some country or organization owns the land and capital assets; some board or other has a role in hiring and firing; choosing the outputs of the university; deciding on which market to sell to or not; and probably most important of all, it can be totally vulnerable to the government of the day, or survive because of taxpayer funds.
Dr. Ganesh Chand has been centrally involved in the establishment of two universities- Fiji National University (FNU) and Fiji University (UniF).
He has been requested to give advice on the establishment of at least two other universities around the region (one in Solomon Islands and one in Timor Leste).
Ganesh has also been the driving force behind the establishment of two academic journals, one extremely successful (Fijian Studies) and one recently published (Pacific Journal of Education) whose success is yet to be seen.
He started a printing press in Lautoka to expedite the publication of his journals which would have been too costly otherwise.
Like the typical dynamic entrepreneur, he keeps thinking of new academic ventures all the time- some reasonable and some apparently difficult- like a Girmit Research Centre– until it works.
Of course, Ganesh has had to deal with the usual problems that entrepreneurs face: start-up capital, skilled human resources, market demand, quality of product, and even uncalled for political problems.
There are many sides to the energetic Dr. Ganesh Chand that this article does venture into, such as his role as a “typical politician” in Fiji, or the current charges he is facing in court. This article focuses purely on his role as a very successful academic entrepreneur.
For whatever problems he may have faced and even generated himself, there is little doubt that Dr. Ganesh Chand has improved the provision of tertiary education to the poorest communities in Fiji, regardless of their ethnicity, religion and region, and broadened the choice of academic outlets for research and publications, great entrepreneurial achievements.
His poor origins but commitment
Ganesh Chand was born of poor cane farming parents in Labasa, like several other well known academic achievers such as Professor Brij Lal, Professor Biman Prasad, and Professor Subramani. But what distinguishes Ganesh (and Biman) from most other USP graduates is his passionate commitment to Fiji.
As a good economics graduate with Bachelors and Masters from USP, and a PhD from a very good American university (New School for Social Research, New York) Ganesh could have easily emigrated to Australia or New Zealand or Canada and worked for twice the salary that he has received in Fiji. or worked for five times his Fiji salary with many of the international organizations such as Asian Development Bank or World Bank.
Not only was Ganesh one of my better undergraduate students at USP, but he also did an excellent Master’s thesis, supervised by myself and John Samy (then Director of Central Planning Office), on a Cost Benefits revaluation of the Suva-Nadi highway.
This thesis, available at the USP Library, ought be compulsory reading for all economics students in Fiji wanting to do evaluation of the many multi-million dollar projects that have been implemented willy-nilly in the last ten years.
Ganesh’s love of academia no doubt started at USP which he joined as a Lecturer in Economics soon after graduating around 1980. He taught and published actively in USP’s flagship Journal of Pacific Studies.
He also joined our hard fought battles for regionalization at USP, alongside Dr. Yadhu Nand Singh, the late Dr. Ropate Qalo, Professor Rajesh Chandra and yours truly.
Like many USP academics before him, Ganesh also tried to serve the people of Fiji in the Fiji Parliament.
While successful as a Fiji Labour Party candidate, his contribution as a Minister (and those of many good FLP party colleagues) was cut short by the 2000 coup while he also endured fifty six traumatic days as a hostage of the Speight Group (and shadowy leaders behind the scenes).
Concern for poor university students
Few young people today will remember the battles that poor Indo-Fijian students faced to get to USP two decades ago, before the Bainimarama Government eased up the pathways. Even if they were qualified to do so, they could not get scholarships and they were too poor to pay USP’s “full economic fee”.
Ganesh Chand and a small group of USP academics (Professor Biman Prasad, Dr. Surendra Prasad, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Dr. Som Prakash and a few others) formed the Fiji Youth and Students’ League (FYSL) and to offer financial assistance (largely through personal donations and “goat and gallon” parties) to poor students to enter USP.
But such charity was not a long term solution to the tertiary education needs of the poor and it was clear to many that a cost-effective alternative to USP was needed. Ganesh took up the challenge to create an alternative Fiji university.
There was little support from the governments of the day for whom the education of poor Indo-Fijians was not a priority, while a few racist individuals in power even tried to put their spanners into the works.
Hindu religious organizations such as Sanatan Dharam and Sangam had ambivalent attitudes to Ganesh’s proposal for a new university in the West, some having their own plans for tertiary institutes and some opposed out of inertia or sheer cussedness.
Powerful business leaders in the Indo-Fijian community (including some sitting on university councils) would not help (unless there was money to be made for themselves).
Ganesh plowed on regardless and eventually received support from the more enlightened Arya Samaj. The Fiji University was born but struggled to get established, with minimal government support and limited revenue streams because of paucity of student numbers.
Fortuitous for Fiji University’s future was their staffing appointment of Filipe Bole, a former Education Minister and diplomat under the Mara Governments, who would later return the favor as Minister of Education under the Bainimarama Government.
From the beginning FU struggled to provide quality education, for many obvious reasons similar to that faced later by FNU: with uncompetitive salaries, they had difficulty in appointing quality staff ; the had difficulty in attracting the best students; they mounted a costly law program and other costly ones just did not have the economies of scale; and they even made strategically poor decisions to locate a second campus in Suva rather than the densely populated Nasinu and Nadera areas which would have been happier hunting grounds for higher enrolments.
For reasons that probably deserve some other researchers’ attention, Ganesh Chand moved on from Fiji University and was replaced by Professor Rajesh Chandra who was then being pushed out from USP (another story).
Fiji National University
Ganesh Chand will probably be remembered most for his establishment of the Fiji National University, larger now in enrolments than the University of the South Pacific established fifty years earlier.
No doubt the creation and success of FNU owes its origins to the 2006 military coup by Bainimarama, since it provided an alternative university to USP, then home to several aggressive critics of his military coup and government.
On the surface it may have seemed easy and logical to form FNU by just combining all the government-owned tertiary institutions such as Fiji Institute of Technology (FIT), Fiji School of Medicine (FSM), Fiji Nursing College (FNC), Fiji College of Agriculture (FCA), Lautoka Teachers’ College (LTC), Fiji National Training Council (FNTC), and others.
On paper, there could be consolidation of many courses common to all the institutions, such as English language and literatures, mathematics, sciences, and social sciences. Economies of scale and scope were theoretically possible hopefully pushing down unit costs. Some, like FNTC, brought generous guaranteed funding from employers.
But there was much opposition from the management of the institutions themselves. FSM, for instance, was the oldest tertiary institution in the Pacific with a well-deserved regional reputation. Indeed, all the different managements naturally worried about the dilution of their control (“turf issues”) and some worried about the likely impact on quality and strategic directions.
While a few resented having an Indo-Fijian vice chancellor, this cut no ice with Bainimarama, Khaiyum or Filipe Bole with Ganesh Chand (with Mahendra Reddy) already having an inside track with them as useful back-stage policy adviser in the early years of the coup.
Any opposition was squashed, with the Bainimarama Government fully supporting whatever consolidation, appointments and redeployments wanted by Ganesh, while increasing grants and appointing active council members.
Of course, FNU had long maintained reasonable quality in the technical and vocational diplomas and certificates traditionally provided by the constituent colleges.
But FNU also began to increase its offerings in the more “academic” areas, aggressively competing with USP: to most students and parents, a BA is a BA and a BCom is a BCom. regardless of where it is derived, since having access is their greatest concern- not quality.
There is enormous scope for the Fiji Higher Education Commission to do through and constructive research on the impact of Fiji National University on a number of key areas: access for poor students; quality of student intake; quality of staff and requisite salary scales; quality of programs both academic and technical; employment outcomes of graduates, locally and internationally; impact on research and development in Fiji; impact of increased competition from USP’s TAFE courses; employers’ assessment of FNU graduates program by program; funding from donors, government and students themselves; and many other areas of concern.
What is unchallengeable however is that with the establishment of FNU there has been a remarkable increase in the number of tertiary graduates entering the labor market, both in Fiji and abroad, without whom Fiji would have been facing severe and crippling shortages of skilled human resources because of the continuing high rates of emigration.
Other universities
It might seem odd that aid-flooded countries like Solomon Islands and Timor Leste have consulted Fiji’s Dr. Ganesh Chand for establishing their own universities.
But I suspect that the politicians and Ministry of Education officials in Solomon Islands and Timor Leste are mindful of having cost-effective universities of the kind that Fiji has produced, with unit costs much lower that those prevailing in Australian and NZ universities.
These countries probably also know that relying totally on donor funded projects will probably lead to relative more expensive universities with costly staff mostly hired from the donor countries.
Two new academic journals
A few years ago, Ganesh who by that time had left USP, began a new academic journal, Fijian Studies.
There was a predictable outcry from those who felt that the word “Fijian” should only be used for things “indigenous Fijians”. Why not call it The Journal of Fiji Studies.
But a political point was being made by Ganesh and his collaborators and the Bainimarama Government’s insistence on using the word “Fijian” to describe all Fiji citizens and its acceptance by some indigenous Fijian leaders like Ro Temumu Kepa, has shelved that debate.
Another criticism was that there already existed the Journal of Pacific Studies at USP to which all Fiji academics “theoretically” had access to. I say “theoretically”, because this journal (of which I also have been an editor in previous decades), did not always allow full exposure of Fiji articles, depending on the editor at the time, the authors and the content of the articles.
But with Ganesh able to convince many established academics to sit on the board, Fijian Studies began to publish many articles which otherwise would not have got into print.
One unfortunate and ironic side effect of USP staff involvement in the success of Fijian Studies, was that the Journal of Pacific Studies went into hibernation for several years around 2005, until re-energized after I had rejoined USP in 2008.
Another great act of academic entrepreneurship by Ganesh is the publication of the first volume of the Journal of Pacific Education, an attempt to fill a vacuum left by the failure of USP’s School of Education to maintain the frequency and quality of their education journal.
No doubt the success of this journal will depend on the support of educationists in the region and not just those in Fiji.
For both journals, Ganesh has had to overcome major hurdles of getting established academics in Fiji and internationally to agree to go on to the Boards and Councils, as well as contribute refereed articles which are then published with some degree of quality.
While these are difficult tasks even for journals based in large universities and drawing on large academic departments, they are herculean tasks for an isolated under-resourced academic in a small country like Fiji.
Their coming into print is a great testament to the ability and energy of Ganesh Chand to evince the participation of many academic collaborators.
While quality will always be a challenge for small populations, the bottom line is that now there is much great competition among journals for budding academics and researchers to publish scholarly articles.
Less monopoly on the control of ideas and their dissemination is surely good for Fiji and the Pacific in general.
More to entrepreneurship than making money
While there can always be improvements in the overall quality of new universities and journals, a beginning has been made and it is surely up to the academics and researchers in Fiji and the Pacific to build on Ganesh’s efforts and take collective responsibility.
Few Fijians (however defined) can match the record that Dr. Ganesh Chand has as an academic entrepreneur: starting two universities, advising on two other Pacific Island ones, and starting two academic journals. He has advised Government on institutions to better regulate the tertiary education sector. He has more initiatives in the pipeline such as the Global Girmit Institute and Girmit Studies.
Dr. Ganesh Chand’s achievements demonstrate to Fiji and especially our youth seeking employment that entrepreneurship in the world of ideas can do more to transform society than entrepreneurship that just seeks to make money.
Postscript: The woman behind the man
It is generally true that llike most of our entrepreneurs, male or female, there is usually an equally strong and supportive partner behind the scene. In Ganesh’s case she is Dr Premila Devi, USP Center Director at Lautoka.
A critical element in Ganesh’s family foundation, Premila is a quiet professional in her own right, while shunning the limelight. Also one of my students at USP, Premila would be a great research topic for some gender studies student exploring the quiet leadership roles played by Indo-Fijian women with poor rural origins, like Premila.
But an academic entrepreneur starting a university is not out to make money. Moreover, he has none of the advantages that the typical business entrepreneurs have.
With most universities, some country or organization owns the land and capital assets; some board or other has a role in hiring and firing; choosing the outputs of the university; deciding on which market to sell to or not; and probably most important of all, it can be totally vulnerable to the government of the day, or survive because of taxpayer funds.
Dr. Ganesh Chand has been centrally involved in the establishment of two universities- Fiji National University (FNU) and Fiji University (UniF).
He has been requested to give advice on the establishment of at least two other universities around the region (one in Solomon Islands and one in Timor Leste).
Ganesh has also been the driving force behind the establishment of two academic journals, one extremely successful (Fijian Studies) and one recently published (Pacific Journal of Education) whose success is yet to be seen.
He started a printing press in Lautoka to expedite the publication of his journals which would have been too costly otherwise.
Like the typical dynamic entrepreneur, he keeps thinking of new academic ventures all the time- some reasonable and some apparently difficult- like a Girmit Research Centre– until it works.
Of course, Ganesh has had to deal with the usual problems that entrepreneurs face: start-up capital, skilled human resources, market demand, quality of product, and even uncalled for political problems.
There are many sides to the energetic Dr. Ganesh Chand that this article does venture into, such as his role as a “typical politician” in Fiji, or the current charges he is facing in court. This article focuses purely on his role as a very successful academic entrepreneur.
For whatever problems he may have faced and even generated himself, there is little doubt that Dr. Ganesh Chand has improved the provision of tertiary education to the poorest communities in Fiji, regardless of their ethnicity, religion and region, and broadened the choice of academic outlets for research and publications, great entrepreneurial achievements.
His poor origins but commitment
Ganesh Chand was born of poor cane farming parents in Labasa, like several other well known academic achievers such as Professor Brij Lal, Professor Biman Prasad, and Professor Subramani. But what distinguishes Ganesh (and Biman) from most other USP graduates is his passionate commitment to Fiji.
As a good economics graduate with Bachelors and Masters from USP, and a PhD from a very good American university (New School for Social Research, New York) Ganesh could have easily emigrated to Australia or New Zealand or Canada and worked for twice the salary that he has received in Fiji. or worked for five times his Fiji salary with many of the international organizations such as Asian Development Bank or World Bank.
Not only was Ganesh one of my better undergraduate students at USP, but he also did an excellent Master’s thesis, supervised by myself and John Samy (then Director of Central Planning Office), on a Cost Benefits revaluation of the Suva-Nadi highway.
This thesis, available at the USP Library, ought be compulsory reading for all economics students in Fiji wanting to do evaluation of the many multi-million dollar projects that have been implemented willy-nilly in the last ten years.
Ganesh’s love of academia no doubt started at USP which he joined as a Lecturer in Economics soon after graduating around 1980. He taught and published actively in USP’s flagship Journal of Pacific Studies.
He also joined our hard fought battles for regionalization at USP, alongside Dr. Yadhu Nand Singh, the late Dr. Ropate Qalo, Professor Rajesh Chandra and yours truly.
Like many USP academics before him, Ganesh also tried to serve the people of Fiji in the Fiji Parliament.
While successful as a Fiji Labour Party candidate, his contribution as a Minister (and those of many good FLP party colleagues) was cut short by the 2000 coup while he also endured fifty six traumatic days as a hostage of the Speight Group (and shadowy leaders behind the scenes).
Concern for poor university students
Few young people today will remember the battles that poor Indo-Fijian students faced to get to USP two decades ago, before the Bainimarama Government eased up the pathways. Even if they were qualified to do so, they could not get scholarships and they were too poor to pay USP’s “full economic fee”.
Ganesh Chand and a small group of USP academics (Professor Biman Prasad, Dr. Surendra Prasad, Dr. Sunil Kumar, Dr. Som Prakash and a few others) formed the Fiji Youth and Students’ League (FYSL) and to offer financial assistance (largely through personal donations and “goat and gallon” parties) to poor students to enter USP.
But such charity was not a long term solution to the tertiary education needs of the poor and it was clear to many that a cost-effective alternative to USP was needed. Ganesh took up the challenge to create an alternative Fiji university.
There was little support from the governments of the day for whom the education of poor Indo-Fijians was not a priority, while a few racist individuals in power even tried to put their spanners into the works.
Hindu religious organizations such as Sanatan Dharam and Sangam had ambivalent attitudes to Ganesh’s proposal for a new university in the West, some having their own plans for tertiary institutes and some opposed out of inertia or sheer cussedness.
Powerful business leaders in the Indo-Fijian community (including some sitting on university councils) would not help (unless there was money to be made for themselves).
Ganesh plowed on regardless and eventually received support from the more enlightened Arya Samaj. The Fiji University was born but struggled to get established, with minimal government support and limited revenue streams because of paucity of student numbers.
Fortuitous for Fiji University’s future was their staffing appointment of Filipe Bole, a former Education Minister and diplomat under the Mara Governments, who would later return the favor as Minister of Education under the Bainimarama Government.
From the beginning FU struggled to provide quality education, for many obvious reasons similar to that faced later by FNU: with uncompetitive salaries, they had difficulty in appointing quality staff ; the had difficulty in attracting the best students; they mounted a costly law program and other costly ones just did not have the economies of scale; and they even made strategically poor decisions to locate a second campus in Suva rather than the densely populated Nasinu and Nadera areas which would have been happier hunting grounds for higher enrolments.
For reasons that probably deserve some other researchers’ attention, Ganesh Chand moved on from Fiji University and was replaced by Professor Rajesh Chandra who was then being pushed out from USP (another story).
Fiji National University
Ganesh Chand will probably be remembered most for his establishment of the Fiji National University, larger now in enrolments than the University of the South Pacific established fifty years earlier.
No doubt the creation and success of FNU owes its origins to the 2006 military coup by Bainimarama, since it provided an alternative university to USP, then home to several aggressive critics of his military coup and government.
On the surface it may have seemed easy and logical to form FNU by just combining all the government-owned tertiary institutions such as Fiji Institute of Technology (FIT), Fiji School of Medicine (FSM), Fiji Nursing College (FNC), Fiji College of Agriculture (FCA), Lautoka Teachers’ College (LTC), Fiji National Training Council (FNTC), and others.
On paper, there could be consolidation of many courses common to all the institutions, such as English language and literatures, mathematics, sciences, and social sciences. Economies of scale and scope were theoretically possible hopefully pushing down unit costs. Some, like FNTC, brought generous guaranteed funding from employers.
But there was much opposition from the management of the institutions themselves. FSM, for instance, was the oldest tertiary institution in the Pacific with a well-deserved regional reputation. Indeed, all the different managements naturally worried about the dilution of their control (“turf issues”) and some worried about the likely impact on quality and strategic directions.
While a few resented having an Indo-Fijian vice chancellor, this cut no ice with Bainimarama, Khaiyum or Filipe Bole with Ganesh Chand (with Mahendra Reddy) already having an inside track with them as useful back-stage policy adviser in the early years of the coup.
Any opposition was squashed, with the Bainimarama Government fully supporting whatever consolidation, appointments and redeployments wanted by Ganesh, while increasing grants and appointing active council members.
Of course, FNU had long maintained reasonable quality in the technical and vocational diplomas and certificates traditionally provided by the constituent colleges.
But FNU also began to increase its offerings in the more “academic” areas, aggressively competing with USP: to most students and parents, a BA is a BA and a BCom is a BCom. regardless of where it is derived, since having access is their greatest concern- not quality.
There is enormous scope for the Fiji Higher Education Commission to do through and constructive research on the impact of Fiji National University on a number of key areas: access for poor students; quality of student intake; quality of staff and requisite salary scales; quality of programs both academic and technical; employment outcomes of graduates, locally and internationally; impact on research and development in Fiji; impact of increased competition from USP’s TAFE courses; employers’ assessment of FNU graduates program by program; funding from donors, government and students themselves; and many other areas of concern.
What is unchallengeable however is that with the establishment of FNU there has been a remarkable increase in the number of tertiary graduates entering the labor market, both in Fiji and abroad, without whom Fiji would have been facing severe and crippling shortages of skilled human resources because of the continuing high rates of emigration.
Other universities
It might seem odd that aid-flooded countries like Solomon Islands and Timor Leste have consulted Fiji’s Dr. Ganesh Chand for establishing their own universities.
But I suspect that the politicians and Ministry of Education officials in Solomon Islands and Timor Leste are mindful of having cost-effective universities of the kind that Fiji has produced, with unit costs much lower that those prevailing in Australian and NZ universities.
These countries probably also know that relying totally on donor funded projects will probably lead to relative more expensive universities with costly staff mostly hired from the donor countries.
Two new academic journals
A few years ago, Ganesh who by that time had left USP, began a new academic journal, Fijian Studies.
There was a predictable outcry from those who felt that the word “Fijian” should only be used for things “indigenous Fijians”. Why not call it The Journal of Fiji Studies.
But a political point was being made by Ganesh and his collaborators and the Bainimarama Government’s insistence on using the word “Fijian” to describe all Fiji citizens and its acceptance by some indigenous Fijian leaders like Ro Temumu Kepa, has shelved that debate.
Another criticism was that there already existed the Journal of Pacific Studies at USP to which all Fiji academics “theoretically” had access to. I say “theoretically”, because this journal (of which I also have been an editor in previous decades), did not always allow full exposure of Fiji articles, depending on the editor at the time, the authors and the content of the articles.
But with Ganesh able to convince many established academics to sit on the board, Fijian Studies began to publish many articles which otherwise would not have got into print.
One unfortunate and ironic side effect of USP staff involvement in the success of Fijian Studies, was that the Journal of Pacific Studies went into hibernation for several years around 2005, until re-energized after I had rejoined USP in 2008.
Another great act of academic entrepreneurship by Ganesh is the publication of the first volume of the Journal of Pacific Education, an attempt to fill a vacuum left by the failure of USP’s School of Education to maintain the frequency and quality of their education journal.
No doubt the success of this journal will depend on the support of educationists in the region and not just those in Fiji.
For both journals, Ganesh has had to overcome major hurdles of getting established academics in Fiji and internationally to agree to go on to the Boards and Councils, as well as contribute refereed articles which are then published with some degree of quality.
While these are difficult tasks even for journals based in large universities and drawing on large academic departments, they are herculean tasks for an isolated under-resourced academic in a small country like Fiji.
Their coming into print is a great testament to the ability and energy of Ganesh Chand to evince the participation of many academic collaborators.
While quality will always be a challenge for small populations, the bottom line is that now there is much great competition among journals for budding academics and researchers to publish scholarly articles.
Less monopoly on the control of ideas and their dissemination is surely good for Fiji and the Pacific in general.
More to entrepreneurship than making money
While there can always be improvements in the overall quality of new universities and journals, a beginning has been made and it is surely up to the academics and researchers in Fiji and the Pacific to build on Ganesh’s efforts and take collective responsibility.
Few Fijians (however defined) can match the record that Dr. Ganesh Chand has as an academic entrepreneur: starting two universities, advising on two other Pacific Island ones, and starting two academic journals. He has advised Government on institutions to better regulate the tertiary education sector. He has more initiatives in the pipeline such as the Global Girmit Institute and Girmit Studies.
Dr. Ganesh Chand’s achievements demonstrate to Fiji and especially our youth seeking employment that entrepreneurship in the world of ideas can do more to transform society than entrepreneurship that just seeks to make money.
Postscript: The woman behind the man
It is generally true that llike most of our entrepreneurs, male or female, there is usually an equally strong and supportive partner behind the scene. In Ganesh’s case she is Dr Premila Devi, USP Center Director at Lautoka.
A critical element in Ganesh’s family foundation, Premila is a quiet professional in her own right, while shunning the limelight. Also one of my students at USP, Premila would be a great research topic for some gender studies student exploring the quiet leadership roles played by Indo-Fijian women with poor rural origins, like Premila.
FOR THE RECORD: Maulana Ahmed Nakshabandi from Hyderabad in India (with Aiyaz Khaiyum and Faiyaz Koya) was speaking at the Prophet Mohammed's Birthday celebrations in Ba's Maururu Jamie Mosque (see video below). Aiyaz Khaiyum and Faiyaz Koya were chief guests at the Maunatul Islam Association of Fiji that represents about 30 per cent of the Sunni Muslims in Fiji who are mostly followers of the Shafi school of jurisprudence. The followers of Imam Shafi in Fiji are the descendants of Muslims of Malayalam origin who came to Fiji under the indenture system from Kerala in South India between 1903 and 1916. The organisation originally operated under the name of Then India Maunatul Islam of Fiji since it was officially formed in 1942. The name of the Association was changed in 1982 to Maunatul Islam Association and its head office is situated at 72 Vomo Street, Drasa/Vitogo in Lautoka. One of the most prominent past President and Speaker of the Association was the late Siddiq Moidin (S.M.) Koya, the leader of the National Federation Party and Leader of the Opposition. His two sons, Faizal (NFP) and Faiyaz (FFP), are still active and prominent members of MIA in Fiji. HAJJI Moidin Koya (with cap in the front row picture below) was national president of MIA, Fiji. He was the father of the late S. M. Koya
WATCH VIDEO BELOW WHERE KHAIYUM IS DESCRIBED AS "KING OF FIJI". Opinion is divided on whether Khaiyum is "SULTAN OF FIJI" or "KINGFISHER". Moreover, the Maulana also wrongly claims that it was FFP Minister Faiyaz Koya who obtained a public holiday on Prophet Mohammed's birthday when the truth is the birthday has been a public holiday for decades. Religion, mixed with untruth and echoes of politicking, must be discouraged at such holy gatherings. Faiyaz Koya, sitting next to the Maulana, should have corrected him on the spot. During his lecture the Maulana was at one point interrupted by Khaiyum as he was lavishing praise to jokingly say to him (the Maulana):
'You should be in politics.'
WE, however, have no objection to the Maulana's presence in Fiji. After all, preachers from different Hindu and Christian sects are regular visitors to Fiji. The Maulana's description of Khaiyum as 'King' in the current Fiji context is open to different interpretations - depending on one's view of Khaiyum. And, we must not forget that racist, coupist, SODELPA leader and Methodist lay preacher
Sitiveni Rabuka:
"Hindus and Muslims are pagans who need to be converted to Christianity, if not we will all become pagans like them"
The other Sunni Muslim organisation in Fiji, the FIJI MUSLIM LEAGUE, represents all other Sunni Muslims in Fiji who are mostly followers of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. In 2000, in LETTERS TO EDITOR, they were viciously savaged by 'Student Khaiyum, University of Hong Kong'
"Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women, the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of protecting Muslim interests...The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses."
Letter: Critique of FML decision to make submission to Constitution Commission
by A S Khaiyum
The claim by some executive members of the Fiji Muslim League ('League') that Muslims support a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji] and demand separate seats merely because the executive says so is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the everyday and majority of Muslims in our country.
The executive lack the mandate to speak as a representative body for Muslims since the League has been and is essentially an administrative institution managing and maintaining mosques, schools, orphanages, a sugar cane farm and real estate.
In addition to the lack of mandate the arguments and justifications espoused by the executive for a review and separate seats are flawed. They are flawed because our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji], in particular the Bill of Rights, namely, sections 38(2) and 35 more than adequately guarantee and protect religious freedom and minority rights. Indeed if an almost identical South African Bill of Rights provision protects the rights of the minority South African Muslims then what is so special about and differentiates Muslims in Fiji?
On the basis that last century the then nascent League made submissions on separate seats, it is argued today that so called Muslim rights will be achieved if these seats as submitted then are allocated now. To refer to a resolution passed some seventy years ago, in an era with its own specificities and dynamics, as justification for separate seats in today's Fiji illustrates a complete ignorance and denial of our political, social and constitutional history/experience as a nation-state.
Indeed if we were to hark back and uphold the standards of 1929 then commoner indigenous Fijians and women would not have the right to vote. Fiji and the rest of the world have moved along. Clearly such absurd referrals to the past illustrate an enormous vacuum in basic critical thinking and analysis, discourse and a general prevalence of obscurantism within the executive.
Furthermore, it aptly demonstrates a complete ignorance of contemporary developments in and interpretations of Islamic law and jurisprudence vis-a-vis constitutional, human rights and international law and conventions. More tragically, however, the opportunism of the executive displays the absence of and lack of belief in justice, compassion, selflessness and basic human decency.
Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women,the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of "protecting Muslim interests."
Indeed the absence of proper representation, transparency, accountability and ultimately legitimacy also plague other local institutions in contemporary Fiji.
The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses.
Therefore, the current administration and all Fiji Islanders must understand and recognize the majority of Muslims who believe in basic human decency, justice, democracy and constitutionalism reject the idea of separate seats and/or a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji].
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
sayedkha@hkusua.hku.hk
Maulana Ahmed Nakshabandi's visit to Fiji has divided Indo-Fijian Muslims
BA, 3 December 2017: Maunatul Islam Association of Fiji national Eid meelaadunnabi jalsa with Acting prim minister attorney general Aiyaz sayed khaiyum and trade and tourism minister Faiyaz Siddiq koya and moulanas mohammed Ahmed Naqshbandi from Hyderabad, India, Sayyed sufi Ajmal Qibla from Nizamuddeen Darga in New Delhi
Shafii School of Law (Jurisprudence):
School of Islamic law founded by Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Abbas ibn Uthman ibn Shafii in the eighth century. Prominent in Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan with a significant number of followers in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Hejaz, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia and among Sunnis in Iran and Yemen. Official school for Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt, and prominent during the Mamluk regime that followed. Displaced by the Hanafi school there when the Ottomans occupied Egypt in 1517. Combined knowledge of fiqh as practiced in Iraq with that of Hejaz. Considers hadith superior to customary doctrines of earlier schools in formulation of Islamic law. Denies preference (istishan) as source of law.
Source: The Oxford Dictionary of Islam
editor@fijileaks.com
ARCHIVES
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