Fijileaks
  • Home
  • Archive Home
  • In-depth Analysis
    • BOI Report into George Speight and others beatings
  • Documents
  • Opinion
  • CRC Submissions
  • Features
  • Archive

DICTATOR'S DUAL CITIZENSHIP DECREE allows Peter Thomson to become President of UN General Assembly; it allowed Satendra Nandan to come to Fiji to stifle media and run back to Australia to write his books

14/6/2016

19 Comments

 

The Dual Citizenship Decree has allowed Ambassador Robin Nair to become Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs

"Having lost his Fiji citizenship by becoming an Australian and a New Zealander after the 1987 military coup, Thomson regained his original citizenship in 2009, following a Fiji government decree authorising
dual citizenship"; Sadly, Cronies and Critics are meted different treatments under the Dual Citizenship Decree

Picture
Picture
STATEMENT FROM FRANK BAINIMARMA ON PETER THOMSON'S APPOINTMENT:

The election of Fiji's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Peter Thomson, to be President of the UN General Assembly is a great honour for Fiji.

It is the first time a representative of one of the Pacific Small Island Developing States has been chosen to lead the United Nations General Assembly and it has given Fiji and the other island nations a new and stronger voice in New York.

Mr Thomson’s selection provides us with a unique platform to highlight those issues of critical concern to Fiji and the vulnerable economies, such as building our resilience to climate change and ensuring the sustainable development of our natural resources on land and at sea.

It is a measure of Fiji’s standing in the world that the majority of nations supported our candidacy and I want to warmly thank those countries that voted for Fiji for the confidence they have placed in us.

Our commitment to the United Nations and its ideals has been unwavering ever since we first joined the UN at Independence in 1970. And we have always made a disproportionate contribution to its activities for a country of our size, especially with our strong participation in UN Peacekeeping operations since 1978.

I congratulate Mr Thomson on behalf of every Fijian. I know that he will preside over the deliberations of the United Nations General Assembly with dedication, wisdom and foresight.

J.V Bainimarama
Prime Minister


AT THE COURT OF KING FRANK:
"Six months ago, his excellency the ambassador [Thomson] was a Sydney author and magazine writer, a face in the alfresco coffee crowd at trendy Coluzzi in Darlinghurst...Fiji's UN ambassador is unusual in having triple citizenship: Australia, NZ and now Fiji, his passport restored when the regime ended a 40-year ban on dual citizenship last year...Thomson had been on Bainimarama's radar for 50 years, since his own father had served as a prison warden to Thomson's father in British colonial times. But it was Thomson's strong advocacy of Fiji's position in the past couple of years that persuaded the dictator to entice him back into Fiji government service." Graham Davis, 2010

Picture
Picture
Picture
By GRAHAM DAVIS
The Australian
22 Juny 2010

While Australia contends Fijian dictator Frank Bainimarama is increasingly friendless, two Australians are among his most loyal supporters



FRANK Bainimarama is bewildered and seething with rage and frustration. The military man in him knows he's suffered a humiliating tactical defeat. And worse, he didn't see it coming.

He's been rolled by someone he thought he could depend on most, the outgoing chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, who has pulled the plug on a summit meeting in Fiji barely a week out and with no warning.
Expensive suites are booked, the pigs, kava and dancers all primed and waiting. It was meant to be Fiji's hour of triumph, chairman Frank briefly wearing the country's former mantle as Pacific leader.

Instead, with his back turned at an International Monetary Fund meeting in South Korea, Australia has mounted a diplomatic counter-offensive, using a $66 million aid package to Vanuatu to strong-arm Prime Minister Edward Natapei into calling the meeting off. Natapei didn't even call Bainimarama to give him the news. So much for Melanesian solidarity. Now back in Suva, the dictator rails against the perfidious Aussies and their Kiwi cousins and the man he accuses of stabbing him in the back.

Yet the military training kicks in, orders are barked, the telecommunications counter-offensive spreads out across the region.

Within days, the MSG Plus summit may be off but the Engaging with Fiji summit is on, attracting a host of Pacific countries, including two crucial face-savers, the leaders of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. It's been a roller-coaster ride of a week at the office, as Bainimarama's chief censor and media strategist Sharon Smith-Johns cheerfully concedes.

"The mood was one of shock, anger and disappointment. Natapei didn't call. He just put out a press release dated Friday that I didn't get until Monday. Suddenly, bang! What do we do? "Obviously, we hit the phones but there were a few prayers too."

With her flame-red hair and assertive persona, Smith-Johns would be a striking presence anywhere. Yet it's still startling to find this former Fairfax marketing executive among the coffee-coloured faces moving quietly in and out of Bainimarama's office, where he sits under a portrait of the Queen deposed by Fiji's first coup maker, Sitiveni Rabuka, 23 years ago.

"I don't think I'm being disloyal to Australia. I feel disappointed with Australia that they can't see what I can see over here, a lot of positive changes. [Foreign Minister] Stephen Smith can take a swipe at us, I can take a swipe at him but my role is giving people a better understanding of what's happening in this country. I don't feel like a traitor, not at all."

Multiple time zones away, by the East River in New York, another Australian citizen, Peter Thomson, is preparing for a diplomatic day of battle for Bainimarama as his permanent representative at the UN.

Six months ago, his excellency the ambassador was a Sydney author and magazine writer, a face in the alfresco coffee crowd at trendy Coluzzi in Darlinghurst.

Now, he's busy signing diplomatic relations for Fiji with a slew of countries it had never bothered to engage before as part of a strategy to broaden its global ties and escape the Australian yoke.

"I've just come back from Cuba," Thomson tells me. "We're examining areas of co-operation in the medical field, in which Cuba is a world leader for developing countries. "We've got 160 medical students from the Pacific on medical scholarships in Cuba."

Unlike Smith-Johns, Thomson is Fiji-born and his connection to the country stretches back five generations on his mother's side.

His father was a British colonial servant and Thomson himself ploughed through the ranks of Fiji's civil service in the stable immediate post-independence years, at one time consul-general in Sydney. But then came Rabuka's 1987 coup, when Thomson found himself a target as the high-profile white permanent secretary to Fiji's governor-general, embroiled in a constitutional crisis and with indigenous supremacists demanding his head.

Three days in an excreta-smeared cell at Rabuka's pleasure convinced Thomson of the need to put down other roots, first in New Zealand, then Australia. More than most, he has cause to have deep personal feelings about the rise of Fijian nationalism and the steady marginalisation, before 2006, of the 40 per cent of non-indigenous citizens.

"I'm a passionate advocate of a multi-racial, multicultural Fiji so I fully support Prime Minister Bainimarama's program," Thomson says. "Race-based constitutions and political parties have been very divisive for the nation. We're now working towards a future in which citizens will vote without regard for race for the first time."

Fiji's UN ambassador is unusual in having triple citizenship: Australia, NZ and now Fiji, his passport restored when the regime ended a 40-year ban on dual citizenship last year.

"To any notion of disloyalty or treachery to Australia, I'd say nonsense," he says. "I'm working to restore good relations in our region, not destroy them."

Unlike Thomson's deep roots in Fiji, Smith-Johns first visited in 1994, then again in 1997 when cupid's arrow sliced through her holiday.

"I fell in love with my diving instructor, the classic holiday romance," she laughs. "Then I moved here in 2000 right in the middle of George Speight's coup. Everyone thought I was mad."

Marrying her diving instructor, Smith-Johns became chief executive of internet service provider Connect Fiji and met Bainimarama informally at a business forum. She wears her devotion on her sleeve.

"I've become good friends with both him and his wife, Mary, who's a wonderful woman and a very close friend of mine," she says. "But he's my boss first and foremost and I have had occasions when he's bawled me out. But although he's tough, he's very fair."

For all her NSW country girl charm, Smith-Johns is now widely detested in Suva as the official who presides over the government's media censorship, the final arbiter of what Fijians see and hear.

She insists that 90 per cent of stories now get past the military censors but that's a figure hotly disputed by her newsroom critics, who also point to her role in what increasingly appears to be the imminent closure of the country's oldest newspaper, The Fiji Times (owned by News Limited, publisher of The Australian).

Most damaging is the allegation that when Smith-Johns was head of Connect Fiji, she allowed the regime to tap into the emails of her customers, including journalists and human rights activists. "Absolute rubbish," she insists. "I take great exception to that. As a CEO, I could not and would not do that. We were never approached by anyone in government to tap emails. Never, ever." Smith-Johns concedes she was once asked to explore the possibility of blocking websites opposed to the regime.

"It was pretty hard-core, nasty stuff but I still said no. I didn't think it was the right thing to do but in any event, it's a losing battle. Block off one website and another will pop up," she says.

Twelve thousand kilometres away from the political blast furnace of Suva, Thomson finds many more friendly faces of all hues as he strides the corridors of the UN.

"While Australia and NZ have obviously caused a lot of damage to Fiji's interests, the vast majority of diplomats I meet are very understanding of our efforts to carry out our reforms and bring long-term stability to the country," he says.

Thomson is spearheading vital elements of Fiji's Look North policy, pursuing closer ties with China, India and the Arab world -- among others -- as a means of breaking free of its dependence on Australia and NZ.

"We've applied for membership of the Non-Aligned Movement to forge a truly independent foreign policy, something we should have done a long time ago," he says.

"Over the last five months, I've officiated at ceremonies formalising diplomatic relations with 17 countries, and there'll be many more before the year is out."

Thomson and his wife Marijcke, a Sydney magazine publisher, were on holiday in NZ in January when the phone rang with Bainimarama's office on the line.

"When your homeland has most need for your services, that is the most important time to serve and I had no doubt that I was equipped to do the job," he says.

Thomson had been on Bainimarama's radar for 50 years, since his own father had served as a prison warden to Thomson's father in British colonial times. But it was Thomson's strong advocacy of Fiji's position in the past couple of years that persuaded the dictator to entice him back into Fiji government service.

"I gave speeches in Australia to the Lowy Institute and the Centre for Independent Studies, as well as speeches in New Zealand, highly critical of their policy towards Fiji. It was pretty strong stuff about punishing Fiji without achieving anything and destabilising the whole region," he says.

Thomson's views were shared by a number of Australian, NZ and Fiji business figures, who secretly commissioned him last year to launch what they called the Fiji Dialogue Project in an attempt to heal the breach.

Thomson is speaking about the initiative for the first time. "These were prominent people with long records of service in the three countries, no personal agendas and a shared commitment to the wellbeing of the South Pacific region. They were as distressed as I was about the breakdown of the relationship," he says.

And so Thomson embarked on a mission of personal diplomacy involving talks in Suva with Bainimarama and his foreign minister and subsequent trips to PNG and NZ.

"I went under the radar to Port Moresby to meet Prime Minister Michael Somare and get his support for our efforts. Good progress was being made when the welcome news came that the foreign ministers of Australia, NZ and Fiji had agreed to a tripartite meeting. We thought, prematurely as it turns out, that our work was done," Thomson says.

There was also a meeting in Tony Abbott's electoral office in Sydney before he became Opposition leader. Thomson says he got a polite hearing but no commitments when he told Abbott the other side to the Fiji story wasn't getting through. Through these efforts, Bainimarama and Thomson developed their high mutual personal regard.

"The PM comes from a background of public service, as did his father before him. Remember, this is a man who only just survived an assassination attempt after he suppressed the ethno-nationalist forces trying to overrun Fiji.

"This is the man who defused the time bomb of the 2000 coup, when George Speight's gunmen held the government hostage for 56 days. That was Fiji's greatest trauma and the country never wants to see it happen again,"
Thomson says.

Thomson and Smith-Johns say Bainimarama's promise to hold elections in 2014 are central to their support for him and they believe he'll keep his word.

"There will be an election in 2014,"
says Smith Johns. "No doubt about it."

Bainimarama's many critics aren't so sure and neither is the Australian government, which in any event, wants an election now.

But for these Australian true believers, Bainimarama remains Fiji's best hope and they make no apology for being in the front line defending it against their own government's bete noir.

"I've never had any approaches from the Australian side warning me off," says Smith-Johns.

"No spooks have come to see me. The only warning I received was from my mother, who told me to get back home and stop it! She said, 'For God's sake, Sharon, come back home!' I said, 'It's all going to be OK, Mum. Have a Bex and a good lie down.' And I'm sure it will be."

Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief: We make no apology for not approving many of the vile comments against Graham Davis, whether he is or he is not a friend of Victor Lal, as many of you are accusing him in your unapproved comments. Full stop!


Picture
Picture
STEPPING INTO THE [Brij Lal] and 
[Mahendra Chaudhry] FEUD:


From Fiji Sun Archive, 2007
By VICTOR LAL


As long as the 1997 Constitution remains in place, the likes of Mahendra Chaudhry, the military, the President, and all those associated with the Interim Government of Commodore Frank Bainimama, will have to tolerate the lecturing and hectoring by one of the co-architects of the Constitution, the Fiji-born and Australian based academic Dr Brij
Vilash Lal.

Some of us have fundamental issues with Dr Lal (no relation of mine,
except that we share the same surname) on certain aspects of the [1997] Constitution, especially the multi-party concept and the electoral system but those who have taken the oath of office under it will have to swallow the academic doctor’s bitter lecturing pills as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land. And he himself has to engage in constructive criticism and debate on the Constitution.

I have reluctantly stepped into the feud after the present Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, attacked Dr Lal, and his comments by extension, also apply to me and other academics and regular political
commentators on Fiji. Replying to Dr Lal’s article in the media titled “Lal: regime lacks lustre”, Mr Chaudhry claimed the article was essentially a personal attack on him. “Let me state at the outset, that the writer has seriously impaired his academic credibility by continuously spewing venom against me, the Fiji Labour Party and the interim administration without substantiating his claims,” said Mr Chaudhry.

He said Dr Lal’s vindictive attack on him was not surprising, considering his close links with the waning National Federation Party. Here I am reminded of the virulent attacks on me in the media by the previous interim Qarase regime that was formed after Mr Chaudhry was
removed from power in 2000. I was consistently accused of peddling pro-Chaudhry and FLP propaganda from London, in my capacity as a member of the Movement for Democracy in Fiji, with Ratu Inoke Kubuabola accusing me: “Victor Lal’s articles all have a simple, indeed, simplistic stance: restore Chaudhry and impose democracy as defined by Lal and his friends.”

Worse, I received a spate of hate e-mails and even death threats from extremists in the Fijian community and anti-Chaudhry Indo-Fijians when, in February 2001, in one of my regular political columns, I wrote that “Chaudhry is a sacrificial lamb at the altar of political opportunism”, and called him a political saint in Fiji politics.

But when I turned my pen against Mr Chaudhry on issues of greater import to Fiji than only those concerning the Indo-Fijians and sugarcane farmers, I also became an object of hatred and derision from his
supporters and followers in the FLP, both inside and outside Fiji.

Meanwhile, Mr Chaudhry, while boasting what a marvellous job he is now doing with the economy (merely balancing the books, according to some economists) and the sugar industry, challenged Dr Lal to enter the political arena: “Let him put his money where his mouth is, come down and fight an election here, and make the necessary sacrifices to serve the people of Fiji. Perhaps then he would have won the right to sit in judgment on others.”

He also asked pointedly: “What gives Lal the right to make pronouncements on Fiji from his sanctuary in Australia”.

The answer to Mr Chaudhry’s last question, to put it brutally, is that Dr Lal is one of the co-architects of the Constitution under which Mr Chaudhry became the Prime Minister, fought tooth and nail to enter the multi-party Cabinet, and before the coup also felt that he should be appointed the Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile, one does not have to prove oneself by standing for elections – elections that Mr Chaudhry claims have been repeatedly rigged since his overthrow in 2000.

In any event, what is the point in fighting
elections, when one can, after losing the elections, simply enter Government by hitching a ride on the back of military trucks and guns.

On another serious note, if Dr Lal has no right to open his mouth while “hiding” in Australia, what right did Mr Chaudhry have to release nearly a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers money to bring down Australian and New Zealand lawyers (with possibly no familial connections with Fiji) from their sanctuaries to fight the Interim Government’s legal case against Qarase in the High Court?

What right did one academic from New Zealand have to come down from his sanctuary to Fiji to carry out an investigation into the 2006 general election? What right did Dr James Anthony have to come down from Hawaii to carry out an inquiry into the Fiji media? Why should the Interim Government go abroad to bring someone from his or her sanctuary to
oversee the next general election? Why have we brought lawyers and judges from their sanctuaries to run the courts, the DPP, and the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General’s offices in Fiji?

Who in these
two last offices gave the wrong advice to the President on Adi Koila’s appointment to the Boundaries Commission? Above all, what right did Mr Chaudhry have, on his release from George Speight’s clutches, to travel abroad to raise support and money from us to fight his political battles in Fiji? Why didn’t he simply stay put in the country and fight his political battles at home? Why did be waste our time, money, and energy, with many of us making enemies with his political adversaries, when he now says those like Dr Lal (and countless others) should not “poke their noses” in Fiji’s affairs?

If politicians are so against those working in overseas universities, why on earth do they send their own sons and daughters abroad to acquire education, mostly in Australia and New Zealand? It is ridiculous to argue that just because someone is away from Fiji, one has no right to comment on the state of affairs in the country of their birth. We still have homes, friends and families in Fiji. In Dr Lal’s case, he is one of the leading chroniclers of Indo-Fijian history and politics, and he has more to teach them than any Indo-Fijian politician.

If Mr Chaudhry has spent his lifetime fighting for sugarcane farmers and Indo-Fijian rights in Fiji, Dr Lal has equally spent his lifetime interpreting them. It is true that Dr Lal was the former NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy’s nominee on the Fiji Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), to which Mr Chaudhry and his FLP made submissions regarding the new 1997 Constitution.

There
is no evidence however to suggest that Mr Chaudhry ever protested against Dr Lal’s presence on the committee, along with Sir Paul Reeves of New Zealand, and Tomasi Rayalu Vakatora, the former Speaker of Parliament.To assist the Commission, two legal counsel were appointed, Alison Quentin Baxter and Jon Apted. The secretary to the Commission was the affable lawyer Walter Rigamoto. Although Mr Chaudhry had reservations, opposing the provincial allocation of Fijian seats, and was unhappy about the electoral arrangements, he signed off the final Joint Parliamentary Select Committee report. When the new 1997 Constitution was unanimously passed by both Houses of Fiji’s Parliament, a jubilant Mr Chaudhry declared after the parliamentary vote that a long-standing grievance about the racist 1990 Constitution had ended.

Two years later he won a landslide election
under the very electoral system to which he had grave reservations, prompting Professor Steward Firth of USP to rightly point out that, “Labour was advantaged by the preferential system (Alternate Vote).” Mr Vakatora claimed that the FLP noticed a flaw in the AV used in the 1999 May general elections and used it to win. The FLP saw that the AV system could be used to their advantage since voters had no control over where their votes would end up. They also took advantage of the expertise that was available to them from their Australian counterparts where the AV system is in use in elections.Dr Lal commented after the 1999 elections: “Labour’s unorthodox tactic breached the spirit and intention of the preferential system of voting, where like-minded parties trade preferences among themselves and put those they most disagree with last. Political expediency and cold-blooded ruthlessness triumphed.”

In May 2000, George Speight ended Mr Chaudhry’s political reign, with one of Mr Chaudhry’s own coalition partners from the Fijian Association Party, Ratu Tu’uakitau Cokanauto, after crossing over to Qarase’s Interim regime, said he no longer supported Mr Chaudhry’s leadership because the former Indo-Fijian Prime Minister was directly responsible for the events of 19 May 2000. He said: “Chaudhry has been identified as one of the people directly or indirectly who caused the problem.” The rest is history, with Mr Chaudhry launching one legal challenge after another under the 1997 Constitution to re-insert himself into the corridors of power. In the process, he spared no one, including the President, Commodore Bainimarma and former Prime Minister Qarase over the post 2000 events.

In August 2006, he attacked them for violating the rule of law after the 2000 coup. He accused the President and the Commodore of colluding with Mr Qarase to exclude the FLP from sharing political power. In particular, Mr Chaudhry claimed that “the nation would not be in the present condition were it not for the farce the President enacted in March 2001, when he appointed Ratu Tevita Momedonu as caretaker (puppet) Prime Minister for 24 hours”. Mr Chaudhry also told his fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians: “What took place in Fiji next was a blatant and willful distortion and manipulation of the constitutional and legal system to allow the army-backed regime to continue in office.”

He also berated Ratu Iloilo: “The constitution requires the President to be appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs in consultation with the Prime Minister. In the next questionable move Ratu Josefa Iloilo, placed in office after the coup and who the Appeals Court declared to be in an acting capacity only, convened a meeting of the Great Council of Chiefs, and got himself appointed President.”

What all these events clearly meant, he claimed, was that Fiji’s post-coup authorities had no respect for the rule of law.

To date, Mr Chaudhry has provided no evidence that Ratu Iloilo had himself appointed by the GCC. If we are to believe Mr Chaudhry, is Ratu Illoilo illegally occupying the presidency since the 2000 coup? The President must come out clean before the High Court on his role in the post December coup, to prevent a repeat of Chaudhry-like claims.

There is no point in the Interim administration and the military calling upon us to respect the Presidential Office, when one of its own interim Ministers and a former prime minister had cast grave doubts on its impartiality in a previous coup.

Dr Brij Lal’s only crime is that he is, to quote the late Sir Vijay Singh, Speaking Out, which he should in his capacity as the co-architect of the 1997 Constitution.

And as long as Mr Chaudhry is functioning
under the Constitution, he has to listen to (although he does not necessarily have to agree with) Dr Lal’s interpretation of it. He must stop accusing Dr Lal of being an NFP stooge.

What is Mr Chaudhry – a coup stooge?

Picture

US Ambassador Larry Dinger to Washington on Chaudhry – another “shadowy figure” (Wikileaks cable):

“Chaudhry, former PM deposed by the 2000 coup and still head of the FLP, phoned today to let the Ambassador know he intends to accept Bainimarama’s offer of the Finance, Public Enterprises, and Sugar Reform portfolios. He put it in terms of having to move Fiji forward and get back to democracy ASAP. When the Ambassador noted how disastrous the past coups had been for Fiji and for Chaudhry personally on two occasions, Chaudhry suggested this coup is different because the Qarase Government was so awful. “Fiji could not have survived another five years.” The Ambassador reiterated the USG view of coups, including this one, and reminded Chaudhry of the visa ban announcement. The Ambassador also urged Chaudhry to exert any influence he has on the Commodore to end abuses by the RFMF against the public. He said he intends to do so. It is increasingly obvious that Chaudhry, leader of the FLP that lost the 2006 elections by a relatively small margin, has been another of the “shadowy figures.” Chaudhry is a puzzle. If Bainimarama’s instruction holds that all ministers in the interim government will be forbidden from running in the next election, then Chaudhry seemingly is giving up elective politics. For someone with politics in his blood, that must be a shock. One wonders if Chaudhry has wrangled an exception from the general rule for himself. On the other hand, it is hard to see how Chaudhry could calculate that the FLP’s collusion with Bainimarama can lead to a win in the next elections in any case. The FLP’s base is the ethnic-Indian community, which has shown some support for the coup; however, to win an election the FLP must win significant votes from the ethnic-Fijian community that reportedly is very unhappy with the coup. Another possible explanation for Chaudhry’s decision is that he calculates the interim administration will be
in place for quite a few years.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/bainimaramas-willing-brigade-post-2006-coup-interim-finance-minister-chaudhry-talked-john-samy-into-formulating-peoples-charter

Picture

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/proposed-political-party-leaders-meeting-was-face-saving-exercise-fijileaks-reveal-more-behind-the-scenes-machinations-between-john-samy-frank-bainimarama-and-aiyaz-khaiyum-in-2008-on-fijis-road-map

Picture

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/john-samy-to-bainimarma-gcc-changes-could-have-been-handled-in-ways-more-consultative-and-inclusive-the-deportation-of-newspaper-publishers-raise-questions-on-the-rule-of-law-and-legal-courts-in-fiji

Picture

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/betrayed-and-banished-megalomaniac-aiyaz-khaiyum-behind-most-betrayals-and-banishment-of-indo-fijians-so-he-can-hog-centre-stage-and-hold-bainimarama-by-the-balls-just-look-at-the-treatment-of-john-samy

Picture
Picture
19 Comments
King Rat
14/6/2016 10:32:24 am

Many other counties allow dual citizenship so why not Fiji?

After the ethno-nationalist coups of 1987 and 2000, many bight Fiji people like Peter Thompson, Satendra Nandan and others left Fiji for greener pastures after had having been victims of ethno-nationalist violence. They were made to feel unwelcome in the land of their birth.

The Bainimarama government permitted dual citizenship to allow these talented people to return and make a contribution. Other countries like Australia, NZ and others allow dual citizenship for vey much the same reasons.

People like Peter Thompson, Satendra Nandan and many others were born in Fiji and the opportunity of returning and reassuming Fiji citizenship is their birthright that was denied to them by previous Governments.

I think such people should be applauded, not vilified, for returning to make a contribution to Fiji's progress.

Reply
maropito
14/6/2016 12:07:12 pm

Sewa Rat what about Professor Brij Lal and Padma Lal, they are not allowed in Fiji. Should they be given dual citizenship.

Reply
Foreigner
14/6/2016 12:07:59 pm

Rat - why u excluding Professor Brij Lal. He had already returned, bought a house and wanted to retire here. Thompson and Nandan have remained tourists only. So are the commitments. But your bosses ban the one who showed firm commitments to Fiji, and praise the tourists. Lal is the world's leading authority on Indentured history. In comparison, Nandan and Thompson pale into insignificance. So why ban the world reknown former Fijian?

Reply
King Rat
14/6/2016 12:56:40 pm

How can you say Brij Lal has a commitment to Fiji when at every turn, he puts Fiji down!

Frankly, no one in Fiji at this time gives a tinkers cuss if he is the leading authority on an historical event such as 'Indentured History'.

There are leading authorities on Guy Fawkes attempt on the British Parliament on 5 November ! Does it make any difference to our current disposition in Fiji?

Get your thinking out of the rut of history. Pull your thumb out of your bum, go forwards and smell the roses.

Brij Lal is not essential to Fiji's progress. As an historian he is immersed in the past.

He is an Australian citizen anyway, pays his taxes to the Australian Government, not Fiji; therein lies the ethical and moral conundrum that you and your ilk choose to ignore. Just coz he wrote about the Girimtiya, we should give him special consideration?

Reply
Foreigner
14/6/2016 01:31:22 pm

Mr Rat: Professor Brij Lal doesnt put Fiji down at every turn. He puts the dictators down at every turn. Prof. Lal was, in case you forget, also a Constitutional Commissioner, leading to 1997 Constitution. His commitment to Fiji is demonstrated. Constitution, moving to retire here, buying a million dollar + house, and still carrying Fiji's flag all over the world as the leading authority on the new system of slavery.

May I also be permitted a retort in kind: Pull your thumb out of your bum and your nose out of bai and kai's bums. Then smell the roses.

Chiku
14/6/2016 09:33:31 pm

Any person who genuinely loves the land of their birth points out where the leadership and governance is going wrong in the best interest of the country and its people. Authoritarian rulers/dictators tend not to take kindly to criticism and persecute critics. Critics are not welcome by such power holders. Sycophants and chamchas - people who gloss over the rulers wrongdoings, to feather their own nest (business,corporate, political or professional ambitions) are welcome.
That's been the story in post Bainimarama coup Fiji for people who are prepared to see thr truth. Many aren't . And that is not at all surprising. It's a function of vested interest.

Dekho
15/6/2016 01:01:32 am

Acha right, even as an eminent historian Prof.Brij Lal is a nobody .
And presumably you are a someboci?
So who are you,boci?

Fiji kid
14/6/2016 01:36:18 pm

Qararse government also introduced dual citizenship was only for native Fijians.

Reply
Point of Order
14/6/2016 01:52:41 pm

King Rat and other commentators

Please keep to the point here - it is clear that the posting is suggesting that if you bury your head and suck up you become ambassador but if you dare to criticism, you get banned from Fiji.
DUAL citizenship has become a gateway for many to milk Fiji instead of putting milk in their coffee in upmarket Sydney cafe and looking at the bleak existence in Australia - like our ambassador was doing in Darlinghurst

Reply
Tomasi
14/6/2016 06:35:14 pm

Regardless of what Bai, Khai or King rat may claim, there is conclusive evidence to suggest that the dual citizenship policy of the FFP regime was primarily about enhancing the hold on power and control over Fiji in all spheres and dimensions. The most central and important goal of Bai's kingdom rule is to accumulate, expand and perpetuate their hold on power. Other policies and strategies complement this. For instance, the new Constitution, the 2014 general elections, the immunity clause, all political appointments, including the Com Pol, Military Commander, Speaker, the media decree, and the goings on and goings off in Parliament. Bai, Khai and their puppets and beneficiaries are absolutely focussed on maintaining total control in Fiji. Because if and when they lose control, they know they will either live the rest of their lives in prison or even worse. Imagine that possibility folks. King Bai and Khai, in the brightly coloured prison uniform at Naboro.That will in itself represent a repeat of history. Bai returns to live in Naboro., not in the staff compound where his father once dwelt. But right there inside the walls of the Max Security compound. And do not forget the most talentated Percy Kean, Bai's bro in law. A prisoner who graduated and was promoted to became the Commissioner of Prisons, He would now become a prisoner once more. This is what scares Bai, Khai , Kean, Qiliho, Naupoto Teleni, and their followers. This is desperate and guilty band of thugs. They will fight and use anything and anyone to achieve their selfish goals. Its them or us. Buckle up Fiji. The drama continues to unfold. It will get bumpy along the way. But cheer up, good always triumphs over evil, no matter what King rat oe QORVIS says.

Reply
Aj
14/6/2016 08:07:08 pm

Truth and good triumph, always. It may take time, but it does. The dictators will go, together with all their evil deeds. But as long as they stay, they will continue to do immense damage to Fiji. They have already destroyed the sanctity of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. The attack on the foundation of modern government - which is separation of powers - has been vicious. It will take a collective effort, the return of the Constitution (1997), and the re-dedication of the military to its true calling to re-establish faith of people in these institutions.

Reply
Editor to Kuli Victor
14/6/2016 10:33:29 pm

We know it is a fake name and a fake e-mail account and the contents of your comments are unprintable so we are throwing you out of the site

Reply
Samjha
14/6/2016 11:48:49 pm

It can only be a Bainimarama - Khaiyum dictatorship hounddog .

Reply
Nau
15/6/2016 12:11:56 am

Well it always seems the supporters of the Fiji coup are always promoted to the UN Job.Or as a government appointee. Come on! history repeating itself again in here. The colonist in the past usually align them self to the natives ( who they usually referred to as lazy buggers & coup plotters and here we are we still have some amongst us feathering their own nest, helping dictators dictate rules to suit them. Peter Thomson the not so quiet diplomat, has REALY done well. His opinion piece in 2009.
Peter Thomson: I want to make it clear where I’m coming from.  I’m a fifth generation Fiji Islander, who since the coups of 1987 has become both a New Zealand and Australian citizen.
As a result of the recent decree in Fiji allowing dual citizenship, I’m in the process of applying for the reinstatement of my birthright, that is my citizenship of Fiji.

As such, I aspire to being a good citizen of the South Pacific region and it is my belief in the integrity of our region that fires much of what I have to say.
Canberra’s Fiji policy is wrong and it is most definitely having a major impact.  It is spiteful policy, conceived in a mood of punishment and sustained by a sense of pique.  It is damaging not just to Fiji’s business world, its national economy and the livelihoods of its long-suffering people, it is damaging to the very fabric of the South Pacific region.
One of the most cutting elements of Canberra’s Fiji policy is its ongoing campaign in New York to choke off Fiji’s role as an international peacekeeper. I’m including Wellington in this rebuke, for Canberra has a strong ally in former Prime Minister Helen Clark, now head of the United Nations Development Programme, and in the Wellington inheritors of her Fiji policy.
What a bitter betrayal that campaign represents for Fijians!  When our countries were being invaded from the north less than 70 years ago, Fijians volunteered in their thousands to fight and die in our defence.
Now we see that with defence training denied them in Australia and New Zealand, the next generation of Fiji officers are being trained in Malaysia, India and China.  In this Australia is squandering a precious asset – the individual goodwill that exists between military officers who’ve shared intense training experience, and the resulting personal and professional links that exist in the years ahead.
Peacekeeping role
Fiji’s peacekeeping role in the world stands proud. Wherever peacekeepers have been required in recent times from Timor to Iraq, from Honiara to Kabul, Fijians have been there putting their lives on the line in the service of international peace.  For their worldwide work as peace-keepers, Fijians should have our undying gratitude.
Instead we are witness to this campaign of sanctimonious betrayal by Canberra and Wellington. Why is this important  today?  Because remittances by Fijians performing these overseas peace-keeping roles are vital to Fiji’s economy; foreign remittances represent the third biggest source of export earnings for Fiji.  So this is the first way that Canberra’s policy is damaging the economy of Fiji.
The second way Canberra is grinding the Fiji economy down, is by its so-called ‘smart’ sanctions.  In Fiji it is the “travel ban” component of these sanctions that is the most widely known element of Australia and New Zealand’s punishment programme.  Basically the application of the travel bans is that visas to visit Australia and New Zealand are denied to anyone who accepts a post in the governance of Fiji or is in anyway related to the Fiji military.
The bans are applied not just to the individuals concerned, their children and wider members of their family are made to suffer as well.
Good people in Fiji, apolitical people, would like to be of public service but cannot because of these travel bans.  To say otherwise is a nonsense – there are people in this room who fall into this category and can attest to what I’m saying.
To accept roles in public service would be to cut themselves off from friends, family and business ties in Australia and New Zealand.  We’re talking here about responsible, well-qualified citizens being constrained from serving on public bodies that work to prevent such things as passenger planes flying into the sides of mountains, or ministries responsible for the health of little children, or developing agriculture and infrastructure, or from keeping convicted criminals in jail.
Since 2006, Canberra seems to have aimed at a short-term coercive outcome from its Fiji policy.  It seems to think that by eroding the regime’s ability to govern, it’ll force it to capitulate.
But Fiji still has a government and, however imperfectly it may be doing so, it is governing and will do so for the foreseeable future.  And when yo

Reply
Samjha
15/6/2016 06:33:04 am

If one can be enticed to return to serve in the government of a dictator that says something about the integrity and morality of such a person. It is almost invariably the political opportunist who gravitates to a dictator - to feather his own cap.

Reply
Chiku
15/6/2016 11:13:12 pm

The Bainimarama government has seen it fit to have a former civil servant Peter Thomson become Fiji's rep to the UN and now the President of the GA - at age 68, presumably because he still has solid contribution to make both for Fiji and the world community.
Why then has the Bainimarama government forced other civil servants to retire at age 55?

Reply
Socho
16/6/2016 12:50:10 am

It's a contradiction alright. At 68 Peter Thomson getting appointment as President of UN General Assebly as fiji's representative and at 55 other public servants in Fiji forced out of their jobs by the Bainimarama government presumably to make way for a younger generation.
But being contradictory has been the trade mark of the Bainimarama regime since it grabbed power in 2006. Was Peter Thomson recruited from wherever he was living - australia, New Zealand - because of his support for the Bainimarama dictatorship in Fiji?
Why wasn't someone like Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi - a brilliant lawyer ( unlike Khaiyum, a mediocre lawyer) and a respected leader and former Vice President of Fiji - considered for the UN?

Reply
Dekho
16/6/2016 04:50:58 am

Only three types were considered for lofty lucrative positions by the Bainimarama dictatorship throughout its reign in power beginning 2006 when he grabbed power by manipulating the Fijian military.
One, those who sang the dictator's praise. And, two those who ingratiated themselves to the dictator and his main boy, Khaiyum. And three, those who were prepared to gloss over the wrongdoings of the dictator and his henchmen .
Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi did not qualify under the dictatorship's criteria of selection for appointments.

Reply
Nau
17/6/2016 11:56:19 am

It is important to look at all this in a bigger picture.
The question that still need to be answered is why coup supporters get handed a job at the UN. Where the two
Major powers China & the US at the UN a platform to flex their muscle and Fiji a tiny nation is the moderator. As a nation we've certainly come a long way but will never actually get there.
An interesting article from Dalton Kuen-Da.

Security Implications of Geopolitics and Governance in the Pacific

Posted on 10. November 2015Author Dalton Kuen-Da LinCategories Defense, Foreign Policy, Taiwan
The biggest security threat facing Pacific Islanders today is the potentially gloomy ripple effects of the ongoing geopolitical reconfiguration in the Asia-Pacific region. The security of Pacific Islanders relies upon deftly dealing with a variety of daunting issues, such as sustainable economic development and rising sea levels as well as food and water shortage resulting from global warming. To effectively manage these challenges, Pacific Island countries need the capacity of good governance. Unfortunately, looming shifts in the geopolitical landscape of the Asia-Pacific region, including uncertainty in China-Taiwan relations on the horizon and contestation between Beijing and Washington for regional predominance in the longer-term, threaten to seriously undermine the governing capacity of Pacific Island countries.
External geopolitical rivalry could thwart good governance in Pacific Islands countries because patronage money breeds symbiotic relations with local corruption while insulating corrupted politicians from pressures within and without. Intense geopolitical competition drives external powers to flush Pacific Island countries with money aiming solely at buying exclusive political allegiance, and the quickest way to acquire geopolitical followers is by patronizing local elites. Amid its competition with Taiwan for exclusive regional recognition, China’s opaque aid funds to Tonga caused doubts and controversy because the money was negotiated at the political level with minimum input from the civil service. It is not difficult to see how such unscrupulous funds undermined the Pacific Island country’s governing capacity — it sabotaged accountability and transparency while barely meeting the needs of local population. In another case, China lavished Fiji with US$333 million aid in the aftermath of the Pacific Island country’s 2006 coup – just as the United States and its allies (Australia and New Zealand) imposed sanctions in order to pressure Suva to resume a democratic government.

This is not to accuse Chinese aid of always being evil in nature. Instead, it is to show that amid geopolitical jockeying, it is easy for local regimes to play one patron off against another to get rid of strings of good governance attached to foreign aid. To the extreme, intense external geopolitical rivalry could totally disrupt domestic political order in Pacific Island states. In 2004, Vanuatuan Prime Minister Serge Vohor switched the country’s diplomatic allegiance to Taiwan for seven days and saw himself ousted for that reason. Needless to say, such abrupt political turnover undercuts stability and predictability needed for good governing capacity.

The threat of geopolitical rivalry to governance in Pacific Island nations could also be shown from the opposite side of the same coin. As in many other cases of its Pacific aid, Chinese aid in the Cook Islands was plagued by criticisms in the past. However, the Cook Islands government successfully improved its management of Chinese aid in 2012 by requesting a partnership between Beijing and Wellington in a water quality project in Rarotonga. Unsurprisingly, the improvement of governance took place against the backdrop of a “diplomatic truce” between China and Taiwan that allowed “reputation” to ever become a concern in Beijing’s conduct of aid projects.

The effect of the cross-Taiwan Strait diplomatic truce also reveals itself in the fact that China now primarily offers concessional loans instead of outright grants in its aid to Pacific Island nations. Though concessional loans mean heavier financial burdens to Pacific Island debtors, the price mechanism embedded should also encourage more responsible use of the aid money. In a nutshell, a tranquil geopolitical environment is conducive to improving governance in Pacific islands and an asset to Pacific Islanders’ security.

Unfortunately, such benign geopolitical environments might be coming to an end. Taiwan’s 2016 presidential election around the corner is likely to bring a pro-independence party back to power and deprive Taipei and Beijing of the political tacit understanding that is undergirding their current diplomatic truce. If the two were to resume their notorious competition in “checkbook diplomacy,” the influx of unscrupulous money that single-mindedly aims to secure


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    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
    Picture
    Picture