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

March 19th, 2017

19/3/2017

19 Comments

 

By Ashwin Raj

​The vitriolic diatribe that the Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other offices in Geneva Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan has been subjected to for a principled intervention that Fiji made against institutionalised racism and the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission for its presence and participation at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva necessitates a response.

While Fiji made a number of substantial interventions premised on principles of non-discrimination, human dignity and substantive equality spanning from social and economic rights to civil and political rights such as the rights of persons with disabilities with a particular focus on Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, protection of the rights of children in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Fiji’s commitment towards the ratification of all core human rights instruments by 2020 and its presidency over the United Nations Conference on Climate Change COP23, the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, the inexorable relationship between human rights and peace, the abolishment of death penalty, the impact of climate change on the rights of children and the incorporation of human rights education into the school curriculum in response to Fiji’s commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and access to medicine as one of the fundamental elements of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the polemicists have strategically and exclusively focused on racism.

So what exactly did the Ambassador say about racism that has riled the NFP, SODELPA, Wadan Narsey, self-selected moral entrepreneurs and arm chair critics? “It must be noted”, the Ambassador said, “that racism was institutionalised in Fiji to such an extent that it instilled in a privileged class a sense of entitlement based on ethnicity and CLASS, and that racist attitudes were engrained in all communities, which have resulted in mistrust, resentment and suspicion”.

The Ambassador never used the word “caste” as has been reported by the NFP and SODELPA and uncritically reproduced by the Fiji Times, Radio New Zealand and the ABCamongst various other social media platforms. She actually used the word “class”.

This begs the question, is the NFP and its leadership deliberately encouraging the conflagration of communalism given that the word “caste” has a particular historical and sociological resonance with the Indo-Fijian community?
One does not need a doctorate in sociology to appreciate the political purchase of the term caste or indeed need such a credential to condemn racism!

The string of racist, sexist and bigoted comments following the NFPs post on Facebook is a sad indictment of the fact that racism and prejudice is alive and thriving.

Extremely derogatory things have been said and continue to be said about the Ambassadors ethnicity, her gender, and her religion and the NFP did not even once intervene in the barrage of these attacks which are simply unconstitutional.

Not only did they selectively focus on the issue of racism, they also deliberately distorted what was said about racism to suite their own political agenda.

The Ambassador never apportioned the charge of racism to a single community. She actually said “…racist attitudes were engrained in all communities”. The following statement that Wadan Narsey so casually and conveniently dismissed is a testament to that:

“Fiji has embarked on a path of substantive equality and this path requires a level of gender, disability and cultural competence and the ability to understand that poverty and disadvantage exists in all cultural groups”.
So is it not obvious then that it is precisely these detractors who are reproducing a racist epistemology to give credence to their own political agenda?

Their vitriol raises fundamental questions about whether a non-indigenous can speak on indigenous issues. It is also a sad indictment of the fact that Fiji has yet to learn to speak meaningfully about race without descending into racism.

Incidentally, in reiterating Government’s priority in light of Fiji’s presidency over the United Nations Conference on Climate Change COP23 and underscoring the inextricable relationship between climate change and human rights and in particular recognising the specific vulnerabilities of women, children and persons suffering from disabilities in disasters and climate change induced movement, the Ambassador had adduced the significance of ensuring that “natural relocation policy is sensitive to indigenous rights in ensuring that the rights of the iTaukei to use land, food security including the protection of cultural rights, customary fishing rights and safeguarding of traditional grave sites are protected”.

So why did the NFP, SODELPA and Wadan Narsey not make any reference to these subsequent paragraphs appearing immediately after the paragraph that the NFP deliberately misquoted, SODELPA, the Fiji Times, Radio New Zealand, ABC reproduced and Wadan Narsey once again conveniently glossed?

Your guess is as good as mine!

So are the Ambassador and the Fijian Government really complicit in the erosion of indigenous rights and the distortion of the concerns of the iTaukei at the UN as has been intimated or are her interventions an affront to the political elite that have profited from racism in the last three decades?

Her interventions affirm the intersectional nature of indigenous community’s human rights concerns that affect the ordinary iTaukei in Fiji as opposed to the obsession with political preponderance unabashedly lampooned as an affirmation of indigenous rights.  Are these human rights costs of climate change to our iTaukei any less pressing because it has been conveyed to the world on behalf of Fiji by a woman, a Muslim and an Indo-Fijian?
The Ambassadors allusion to the creation of a privileged class as a result of institutionalised racism is about the complicity between the political elite across the racial divide in which the only people who suffered were the marginalised. To those who are suffering from social amnesia or wilful forgetfulness, here is the legacy of institutionalised racism in Fiji:
​
             The politicisation of the sugar industry by the political elite of both major ethnic communities and the consequent non-renewal of cane leases, displacement, social death and poverty accentuating existing class polarities not only between but within communities;
             An electoral system premised on ethnicity that entrenched racial compartmentalisation;
             The exploitation of non-unionised workers mostly iTaukei and Indo-Fijian women, in tax free zones established to arrest Fiji from the economic malaise following the 1987 coup;
             Social justice initiatives such as the enactment of the Social Justice Act 2001 and the implementation of the 2020 Affirmative Action Plan which were contrary to Section 44 (1) of the 1997 Constitution which mandated the design of programmes to achieve equality for all groups or categories of persons who are disadvantaged and therefore deprived of access to education and training, land and housing and participation in commerce and in all levels and branches of service of the state;
             Discrimination in the education sector as evidenced in the selection criteria for scholarships. Not only were Indo-Fijians deprived of equal opportunity, the requirements for a Fijian Affairs Board (FAB) scholarship also precluded children that were not registered under the Vola Ni Kawa Bula (VKB). Furthermore,the applicant had to have paternal lineage if she or he were a Rotuman  effectively depriving any child who had maternal lineage to iTaukei but paternal lineage to any other race;
             Not only were Indo-Fijian farmers rendered landless because of institutionalised racism, both the SVT in the 1990s and the SDL after coming into power in 2001 introduced policies that surreptitiously and permanently alienated the iTaukei from their customary land through the conversion of iTaukei land into freehold land. A damning example is the Momi Bay;
             Accumulation in the hands of a few in the name of indigenous capitalism to at least putatively bridge the gap between Indo-Fijians and iTaukei. The unlawful allotment of Fijian Holdings Limited shares by Laisenia Qarase who was the Director of Fijian Holdings Limited and a Financial Advisor to the Fijian Affairs Board and the Great Council of Chiefs after all prioritised immediate family members over the provincial, Tikina Councils and eligible iTaukei people;
             The introduction of the Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill and the Qoliqoli Bill  not only deprived Indo-Fijians from ownership and access to land and ocean, but precluded the iTaukei community as well;
             The unequal distribution of lease money and the introduction of goodwill payment over lease renewals.
​
Is the coalition of detractors denying that Fiji has a history of institutionalised racism? Erasing the ignominy of racism from our public memory will require the courage of conviction to confront this history. Will we speak up against racism and structural inequality again? Absolutely and unabashedly.

​
Fijileaks: In August 2006, four months before the December coup, VICTOR LAL had analysed in the Fiji Sun the Social Justice Bill and had revealed how the Qarase Goverment had lied that it was not consulted by the Fiji Human Rights Commission

FHRC consulted Government on Affirmative Action Report

The consultant who reviewed the Affirmative Action programme for the Fiji Human Rights Commission provided ample opportunity to the Prime Minister's Office to respond to various queries. The consultant's recommendations titled 'Report on Government's Affirmative Programmes 2020 Plan for Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the Blueprint - June 2006', which the Commission is yet to officially release, notes that 'the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release'.

If it is true, than the Prime Minister is clearly wrong to raise the concern that FHR report on the Blueprint is definitely biased as the Commission consultant did not approach him or his CEO to get the government's side of the story on the setting up of the program. He also expressed concern that the report was only prepared by one consultant who never spoke to anyone at the PM's Office.

Mr Qarase said he is now analyzing the report following comments by the Commission that it would take the government to court if it does not make immediate changes to the Affirmative Action Program. According to the report, the Government was provided with a number of opportunities to be heard during the investigation.

It was advised of the intention to investigate and invited to provide information about all affirmative action programmes. In March 2005 the Office of the Prime Minister was advised that a number of government ministries, departments and agencies had not responded to requests for information, and the assistance of that office was sought in obtaining their cooperation - some departments subsequently responded, others did not; That same month the CEO of the Prime Ministers Department, the report claims, advised that at a discussion of departmental Chief Executive Officers on 18th March 2005 it had been agreed that the Prime Minister's Office would reply on behalf of Government through its Chief Executive Officer, though no response was received.

​Over two months later, on 23rd May 2005, the CEO of Prime Ministers Office sent a copy of the publication For the Good of All, which had been tabled in Parliament in 2004. Later, on 24 November 2005, the same CEO sent copies of a second report on the implementation of the affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act that had been tabled as Parliamentary Paper No 108 of 2005. The CEO also supplied the Commission with a copy of the Preliminary Analysis by the ADB of the 2002/2003 Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (September 2005) together with comments.

Despite these opportunities already given, the Commission claims, it provided the Government with a final opportunity to comment on the investigators report and the draft report was sent to the government with the request that a response be received by 23 March 2006. The government subsequently sought an extension of time, and the date for final response was amended to 1 May 2006.

On 19 May 2006, according to the report, the CEO of the Prime Minister's Department wrote to the Commission to advise that the government had decided that rather than the Government submitting comments on the consultant's draft report to the Commission, the Commission should proceed to its publication and public release.
In 2004 the Commission had instigated an 'own motion' investigation into the Government's affirmative action programmes under the Social Justice Act 2001, aspects of the Blueprint initiated by the Interim Government in July 2000 and adopted and continued by the SDL Coalition Government, and the Social Justice Act itself. When notified of the Commission's intention to undertake the investigation, the SDL Coalition Government had offered its cooperation, says the report.

The Commission's decision to instigate the own motion investigation was triggered by the number of complaints it received from different sources about the Affirmative Action law and policy as well as by the Commission's own concerns about the proposals of two different Governments to enact Social Justice legislation for Fiji.
​
The investigation examined whether each affirmative action and blueprint programme, the policy, and the law complied with the requirements for affirmative action in Chapter 5 (section 44) of the Constitution. Based on the consultant's research, the report concludes that overall, but with some exceptions, the affirmative action programmes put in place by Government under the Social Justice Act 2001 do not comply with the Constitution.

The Social Justice Act 2001 does not comply with the Constitution.

It continues as follows:l Affirmative action programmes based on ethnicity do not comply with the Social Justice provisions (Chapter 5, section 44) of the Constitution.l The programme as a whole lacks a proportional balance between any disadvantage intended to be addressed and the measures being taken to alleviate the disadvantage. Minor or even presumed but non-existent disparities between ethnic groups have been used to justify the complete exclusion of groups other than indigenous Fijians and Rotumans from the bulk of the programmes

The programmes fail to make provision for all who are disadvantaged. This is particularly so in relation to women, who are far more disadvantaged than men. Individual programmes are weighed so disproportionately against Indians, women and other disadvantaged groups as to undermine the legality of all the programmes based on ethnicity.

No programme accurately links its goals to the disadvantage borne by the target group that it is intended to overcome.

Few programmes identify any performance indicators and those that do have no historical component. It is therefore not possible to monitor the effectiveness of the programmes without data that identifies trends before and after the programmes were initiated. There is no data that relates to whether alleged disparities between indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and Indians, for example, have reduced in the areas where affirmative action programmes have been introduced.

On the question whether Government has discharged its burden of establishing justification for the programmes, the report says that the Government's principal justification for its affirmative action programmes, that the rural sector is poorer than the urban sector and a majority of indigenous Fijians live in rural areas, is seriously flawed. In fact, the poorest households in rural areas are Indian.

The Government's other main justification (that the average income of indigenous Fijians is below that of Indians and Others and therefore all indigenous Fijians are disadvantaged and entitled to affirmative action) does not meet the legal standards imposed by the Constitution, the Human Rights Commission Act, and international law.
The programmes fail to justify the distinctions based on ethnicity on which most of the programmes are based. The Government has not established that 'the race-based affirmative action programmes meet the legal standards for these particular programmes'.

According to the report,

the programmes have not been established in response to a justifiable compelling Government interest;

the programmes are not narrowly tailored to remedy the past discrimination or present disadvantage that they purport to correct;

the programmes are not narrowly tailored to exclude from the indigenous Fijian group preferred, any members who are not, or are no longer disadvantaged, through means testing, or class-based and other appropriate measures;

the programmes are inflexible, without waiver provisions to narrow their scope;l criteria in relation to targets make no reference to those qualified group members in the relevant sector or industry;

there is no evidence that the Government has considered race-neutral alternatives;l although the programmes are temporary, the periodic review mechanisms are inadequate;l there is little or no consideration given to degree and type of burden, including on excluded groups, caused by the programme.The report goes on to ask whether affirmative action law and programmes are lawful, and answers in the following:

Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of the Social Justice Chapter in the Constitution, they are not protected by the exemption in section 44 (4). Accordingly, to the extent that certain disadvantaged groups are excluded from the Affirmative Action programmes, they are being unfairly discriminated against in contravention of their rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.l Since the Affirmative Action programmes do not fulfil the requirements of section 21 of the Human Rights Commission Act, they amount to unfair discrimination in breach of section 17 of the Act.

Since the Affirmative Action Programmes do not fulfil the 'special measures' requirements contained in international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), they amount to a contravention of the rights contained in section 38 (2) of the Constitution.

Since the Affirmative Action programmes are based on the Social Justice Act 2001, and the Social Justice Act itself breaches Chapter 5 of the Constitution, the programmes cannot be justified on grounds that they comply with the Act.It concludes by noting that the 50/50 by 2020 Development Plan, the Blueprint and the Social Justice Act 2001 have the combined effect of imposing large-scale discrimination against the minority ethnic groups, specifically on the disadvantaged categories within these groups, and more generally on other disadvantaged groups who have not been provided with affirmative action programmes to improve their conditions of life.

The affirmative action law, policies and programmes do not comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Constitution.

19 Comments
Chiku
19/3/2017 09:38:56 am

Doing what suits one's " own political agenda " is something Ashwin Raj is amply qualified to talk about. He has been doing that as a pseudo intellectual prop of the Bainimarama regime for quite some time now.
His defence of a co-regime functionary is understandable. The defence is unconvincing.
But it would improve Ashwin Raj's standing with his political masters as a loyal chamcha.

Reply
Fiji First Party
19/3/2017 09:00:00 pm

The vitriolic diatribe, since you pointed it out to us, Mr. Raj, is absolutely pathetic. It shows the “pettiness” of today’ NFP. It clearly reflects on its Leadership and the ‘caste of filth’ which comprises the NFP, itself, by allowing such comments to exist on NFP’s FB postings. An apology can never be enough and we earnestly plea to FHRC takes NFP to the cleaners over this issue. IT is not only deplorable but heart-breaking to read such filth on a Party FB.

Beyond its pettiness the NFP couldn’t see, and hence missed, an opportunity to question the whole ‘epistemology’ of Ambassador Shameem’s speech which was essentially based upon and is a justification of a Constitution which is vested with zilch ‘will’ of the People and is a Constitution which is not only FRAUD but IMPOSED unto the People of Fiji.

Reply
Tomasi
19/3/2017 09:11:27 pm

Well said Chiku. His unconvincing defence of the indefensible position of the BaiKhai regime on many vital issues is not only to improve his political standing with his masters. We can see that he is enjoying a very comfortable life and with the kind of brain he possesses, he can imagine great fortune and a secure life.

That famous question should therefore be posed to him and others of similar persuasions: "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?"

Reply
Chiku
20/3/2017 12:12:15 am

The American comedian and writer W C Field ( 1880 - 1946 ) gives us a good idea what Ashwin Raj and his fellow travellers are about in this saying of his : If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bulshit ".
That's what Raj and other regime lackeys have been doing - both at home and abroad.

Reply
bakoo
20/3/2017 07:16:31 am

What a dickhead

Reply
Gulong
20/3/2017 09:27:21 am

To the Lautoka gujersti businessman who owns 750 residential houses throughout Fiji, all in rent, and who recently borrowed money from the Resetve Bank to buy the Sheraton st Denarau, bringing Fiji Gujerati control of Denarau up to around 70% all this talk about racism and its alleged institutionalisation is irrelevant. The proposed divesting of FEA shares, currently owned by the Fiji public and their transfer into private hands is far more important than arguing about what that fool Ashwin Raj says. The divesting of FEA shares will see further consolidation of wealth at the top 1%, and takeover of public assets by Fiji First backers. The example from other parts of the world shows that electricity tartiffs will be bound to go up. Fiji is doomed. It's resources are being gobbled up by the Leventhian sinisterly lurking in the wings. We can thank Khfiy for that and the stupidity of zFrank Bainimarama and the Military Council

Reply
Blog Writer
20/3/2017 02:40:31 pm

This is a piece of pathetic writing, full of verbal diarrhea and no substance and I wonder if the Chairman of the Fiji Human Rights Commission has vetted and approved it.

The author definitely sounds like a little kid crying foul against the big bullies; for goodness sake you are the Director of the Commission. The problem here is writing with emotions wide open and so you are exposing yourself like an open book to the readers.

Apparently, this is very poor basic English writing – write a good headline and simple, brief concise and well-structured sentences.

Suggestions – 1st paragraph – We sincerely regret criticisms raised against the Fiji Human Rights Commission in relation to its participation in the....

Paragraph-2 - We consider the issue of racism has been taken out of context/misconstrued in light of the substantial interventions grounded in the vision of equality enshrined in our 2013 Constitution. These interventions include but not limited to....

Also, the Commission is a public office and therefore members of the public have the right to voice their opinion against it and “...self-selected moral entrepreneurs and arm chair critics...” deserve your respect as members of the public and their Constitutional rights to freedom of expression.

I have not gone past the 3rd paragraph but sufficient for me to question the integrity, intelligence and competence of the author as the Director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission.

Reply
Refugee
20/3/2017 10:42:25 pm

Eventually, with generous assistance of the online Encarta dictionary I have figured out (surprisingly), that Ashwin Raj makes a hell-lot-of-a sense. Ambassador Shameem never used the term ‘caste’ – so that story finishes there. We fail to understand what the NFP is on about. Now the other thing, Raj makes explicit is, what is meant by the term “institutionalised racism” in context of Shameem’s speech and which I also find (surprisingly) agreeable with Raj. Here is how...

We never clearly understood EXACTLY why the Qarase SDL Government ignored the real and sorry plight of the Girmit Center Refugees. The government had all the information and data; quantified and verified, about the nature of human rights violations suffered by the Indo-Fijian families in the camp and their actual losses incurred.

An miserly allocated $F1.5 Million dollars, for the refugee rehabilitation fund, which the former and recently retired President promised the victim families, by his visit to the camp, never arrived or was given. That small token help would have restored dignity and livelihoods to our battered souls. But no, soon we were conveniently evicted out of the Girmit Center, uncompensated. Some NEVER returned to their original abode. Others did and have slowly picked up their pieces. We at the camp totally failed to understand WHY a government can be so dishonourable and ruthless. Not only that, we later discovered (as the evidence were presented) in two famous criminal cases, that our allocated Money was STOLEN by Qarase SDL for vote-buying purposes. Again, we failed to understand how a government can be that insensitive and STEAL from the poorest of the poor.

Just consider that in 2004 the Qarase SDL was pushing hard and fast for the ‘Affirmative Action’ programmes for the itaukei (Victor Lal, above), whilst yet, in full knowledge of the sorry plight and the uncompensated state of the victim Indo-Fijians families - victims of politically and racially incited violence. We are even now, lost for words, to truly come to terms with this behaviour of a government called the Qarase SDL !!

But thanks to Shameem and Raj, we now know and understand completely, the atypical behaviour of the Qarase’s SDL government –by the special word, called the “institutionalised racism”.

Perhaps, Raj or Shameem, now having defined “institutionalised racism” may further offer us avenues for Victim Redress of HR violations -due to politically and racially incited violence and then the Victims ignored due to the “institutionalised racism” of a particular government. Shouldn’t the previous government’s commitments and/or liabilities be carried forward?

We may add, (for Raj and Shameem to note) that the refugees feel further aggrieved by the present government of Bainimarama and Khaiyum, by their Shameful actions of STEALING the Intellectual Property belonging to the party of the refugees – again shamelessly STEALING from the poorest of the poor.

This is interesting times...of wrong side up history.

Reply
Rajend Naidu
21/3/2017 12:58:23 am

Editor,
Institutionalised Racism of the Indian Kind
We learn from the article A ' new India ' where fringe is the mainstream ( Aljazeera 21/3 ) by Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay ( Delhi based writer and journalist with a special interest in Hindu nationalistic politics. He is author of Narendra Modi : The Man, The Times ) that the decision by the Indian PM Modi and his Hindu nationalist party , the BJP , to appoint the hard line Hindu priest Yogi Adityanath as the chief minister of India's most populous state UttarPradesh recon firms Indian Muslim's anxieties about Modi's India.
"The dismay over the choice of chief minister stems from Adityanath being no benign Yogi. Instead, he is the undisputed mascot of rabid, vitriolic and abusive supporters of Hindu sectarianism "...
Hindu sectarianism is institutionalised racism in the India context.
In the Fiji context we saw the rise of the same phenomenon in the Taukei Movement and the demand for Fiji to be declared a Christian State after Rabuka's racist military coup of 1987.
Some of the " undisputed mascot of rabid, vitriolic,and abusive supporters " of Fijian nationalism of that time got appointed in Bainimarama's " multiracial " line up following his 2006 coup.
What are we to make of that?
Sincerely,
Rajend Naidu

Reply
Welcome Home
21/3/2017 05:52:29 am

'Atypical behaviour' of the SDL government? Actually, it was quite in character - conformity even. But notwithstanding this quibble the other points made stand. Years ago, one had written of meeting with a seventy year old widow at the school refuge in Lautoka only three days after the attacks in Muaniweni. She had nothing left but a tattered green sari. Her house,personal belongings, animals all gone: slaughtered, burned or carried off. Upon returning home after this meeting, I was traumatised in my very soul. No rest, no peace until global witness is made of this (and other such) atrocity. Still not fully revealed; still uncompensated; still 'hanging in the air' of Degei and Nakauvadra. Tormenting us yet into a tormented future if no full and lasting address is made. May God so help us! We cannot seriously believe in our worthiness to assume a seat on any Council or Commission mandated to protect human rights? This would be hypocrisy of the Highest Order.

Reply
Refugee
21/3/2017 10:21:06 pm

Always a pleasure to read you. And thank you for helping out the refugees. Fijileaks is an amazing medium and Victor Lal is Fiji's most blazing star journalist, who makes us think and remember, what could easily be forgotten, for us to be better, for the future. Peace and Love.

Reply
muaniweni refugee
21/3/2017 06:37:57 am

Refugee pls stop defending your sister-inlaw nazhet shameem.
make up your mind fijifirst party, new identity refugee or anit singh.

Reply
Welcome Home
21/3/2017 07:30:24 am

It has just been announced by both BBC and Al Jazeera news that Martin McGuiness has passed away. From 21 yr old second in command of the IRA to Peacemaker and recently retired Minister in the government of Northern Ireland, a close friend to Sir Ian Paisley: his longtime major antagonist. "Blessed are The Peacemakers". May you rest in Peace, Martin McGuiness! He died, we are informed, "of a rare heart condition". Like so many rare peacemakers before him?

Reply
splashViti
21/3/2017 12:00:47 pm

Gosh, did anyone spot a glaringly (selective) omission in the litany of complaints that Ashwin Raj says comprise 'the legacy of institutionalised racism' in Fiji's history? Why, our very own very expensive, tax-funded and predominantly i-taukei Military Force that consistently blew its yearly budget through the roof since its establishment.

Seems those pesky fleas have clouded Raj's thinking which btw, was quite apparent during the Sawari incident when he alluded to the speculation on social media re 'dumping ground' (a national security issue?) instead of focussing solely on Sawari's human right as an intended asylum seeker nevermind the brief delay in lodging his papers. Some shameless and unabashed 'masipolo' right there Ashwin...

Still on the litany of complaints - even if these broad sweeping complaints were to be closely examined and subsequently proved valid, they do not by themselves or cumulatively, excuse the UNLAWFUL TAKEOVER of a democratically elected government. Simply put, there is no excuse whatsoever, for the unlawful takeover of an elected government. They know it and we all know it, hence their closely guarded immunity in their beloved 2013 Constituton (Rabuka should have just done the honourable thing, o ye of little faith).

I'm not for a second trying to trivialise the litany of complaints but these kinds of challenges are neither unique to Fiji nor are uncommon in a budding democracy, given the many competing interests that would naturally try their damnedest to gain a foothold over the other and if possible, at others' expense. That's the reason for having checks and balances in place - to save us from ourselves. If legislation or policy do not pass constitutional muster, there were avenues to pursue redress and the Fiji Human Rights Commission as a constitutionally mandated office, effectively pursued this as Victor Lal helpfully points out in his analysis reproduced here. The point is - it was critical to work through these challenges within the ambit of the Rule of Law and not resort to coups to attain some elusive Utopia (a convenient cover for raking up ill-gotten gain). And what were Ashwin et al up to in those days anyway? Did they do something about these challenges such as resigning in protest to mobilise and lobby for changes, or were they comfortably nesting on govt payroll while undermining and plotting to subvert the elected government?

Well here we are... I think before vying for a HRC seat, Ashwin Raj and cronies could best direct their collective energy to try and regain Fiji's lost international accreditation of its human rights commission since the commission is neither a full member ("A" status which we held before the coup) nor an associate member ("B" status) of the Asia Pacific Forum (APF) - due to Fiji's continuing non-compliance with the Paris Principles - this is the criteria governing national human rights institutions that requires amongst other things: "independence" and "autonomy" from government - see http://www.asiapacificforum.net/members/

Reply
Chiku
21/3/2017 09:14:17 pm

splashViti, you are spot on in your scrutiny of the glaring, selective omission in Ashwin Raj's litany of complaints comprising " the legacy of institutionalised racism " in Fiji's history. You couldn't have been more succinct in your analysis and exposure of Raj's inherent bias which he attempted to present as an objective analysis of racism in Fiji to justify the unlawful takeover by his political masters Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum.
Raj should know he can't fool everyone with his bullshit.

Reply
Rajend Naidu
22/3/2017 12:51:09 am

Editor,
Treatment of Refugees
We learn from a press release by UNHCR spokesman Babar Baloch and the UNHCR article ' UNHCR concerned about return of Nigerian refugees from Cameroon ' ( 21 March ) that so far this year Cameroon has forcefully returned over 2,600 refugees ( including children and pregnant women ) back to Nigerian border villages against their will. The Nigerian refugees had fled from these border villages because of the attacks and atrocities by Boko Haram.
While acknowledging the generosity of the Government of Cameroon and the local communities who host over 85,000 Nigerian refugees, the UNHCR spokesman called on the Government of Cameroon to honour its obligations under international and regional refugee protection instruments, as well as Cameroonian law.
We had only one refugee Sawari come into the country seeking protection and we forcefully returned him to PNG without due process of Fijian law and without proper consideration of our obligations under international refugee law.
We did not even let him take his bag with him.
And, we are told we have for the first time in our history become a
" true democracy " following the Bainimarama coup...
Some intelligent people have convinced themselves this is indeed the case.
Is it?
Sincerely,
Rajend Naidu

Reply
Welcome Home
22/3/2017 04:14:41 am

Fear and a Culture of Silence imposed through threats or actual violence emanating from covert/shrouded quarters instill trauma across a population. We need only look at Eire/N. Ireland or Cambodia to see and learn how effective this may be. People become immured in a Cage of Trauma. Fiji needs assistance to break out of its cage. Those who have survived and remain somewhat intact through multiple coups d'état must be encouraged in Safe Spaces to talk and speak up. Dialogues have taken place but now they need to be multiplied and they must be external as well as internal Dialogues. Angelina Jolie has experience of this process and so does Christiane Amanpour and others who have reported from war zones in the past twenty years. Fiji has escaped the attention it so urgently required by banning and harassing sensitive, courageous and deeply engaged reporting.

Reply
Bahuki
22/3/2017 08:30:41 am

I always thought Raj was another lapdog for Frankie and AK-47, no wonder why he's just a pawn and nothing more

Reply
paula raqeukai
22/3/2017 11:32:28 pm

Does not worth a cent to reply to this idiot racist ARaj!....the other four fingers are pointing directly to him....pathetic and full of empty drum noise.....

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