DIPLOMATIC FAUX PAS: Since PAP founder AJAY BHAI AMRIT is yet to present his credentials to the Australian Governor-General, he cannot issue invitations as 'Fiji's High Commissioner to Australia' to celebrate Fiji Day with him at the Fiji High Commission in Canberra. Diplomatic convention requires he states that he is currently Fiji High Commissioner DESIGNATE until Australia accept him as High Commissioner proper.
 |  |
From Fijileaks Archive. Extracted from Victor Lal,
Fiji: Coups in Paradise - Race, Politics and Military Intervention
| By VICTOR LAL The tenth of October is a memorable date in Fiji’s historical and political calendar. In 1874 it recorded the surrender of the islands’ sovereignty to Great Britain, and in 1970 the end of British rule and Fiji’s entry into the Commonwealth of Nations as an independent state. In August 1969 a series of discussions took place between the Alliance Party and the National Federation Party to consider further constitutional changes and, on 3 November 1969, the two major parties agreed that Fiji should become independent by way of Dominion status. This sudden, amicable agreement was possible because in October 1969, during the negotiations, the leader of the NFP, A. D. Patel, had died. His successor, Siddiq Koya, a lawyer by profession, proved flexible and conciliatory towards the Alliance Party and its leader Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara; also, the gesture on the part of the Fijians temporarily forced the Indo-Fijians to shelve their demand for common roll. During the series of discussions in August 1969 the Alliance favoured Dominion status, with the Queen as constitutional monarch, represented in Fiji by a Governor-General. The NFP envisaged Fiji as an independent state, with an elected President of Fijian origin as its head, but Fiji should be a member of the Commonwealth. Both parties agreed on Commonwealth membership and that Fiji should proceed to independence. Events abroad had again influenced their decision; this time it was the violence in Mauritius, on 12 March 1968, the day of Independence. Following the broad agreement between the two parties, Lord Shepherd, the British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, visited Fiji from 26 January to 2 February 1970, “to acquaint himself at first hand with the position reached in the talks”. The parties agreed on most issues except on the composition of the Legislature and method of election. The Constitutional Conference was subsequently held at Marlborough House in London from 20 April to 5 May 1970. On 30 April, in the course of the Conference, Ratu Mara announced that agreement had been reached on the interim solution. He told the Conference, in plenary session, that he had discussed the matter further with Koya, the Leader of the Opposition, and they had agreed that he should make the following statement to the Conference: “The Alliance Party stated that as in 1965 they recognised that election on a common roll basis was a desirable long-term objective but they could not agree to its introduction at the present state. On the other hand the National Federation Party reiterated its stand that common roll could be introduced immediately in Fiji and could form the basis of the next general election without in any way one race dominating others but resulting in a justly representative national Parliament. The two parties having regard to the national good and for peace, order and good government of independent Fiji reached the following conclusions...that the democratic processes of Fiji should be through political parties, each with its own political philosophy and programme for the economic and social advancement of the people of Fiji cutting across race, colour and creed, and that all should work to this end. The Conference called upon the Government of Fiji to see the immediate completion of the extension of common roll to all towns and township elections, in particular, Lautoka and Suva. The Conference also agreed that at some time after the next election and before the second election the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, should arrange that a Royal Commission should be set up to study and make recommendations for the most appropriate method of election and representation for Fiji and that the terms of reference should be agreed by the Prime Minister with the Leader of the Opposition. The Conference further agreed that the Lower House should be composed as follows: Fijian (Communal, 12, National Roll, 10); Indo-Fijian (Communal 12, National, 10), General (Communal, 3, National, 5). In agreeing to this composition for the Lower House the parties acknowledged that this is an interim solution and provides for the first House of Representatives elected after Independence, and the Parliament would, after considering the Royal Commission Report, provide through legislation for the composition and method of election of a new House of Representatives, and that such legislation so passed would be regarded as an entrenched part of the Constitution.” | Exchanging Fiji's Destiny: Lord Shepherd, British Minister of Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, with Siddiq Koya (right) looking on in London  Prince Charles returns Fiji's fate to Ratu Mara on 10 October 1970 STAMPING FIJI'S HISTORY AND DIVERSITY ON 10 OCTOBER 1970    |
It was also agreed that a Senate comprising 22 members be appointed by the Governor-General on the basis of nominations distributed as follows: Prime Minister, seven; Leader of the Opposition, six: Great Council of Chiefs, eight; and Council of Rotuma, one. Nevertheless, the Senate, which was created at the suggestion of the Indo-Fijian delegates, was designed to serve as protector of the land rights and customs of the native Fijians.
Any legislation that affected these rights could be vetoed by the representatives of the Great Council of Chiefs. It may be noted that, while the Indo-Fijian leaders opted for a small piece of the political pie rather than none, the 1970 Marlborough House Conference was a solid victory for native Fijians. The Fijians were a minority and the Constitution went out of its way to safeguard their interests.
That the British had devolved upon the two major communities the responsibility of reaching an agreement provoked severe criticism, and the Indo-Fijian leaders did not hesitate to raise the issue. The following exchange between R. D. Patel (who became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives after independence) and Lord Shepherd, exemplifies the situation:
R. D. Patel: Surely, Britain had kept the races apart for the last 90 years, and now it must take some responsibility to bring them together. It cannot just leave us to our own devices.
Lord Shepherd: My dear chap, if I had to assume responsibility for the sins of my British forefathers for the past 300 years, I would hardly be sitting here as a Minister of the Crown. Indeed, I would be in sackcloth and ashes doing penance in some monastery.
In his 1971 New Year message, Ratu Mara, as Prime Minister of independent Fiji, described 1970 as the “year of hope fulfilled”. The peaceful transition from colony to independence for him was “a pearl of great price which can perhaps be shared with the world at large.”
On 10 October 1970 Fiji became independent, ending some of the social and political tensions of over three-quarters of a century of British rule. The country moved into an equable political climate of a parliamentary democracy in which rival communal parties were to compete for power. The political leaders signed the 1970 Constitution, which assumed the operation of representative and responsible government using the Westminster model, but future conflicts were by no means unlikely.
Tragically, Fiji has been turned from paradise to coup coup land
Any legislation that affected these rights could be vetoed by the representatives of the Great Council of Chiefs. It may be noted that, while the Indo-Fijian leaders opted for a small piece of the political pie rather than none, the 1970 Marlborough House Conference was a solid victory for native Fijians. The Fijians were a minority and the Constitution went out of its way to safeguard their interests.
That the British had devolved upon the two major communities the responsibility of reaching an agreement provoked severe criticism, and the Indo-Fijian leaders did not hesitate to raise the issue. The following exchange between R. D. Patel (who became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives after independence) and Lord Shepherd, exemplifies the situation:
R. D. Patel: Surely, Britain had kept the races apart for the last 90 years, and now it must take some responsibility to bring them together. It cannot just leave us to our own devices.
Lord Shepherd: My dear chap, if I had to assume responsibility for the sins of my British forefathers for the past 300 years, I would hardly be sitting here as a Minister of the Crown. Indeed, I would be in sackcloth and ashes doing penance in some monastery.
In his 1971 New Year message, Ratu Mara, as Prime Minister of independent Fiji, described 1970 as the “year of hope fulfilled”. The peaceful transition from colony to independence for him was “a pearl of great price which can perhaps be shared with the world at large.”
On 10 October 1970 Fiji became independent, ending some of the social and political tensions of over three-quarters of a century of British rule. The country moved into an equable political climate of a parliamentary democracy in which rival communal parties were to compete for power. The political leaders signed the 1970 Constitution, which assumed the operation of representative and responsible government using the Westminster model, but future conflicts were by no means unlikely.
Tragically, Fiji has been turned from paradise to coup coup land
1968: More Kenyan Asians flee to Britain
Another 96 Indians and Pakistanis from Kenya have arrived in Britain today, the latest in a growing exodus of Kenyan Asians fleeing from laws which prevent them making a living. The party included nine children under two, and all flew in on cut-price one-way tickets costing about £60 - less than half the normal single fare.
Omar Sharmar, an Indian who was forced to close his haulage business in Mombasa when the government refused to grant him a licence, estimates he has lost £2,000.
At the present rate I think this will continue for at least a year, if not more
Kenyan airline official
"Only Kenyan citizens are being allowed work permits," he said. "I was forced to sell my fleet of lorries and come to Britain to look for a new life."
An airline official in Nairobi estimated that the charter flights had taken between 1,200 and 1,500 Kenyan Asians in to Britain.
"We did find some difficulty filling the planes until last week," he said.
"But in the last two or three days that attitude has changed, and there doesn't seem to be any difficulty at all now. At the present rate I think this will continue for at least a year, if not more."
Immigration laws in Kenya are becoming increasingly draconian. Foreigners can only hold a job until a Kenyan national can be found to replace them: and more and more cities, including Nairobi, are demanding that the government bans non-Kenyans from owning a shop or trading in municipal markets.
If the Kenyan government caves in to such demands, the result is likely to be chaos, as most shops are owned by foreigners, and not enough citizens have the capital or knowledge to run small businesses.
Already, the tens of thousands of Asians, who have until now dominated commerce, industry and most key jobs in the country, are finding their lives made impossible.
Although most turned down the chance to take Kenyan nationality when it was offered to them, more than 100,000 did take up the chance to get British passports.
They are now arriving at the rate of more than 1,000 a month to start a new life in the UK, a country which most have never seen.
In Context
The mass immigration of thousands of Kenyan Asians caused a major crisis for the UK government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson.The Home Secretary, James Callaghan, rushed through new legislation aimed specifically at curbing the flow of immigrants from East Africa.
The 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act introduced a requirement to demonstrate a "close connection" with the UK.
There were deep cabinet splits over the legislation: cabinet papers have since quoted the then Commonwealth Secretary, George Thomson, saying that "to pass such legislation would be wrong in principle, clearly discrimination on the grounds of colour, and contrary to everything we stand for."
The criticisms, as well as growing tension on the issue provoked by Conservative MP Enoch Powell's infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech in April 1968, brought the issue of immigration to the fore, and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act of 1976.
There are currently about 70,000 Indians in Kenya - about 0.25% of the population. Many have been there for four generations, yet they remain politically powerless, and there is still pressure in some quarters to expel them from the country altogether.
Another 96 Indians and Pakistanis from Kenya have arrived in Britain today, the latest in a growing exodus of Kenyan Asians fleeing from laws which prevent them making a living. The party included nine children under two, and all flew in on cut-price one-way tickets costing about £60 - less than half the normal single fare.
Omar Sharmar, an Indian who was forced to close his haulage business in Mombasa when the government refused to grant him a licence, estimates he has lost £2,000.
At the present rate I think this will continue for at least a year, if not more
Kenyan airline official
"Only Kenyan citizens are being allowed work permits," he said. "I was forced to sell my fleet of lorries and come to Britain to look for a new life."
An airline official in Nairobi estimated that the charter flights had taken between 1,200 and 1,500 Kenyan Asians in to Britain.
"We did find some difficulty filling the planes until last week," he said.
"But in the last two or three days that attitude has changed, and there doesn't seem to be any difficulty at all now. At the present rate I think this will continue for at least a year, if not more."
Immigration laws in Kenya are becoming increasingly draconian. Foreigners can only hold a job until a Kenyan national can be found to replace them: and more and more cities, including Nairobi, are demanding that the government bans non-Kenyans from owning a shop or trading in municipal markets.
If the Kenyan government caves in to such demands, the result is likely to be chaos, as most shops are owned by foreigners, and not enough citizens have the capital or knowledge to run small businesses.
Already, the tens of thousands of Asians, who have until now dominated commerce, industry and most key jobs in the country, are finding their lives made impossible.
Although most turned down the chance to take Kenyan nationality when it was offered to them, more than 100,000 did take up the chance to get British passports.
They are now arriving at the rate of more than 1,000 a month to start a new life in the UK, a country which most have never seen.
In Context
The mass immigration of thousands of Kenyan Asians caused a major crisis for the UK government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson.The Home Secretary, James Callaghan, rushed through new legislation aimed specifically at curbing the flow of immigrants from East Africa.
The 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act introduced a requirement to demonstrate a "close connection" with the UK.
There were deep cabinet splits over the legislation: cabinet papers have since quoted the then Commonwealth Secretary, George Thomson, saying that "to pass such legislation would be wrong in principle, clearly discrimination on the grounds of colour, and contrary to everything we stand for."
The criticisms, as well as growing tension on the issue provoked by Conservative MP Enoch Powell's infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech in April 1968, brought the issue of immigration to the fore, and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act of 1976.
There are currently about 70,000 Indians in Kenya - about 0.25% of the population. Many have been there for four generations, yet they remain politically powerless, and there is still pressure in some quarters to expel them from the country altogether.
*The Kenyan Asians were followed by expelled Ugandan Asians into Britain. Today, one of the sons of those Kenyan Asians is the Prime Minister of United Kingdom.
In Fiji, on the other hand, the Indo-Fijians are still branded as VULAGIS, with one of their own BAIMAAN wrapped inside Rabuka's sulu.
