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

FLAGGING POINTS: Beddoes tells Committee: Who wants Flag Change?

5/6/2015

23 Comments

 
Picture

"It is ironic that the very party that desecrated and stole the design and parts of the coat of arms of our existing flag, and politicized its use, demonstrating no respect, no honour or regard for our present national symbol, should want all of the protection they have not given our current flag to be given to the Bainimarama-Khaiyum flag. In any democracy, if you suppress the voice of the people long enough and you curtail their rights to express themselves, their frustrations will ultimately be manifested." - Mick Beddoes

Picture
Submission By Mick Beddoes to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights

June 5th 2015

Introduction

At 10am, October 10th 1970, I witnessed from the roof top of the Grand Pacific Hotel, the pomp and ceremony that marked our Independence Day Celebration and Parade at Albert Park.

I was 19 years old and the Hotel’s Public Relations Officer, depending on whether you were born or a teenager like I was in 1970, it will be difficult for you to ‘grasp’ the significance of the moment.

I watched the Prince of Wales hand our nation’s founding father and first Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, the Instruments of our Independence, 96 years to the, day, that our Chiefs willingly ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria.

As the Public Relations officer of the GPH, my task that day was to raise the Hotel’s new ‘banner blue’ to the top of our flag pole at exactly the same time as the main flag raising ceremony at Albert Park.

Many of those who witnessed that Parade and Ceremony had family members taking part.  This helped to deeply etch the occasion in our memories even though it occurred 45 years ago.  

It was a moment of mixed emotions. Many felt regret and even sorrow about the British departure. They felt a special loyalty to Queen Elizabeth who had become the ultimate paramount chief of Fiji.

But the dominant sentiment was one of joy, buoyed by dreams of a glorious future as a united independent nation.

These dreams were captured in our new flag, fluttering proudly over the park and at many other locations throughout the country. This was our emblem, the mark and the image of our nationhood.

Such was the IMPACT ON THE NATION as a whole of that great occasion and Ratu Sir Kamasese delivered on that promise with 17 years or peace, progress and prosperity and I was fortunate to be one of the many young political activists that learnt from the founding father of modern Fiji.

Fiji had escaped the cruel struggles and bloodshed that so often marred the journey to independence of other colonies.

We had our differences politically, but there was a willingness on both sides to proceed to nationhood on the basis of consensus and compromise in the greater interests of Fiji.  

The unique bonds forged by the chiefs and people with Queen Victoria continued through the reigns of her successors right up to Queen Elizabeth. 

Now those cherished links, the links that helped define our history are to be rejected by an act of dictatorship, supported by the leadership of the Fiji First Party and government.

I am here today to protest this latest imposition on our islands because our people have not given their permission for changing Fiji’s flag. Their voice was ignored when Prime Minister Bainimarama and Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum decided we should have a new symbol.

The Explanatory notes in the Bills on the Coat of Arms and the New Flag speak of symbols of our colonial past. This is misleading, self-serving and selective.

Other than the Union Jack and the Lion, the depictions of sugar cane, coconut tree, bananas and the dove are all true symbols of our country and not our Colonial past.  I surely do not need to tell you that the coconut tree, aside from its agricultural significance at that time, now symbolizes our ‘World Dominance’ in Rugby Seven’s

They stood as the symbols of our new beginning as an Independent and sovereign nation from that 10th day of October 1970 and they remain relevant today.  This is a fact.

Contrary to the claim in the Background notes of the National Flag Bill that our colonial past was marred by injustice and oppression, the reality is that British rule was benign.

There is no doubt that some injustices occurred, especially towards our iTaukei and Indo-Fijian communities.

But the real oppression of our people started with the military coup of 1987.  It was reinforced by the insurrection of 2000, the Bainimarama coup of 2006, and the abrogation of our 1997 constitution in April 2009 and the eight long fear-filled years of the Bainimarama-Khaiyum dictatorship.

These are the undisputed facts.

 The Explanatory Notes to Bill 4 state and I quote:

 ‘A new national flag that will reflect our present state as a nation and will include truly Fijian symbols of identity that we can all honour and defend’ unquote

·         What symbols would we use to reflect our truly Fijian Identify when the government of the day refuses to ratify UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and retains 17 Decrees that suppress only one community - our Indigenous people.

·         Where is the honour when we remove the pinnacle of our Indigenous people’s society, The Great Council of Chiefs, while allowing all other communities in Fiji the right to retain their respective cultural structures?

Let us put pretence aside and consider honestly our present state as a nation:

The sad and alarming fact is that we are presently in an almost failed six months transition from dictatorship to democracy.

I ask the promoters of these Bills what symbols would best reflect this?

·         A picture of a person with their mouth taped shut, to symbolize the fear to speak out?

·         Perhaps a photo of a Minister with a full complement of bodyguards to protect him or her from the people they are supposed to represent?

·         Or perhaps a copy of the Government propaganda sheet, the Fiji Sun? To symbolize how far we have fallen in terms of ‘fair and balanced reporting’
If we dare to go back further, to the eight long hard years of dictatorship, what symbols would best represent the state of the nation for this period?

·         Will they be symbols of abuse?

·         Or perhaps symbols of nepotism, oppression and threats all wrapped up in copies of unjust decrees?

Bill No 5 has 20 sections. Fifty five percent 55% of its provisions relate to offences citizens will face.

These range from fines of $20,000 to $500,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both. These are extreme provisions and there are others that I shall be mentioning in a moment.  I ask the Government committee members to consider this: 

Our existing noble banner blue, in the words of the Prime Minister, is widely loved and admired.  There is no extreme legislation governing its use and providing severe sentences for transgressions. 

There’s been no need for this because citizens respect and admire this symbol of our nationhood.

Why then has the Attorney-General introduced such draconian legislation for the Bainimarama flag?  Is this because the two of them expected opposition to it and this must be dealt with severely and in a manner to which we have become accustomed?

Does this approach reflect the principles of the modern nation state that the Prime Minister and Mr Sayed-Khaiyum speak of so much?

This Bill No 5 even seeks to legislate patriotism, and seeks to force people to “respect the flag”.  It is intrusive to the extent that its provisions cover the private homes of every citizen by legislating the new flag should be in a place of prominence.

You can’t legislate “respect”.  You have to earn it! Neither can you legislate patriotism. But patriotism about what?  An imposed flag and Coat of Arms?

Section 7 of the Bill goes further and says if you speak, write or by any other means ‘demean’, disrespect or insult the ‘State’, the Government, or any member of the Government or the general public, you commit an offence?

This is extraordinary stuff Mr Chairman for those in Government who are boasting about our new democracy for a modern nation state. What has criticism of the Government, Minister or another individual got to do with committing an offence against the flag?

Similarly in the Coat of Arms Bill No 5, the majority of the provisions relate to ‘punishment’ and fines ranging from $20,000 to $500,000 plus 10 years or both.

Bill No 5 continues on this course of legal extremism that flies in the face of our long held principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In Section 11 it is stated that ‘In the prosecution of an offence under this act, the onus of proof shall be on the defendant to prove his or her innocence’

This is inconsistent with the rights of the Accused person as stated in Sec 14 (2) of the constitution which says and I quote ‘Each person charged with an offence has the right –

(a)     To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;

So because I have objected strongly against the proposed new flag and its legislation, anyone can claim I contravened Sec 11, and if it’s all made up and I can’t prove I did not, I get fined $20,000 plus get sent to jail for 10 years.

Nothing in these two Bills projects confidence from the authors that they feel the processes involved are democratic or just.

The heavy handed and threatening provisions in both Bills reveal a fearful and insecure administration that is obviously petrified of the people’s rejection of what they intend to do. So their answer, it appears, is to put in place ‘over the top’ measures that will hopefully suppress any thoughts of protest or rejection.

The threatening tone, intrusive nature and oppressive language of Bills 4 & 5 are, I am sad to say, a true reflection of our state as a nation today. Threatening comments by a senior Police officer on television last night, only adds to the sense of oppression I have referred to.

The fact that the notices issued by Parliament for these meeting attempts to limit the contributions of citizens to just three key aspects of the Bill is of deep concern.

This is inconsistent with our rights under Sec 17 of The Bill of Rights to Freedom of speech, expression and publication; so there is clearly a constitutional issue here.

The fact that the hearings are being held here in Parliament, ignoring totally the rights of the majority of our people who live outside Suva and are therefore deprived of access to this hearing, is anti-democratic.

The fact is this Committee is obliged under the Standing Orders to ensure full access and time for citizens to make representations but this does not appear to have been done yet, which is also another grave concern.

Section 15 of Bill No 4 outlines the conditions under which the ‘new flag’ can be changed. Interestingly it calls for a 75% vote of all members of Parliament as well as 75% of all registered voters in a referendum before it can be changed. 

I challenge the Government to demonstrate their confidence of the people’s support for their actions and make these provisions retrospective and apply it to our current flag as well.

It is ironic that the very party that desecrated and stole the design and parts of the coat of arms of our existing flag, and politicized its use, demonstrating no respect, no honour or regard for our present national symbol, should want all of the protection they have not given our current flag to be given to the Bainimarama-Khaiyum flag.

In any democracy, if you suppress the voice of the people long enough and you curtail their rights to express themselves, their frustrations will ultimately be manifested.

In a news item the other day Hon Chair, you were quoted as saying the petition on a referendum for our flag assigned to this committee by Parliament in February, has been referred back to Parliament because the committee does not have the jurisdiction to deliberate on it.

Mr Chairman, there is a mystery here. The people need to know who made that decision.  Where did the advice come from?  Which part of the Standing Orders allows such a decision to be made?

Approximately two thousand citizens 2,000 signed that petition. That’s 43% more people than the supposed total number of design entries.  This is excluding the 7,000 other citizens who submitted their preference for a continuation of the present banner blue? 

Their representations were excluded without any proper explanation.  Have any of you taken a look at some of the names of the signatories who are all patriotic citizens of Fiji?

Given that there has not been a referendum on whether or not the people want to change their flag and in light of this committee’s decision to refer the petition signed by 2,000 citizens back to Parliament, the Government cannot make any claim that the motivation to change our flag comes from the people of Fiji. It does NOT

What we can conclude absolutely is that 9,000 citizens through the Petition and the flag competition have officially registered their opposition to changing our current flag.

We can also look at it another way: 10,400 citizens in total have expressed their opinions about changing our flag through the only official means available to them, the petition to Parliament, and the Flag Competition.

Of this number 87% or 9,000, want the current flag retained.  In any opinion poll, the maximum respondents are usually between 1,000 to 2,000 people.

In this case 10,400 responded and of this 9000 did not want our flag changed.

So who really wants the flag changed? As the numbers show 87% say NO! As politicians, who no doubt want to be re-elected are you listening to the people or don’t they count now that you are in power?

Mr Chairman, you try to justify your government’s rejection of a referendum by stating that such a poll was not held in 1970 when we adopted our much-loved and admired noble banner blue.

With respect Hon Chair, you’ve got it wrong.  A referendum was not necessary in 1970.  We simply had to change our flag to reflect our status as an independent nation.

The choice of that flag 45 years ago was obviously a popular one as there has not been any desire by the people or successive democratic governments to change it up till now.

Allow me to make these final points:

A flag is supposed to be an emblem of togetherness. But this entire business of the forced flag change has accomplished exactly the opposite. It is dividing the nation. To that extent it is already a disaster.

It is very clear that the Prime Minister and Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum have miscalculated.

They were still thinking like dictators when THEY decided that we should have a new flag. They had forgotten that we are now supposed to be a democracy where the will of the people MUST prevail.

They have forgotten, or simply thrown aside, the basic principle that the decision to change a flag is one for the people to take.

Thank you

Picture
He was proud or was simply a fraudster - just before the election he was seen wearing the Fiji flag everywhere - in Fiji and abroad - now he is saying the flag and the symbols represent Fiji's oppressive colonial past
Picture

"Bill No 5 has 20 sections. Fifty five percent 55% of its provisions relate to offences citizens will face. These range from fines of $20,000 to $500,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both. These are extreme provisions and there are others that I shall be mentioning in a moment.  I ask the Government committee members to consider this:  Our existing noble banner blue, in the words of the Prime Minister, is widely loved and admired.  There is no extreme legislation governing its use and providing severe sentences for transgressions.  There’s been no need for this because citizens respect and admire this symbol of our nationhood. Why then has the Attorney-General introduced such draconian legislation for the Bainimarama flag?  Is this because the two of them expected opposition to it and this must be dealt with severely and in a manner to which we have become accustomed?"- Beddoes

Fijileaks: What Khaiyum (and SODEPA should be demanding) is changing the chairman, the blood-thirsty 'Mr Mortein' - Ashneel Sudhakar - who is chairing the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights, and  Debate on Fiji flag!

Picture
Picture
FOR YOUR DIARY

STATEMENT


[59/5/2015]

SODELPA OPPOSITION ALL SET FOR THEIR NEXT

10 CONSTITUENCY MEETINGS IN NADROGA - NAVOSA

The SODELPA opposition MP’s are gearing up for their next lot of Constituency visits, scheduled for Tuesday June 9th and Wednesday June 10th in Nadroga-Navosa.

Opposition Principal Administrative Officer Mick Beddoes said arrangements were in place, and members have been split into 5 groups and the meetings will be held at the following venues:

TUES JUNE 9TH:           6pm till 9pm

Namatakula                  Hon Ratu Sela Nanovo/Hon Nawaikula/Hon Salote Radrodro

Votua                           Hon Jiosefa Dulakiverata/Hon Mika Leawere/Hon Aseri Radrodro

Sigatoka Village           Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca/Hon Anare Vadei/

Nasama                        Hon Ratu Suliano Matanitobua/Hon Mosese Bulitavu

Cuvu Village                Hon Viliame Gavoka/Hon Semesa Karavaki/Hon Ro Kiniviliame Kiliraki


WED JUNE 10th                        5pm to 9pm

 Voua                           Hon Ratu Sela Nanovo/Hon Nawaikula/Hon Salote Radrodro

Tagaqe                         Hon Jiosefa Dulakiverata/Hon Mika Leawere/Hon Aseri Radrodro

Sila                              Hon Ratu Isoa Tikoca/Hon Anare Vadei

Malevu                         Hon Ratu Suliano Matanitobua/Hon Mosese Bulitavu

Nayawa                        Hon Viliame Gavoka/Hon Semesa Karavaki/Hon Ro Kiniviliame Kiliraki

Beddoes said that Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa and Hon Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu have not been assign any specific meeting venue as both will be making appearances at all of the 10 meetings during the two nights of meetings.

Beddoes said planning for the July Constituency meetings covering Ra, Tavua, Vatukola, Ba, Lautoka and Nadi were already underway. Beddoes said the team would move to cover Vanua Levu in August.

Authorized By              
Mick Beddoes



23 Comments
Chun Mun
5/6/2015 06:21:32 am

Like Millis Beddoes, I also watched Prince Charles give Ratu Mara our "independence instruments" , as I was present at Albert Park together with my friends from USP.

Beddoes says "Now those cherished links, the links that helped define our history are to be rejected by an act of dictatorship, supported by the leadership of the Fiji First Party and government"

This is NOT correct. Those links were broken by Rabuka in October 1987 when he declared Fiji to be a Republic !!

Reply
Fiji Flag
5/6/2015 08:09:39 am

Fiji Flag will be changed irrespective of people's views, the grass hopper leadership post 1987 coup have sealed it's fate.

So to recognise the above let's have a simple new flag, Green on one half to recognise the grasshoppers in kai/bai and white the other half to recognise the military for treason over 3 decades and surrendering democracy.

Congratulations to Rabuka, Speight and Bainimara.

Reply
Welcome Home
5/6/2015 02:11:23 pm

The 5 June 2015 submission on the a matter of a new national flag without the holding of a referendum made by Mr Mick Beddoes is fully supported. We live in the 800th year since the granting by King John of Magna Carta at Runnymede under Royal Seal. These rights were our rights until the fatal year of 1987. Both my father and my grandfather fought in two World Wars to ensure freedom for the people of the British Empire as it then was, now the Commonwealth of Nations. My own children have represented Fiji in rugby and cricket internationally under the noble banner blue of Fiji. What more is expected to honour our efforts and to recognise the sacrifices made by those who have died in the service of Peace? Respect is required for this submission and for all who would support it. Future generations of Fijians, yet again restored to Commonwealth status, deserve no less.

Reply
Vili
6/6/2015 06:08:45 pm

I too had my grandfather and father fight in both world wars and I have also served in the Middle East as a peacekeeper. But I don't support the idea of a referendum as it would be a waste of time and money.

No one demanded a referendum when Rabuka declared Fiji a republic.

Lets leave it to our elected MPs to make the decision for us.

The flag needs to be changed because we are an independent nation no longer a British colonial yoke. We need a a new rallying point in the 'New Fiji' and a new flag will be the part of the journey we are taking to get rid of the useless baggage of our past.

Kavita
6/6/2015 05:55:42 pm

A very good submission indeed, Mick Beddoes. I have no doubt it would have widespread support as it touches on rationale, history and objectively covers best interests of the nation.

We are hoping the submission gets its due consideration by the committee. We are hoping it will enlighten and does have the desired impact on the members specially the Chairman Sudhakar who may be a bit distracted and preoccupied with the bollywood star Sunny Leone's upcoming Fiji visit!

Reply
Oldie
5/6/2015 03:14:39 pm

Vinaka Beddoes and Vinaka Fijileaks for giving this issue some opportunity for some real talk.

I Love my Fiji Flag. I Loved it always and I really don't want another. That is all I want. When I die they can change it.

Reply
Suddenly
5/6/2015 03:24:29 pm

Suddenly, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Beddoes. Thank You, Sir.

Reply
Slow
5/6/2015 03:27:42 pm

We've lost all else..Please save us our Flag. Please !

Reply
Fiji First Party
5/6/2015 03:33:06 pm

They came, They STOLE and were happy hereafter....

Reply
?
5/6/2015 03:35:09 pm

What are our choices ?

Reply
WhatAbout?
5/6/2015 03:37:36 pm

An IMPOSED Constitution?????

Reply
The 1997 Constitution Lives...
5/6/2015 04:02:47 pm

The 2013 Constitution is a FRAUD on our nation.

Reply
Dekho
5/6/2015 06:55:53 pm

Let us not deceive ourselves with the claim of having returned to democracy. The reality is that we are a democracy only in name and going through the democratic rituals. In fact the dictatorship of Bainimarama and Khaiyum remain INTACT.
That ' s a Fiji Fact!

Reply
The Heart
5/6/2015 07:03:00 pm

"It gave compassion for your country,
Allowing you to lead the fight
To bring together all your people
Under our multiracial light"

Mick Beddoes
2nd February 1998

Reply
And
5/6/2015 10:50:58 pm

And let me repeat what I have said before. The flag change will be shoved down the throat of the people of Fiji whether they like it or not in the same way the changed constitution was. What the people want or say does not matter. What matters is what the dictator of Fiji Frank Bainimarama and his main man Khaiyum want. And they have made it crystal clear they want the flag changed. All the consultation and submissions and etc is bullshit.

Reply
Pandey
5/6/2015 11:04:30 pm

Change of Flag will mean people of Fiji has accepted sins of Baini Kaiyum. Every colour means blood on hands

Reply
rajend naidu
6/6/2015 12:06:31 am

Editor,
Writing for the Mail Online Piers Morgan described Sepp Blatter as the " corrupt, poisonous toad of FIFA who's been sucking the life out of football for years ... I can' think of a better day for football ... In my entire 45 years of watching and loving the game. Because make no mistake this is the day that signifies the beginning of the end of the despicable, despotic reign of Fifa's president Sepp Blatter".
Morgan was so right. Five days later Sepp Blatter resigned. The heat had got TOOMUCH for him. ( World press rips apart Sepp Blatter. The Daily Telegraph 28/05 ).
There is a lesson here in Blatter's rise and fall . People in positions of power make the mistake of thinking they can remain in power permanently.
And continue to ride roughshod over what others say.
Well Blatter has found out the hard way that is not so.
Sincerely,
Rajend Naidu
Sydney

Reply
Flag Use
6/6/2015 08:21:01 pm

Instead of hoisting the new flag, cut into pieces, use and flush it. That way it won't plug sewer lines.

Reply
Nation vs State
7/6/2015 04:13:08 am

If people understood that there is a vast difference between the "State" and the "nation", then I believe they would not care much about these trivial changes in symbols that the government wishes to carry out in order to clean up its image. The “State” is not a “nation,” though it is often misconstrued as such. The State is that institution which, as part of the political order, has monopoly over the use of force in a given territory. The nation, on the other hand, is simply the aggregation of individuals who share a common identity in terms of language, culture, or an affiliation to a particular territory, which provides the basis for their “mutual understanding.”

One important implication of this distinction is that while most people will accept the notion that the State should be divorced from religion--given the tendency for ‘special interest groups’ (read: the Methodist church) to exploit the coercive apparatus of the State in order to bestow privileges on its members at the expense of non-members--almost everyone would be appalled by the idea of banning religion across the nation. That’s because most of us understand, perhaps unconsciously, that the nation is much broader than the political institution called the State.

Now to the flag issue. There is no reason why we should not continue to take pride in symbols that we feel best represent our nation, even if the State decides to change its own symbols. The State is just one institution among the many in society that derives its powers from the respect and legitimacy that we [the nation] give to it, either actively or passively. So long as we continue to make the mistake of confounding the State with the nation, we will continue to give power to the arrogant and deluded idea that has taken root in most civilized societies today: i.e. everything that makes a nation must ultimately come from the State; and anything that does not come from the State can only exist or persist by permission from those who administer the State.

The Austrian political and economic philosopher Ludwig von Mises observed almost 100 years ago that “Imposed States dislike and destroy the delicate, complex, and evolved connections that comprise a true nation. This is why totalitarian regimes try to control language, religion, family, and all of the other intermediary institutions between individual and State: because those institutions help to define what it means to be a nation as distinct from a State.”

So long as we’re clear of this fundamental distinction between us [the nation] and them [the State], there is really no reason why we should give a rat’s ass about whatever changes the State wish to make to its flag. The nation or the people, remember, preexist the State. Thus, there is no reason why the symbols and identity of the nation cannot exist independently from that of the State. The confusion between the two only serves to give effect to the arrogant actions of those who have the conceit to think that they possess the knowledge and foresight to mould society according to some “grand vision” they have of it without unintended consequences. We cannot simply legislate our wishful ideas or desires into existence. Change takes time!

If people truly desire to maintain their association with the ‘noble banner blue’, then simply fly one high, out of your front porch, or pin one onto the wall of your living room, and then take a picture of it and set it as your cover photo on fb. The nation and the State are not one and the same! Let the State know who the real boss is.

Reply
Bahuki
7/6/2015 08:27:38 pm

That flag has been hoisted on many sporting arenas and has withstood the test of time for 45 years, but quite sad that "Noble Banner Blue" might end up turning out to become a "Noble Banner Bluff"

I won't be impressed if that new flag being hoisted becomes an example of Bhaiyum's own interests and not so much the public.

The flag change itself is a waste of time and money anyways when there are real problems out there that need more attention, like Fiji Soccer in the doldrums despite our young gladiators having the experience of a lifetime in the U20 World Cup and achieving at least a win. (Well done boys by the way).

Reply
Above Author
7/6/2015 10:41:03 pm

Let's hope the above Author 'Nation vs State 'can write on other topics, it provides common people like me to grapple with issues in an indepth, informative and analytical manner.

Reply
look
8/6/2015 05:05:04 pm

Vili,

You said your grand father fought in the two wars. They did patronize their beloved Fiji, The way their grandson has been talking waste everything.

I think they were just hiding in the arena waiting for the call to return.

Shame on you bro.

Stand for you people and country do not let those that fill your pockets control your bum.

Stand up Bro.

Reply
rajend naidu
14/6/2015 03:51:41 pm

Editor,
It is apparent from public opinion that the overwhelming majority of the people of Fiji want the existing national flag to remain unchanged and that they are not at all happy with the selected new designs.
The latter may lead the Mob in power to call for a new round of submissions on the new flag.
I can only but repeat what a fellow letter writer has said so eloquently in his letter on another subject, " Before we embark on yet another round of vacuous symbolism, I would prefer that we focus more on the things that really matter" - FOR THE PEOPLE OF FiJI and not the gang in government.
Sincerely,
Rajend Naidu
Sydney
( the quote is from H Ronald letter in the Canberra Times 14/06 ).

Reply

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