RACISTS HOUND OUT RKS PRINCIPAL ARVIND PRASAD
As an 'Old RKS Boy' and one of pioneer Indo-Fijians at RKS in the 1970s, our Founding Editor-in-Chief condemns in the strongest terms the interefence of RKS Old Boys Association president Alivereti Yaya in the removal of Arvind Prasad, and Please STOP the bullsh*t that Prasad asked to be re-located to another school. He had no choice, with racist hounds hell bent on driving him out of the school because of his RACE. Where was RKS Old Boys Association when one of its old boys Minister Timoci Natuva was accused of stealing millions from FFP government?
"In the letter that was delivered to the Ministry of Education, the RKS Student Council claims that some of the changes that the Principal [Prasad] made include the replacement of their meke practice every Wednesday by a dorm level meeting. The Student Council has claimed that the Principal has made a lot of changes within the school system like abolishing the tradition and culture of what RKS is known for.
JO NATA: From RKS to Prison after falling victim to bogus Fijian nationalists in 2000
Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief: Tradition is a Guide, NOT a Jailor. Were was the RKS Old Boys Association when JO NATA, the exact contemporary of our Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief at RKS and later at the old Fiji Sun, joined George Speight in the largest RACIST MEKE in Fiji in 2000? Nata forgot that once our Founding Editor-in-Chief sat a shoulder away from him in the same classroom, wore sulu, attended native Fijian culture, language and history classes, and sang CHULUCHULULU, the traditional Fijian meke song, accompanied with lali (slit drums) and derua (stamping tubes), clap sticks and cobo (clapping with hollowed hands) every WEDNESDAY. Did it help in transforming Nata into a 'Good Native Fijian'?
NO, NO, NO. So, stop dragging in mekes etc. And, that is why we have vowed to STOP Niko Nawaikula and others from peddling their perverse indigenous right slogans under Rabuka's sulu. Never again, will we allow Indo-Fijians to be reduced to Second Class Citizens, with the racists hiding behind mekes and talatalas to subjugate Indo-Fijians in Fiji.
Ironically, after losing the 1999 general election, it was Rabuka, a petty commoner, who became chairman of the Great Council of CHIEFS, and later a life-member. In September 2006, Rabuka called for the abolition of Fiji's chiefly system and for the nationalisation of land owned by native Fijians: "The indigenous Fijians will argue that this will leave them with nothing but in the end, it's for the good of all. We'll all benefit in the end."
RKS might be predominantly native Fijian but it is funded by the taxpayers. The RKS Old Boys Association president Yaya does not speak on behalf of our Founding Editor-in-Chief. Full Stop! In the 1970s RKS was a fertile breeding ground in reinforcing TRIBALISM among native Fijians, with the students choosing to go into dormitories according to their tribal leanings: Ma'afu, Cakau, Degei, Sukuna dorms were hotbed for tribal politics, and it still persists in modern day Fijian politics
The RKS Old Boys Association president Yaya
From Fijivillage News:
RKS Old Boys Association supports the Ministry's decision to relocate the Principal but does not support the decision to suspend the students.
The RKS Old Boys Association supports the Ministry of Education’s decision to relocate the RKS Principal but does not support the decision to suspend the students that were involved in the protest.
This has been highlighted by the Association President Alivereti Yaya who says that these students were forced to do what they did because of the issues they were facing under the leadership of the Principal.
Yaya says they will now be asking the Ministry for the Association to help in the counselling of the students.
He says the Principal was always involving police in all the matters of the school and they feel some of the issues can be dealt with internally and this is where the Old Boys Association can help.
Yaya says this will also take away the tag of being a criminal for some of the students.
The RKS Student Council has claimed that the Principal has made a lot of changes within the school system like abolishing the tradition and culture of what RKS is known for.
In the letter that was delivered to the Ministry of Education, the Student Council claims that some of the changes that the Principal made include the removal of the RKS prominent competition known as the Sovanivalu, not allowing the school chaplain to enter the school premises, the replacement of their meke practice every Wednesday by a dorm level meeting.
The Sovanivalu is the house competition for most disciplined, best cleanliness and academic of the year.
The Student Council also claimed that the Principal had told them that by the end of the year, the school roll should be 500 and that is why some students were suspended.
They claim that their Principal has never had an assembly and that is why students who were playing rugby were suspended because it was not addressed in the assembly. The RKS Student Council claims that they have many food shortage complaints and when they had informed the Assistant Principal, he said that the Principal is looking into it.
They have also questioned in their letter if the Principal is also teaching any class as he has not been teaching as every teacher is being employed to teach.
They claim that the flag-raising ceremony that was done over the years has been removed and it has been done anyhow now. The council further claims that the Principal’s son has been told many times from the teachers to cut his hair but they claim he does not want to listen.
There are other claims that the Principal leaves his dog untied and it has allegedly bitten the Deputy Head Boy.
There are also claims that the Head Boy’s quarters has now been changed to the school security guardhouse and they are also saying that it is a sign of disrespect when the Principal is crossing the main ground in the car when no one is allowed to cross the ground without special reasons.
The council says RKS is just the same as living in a village and it has it’s by-laws which everyone must follow.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Education Rosy Akbar says the team that is conducting the investigations regarding the protest and allegations against the Principal met with parents of some of the students who were believed to have been in leading positions of the incident.
RKS Old Boys Association supports the Ministry's decision to relocate the Principal but does not support the decision to suspend the students.
The RKS Old Boys Association supports the Ministry of Education’s decision to relocate the RKS Principal but does not support the decision to suspend the students that were involved in the protest.
This has been highlighted by the Association President Alivereti Yaya who says that these students were forced to do what they did because of the issues they were facing under the leadership of the Principal.
Yaya says they will now be asking the Ministry for the Association to help in the counselling of the students.
He says the Principal was always involving police in all the matters of the school and they feel some of the issues can be dealt with internally and this is where the Old Boys Association can help.
Yaya says this will also take away the tag of being a criminal for some of the students.
The RKS Student Council has claimed that the Principal has made a lot of changes within the school system like abolishing the tradition and culture of what RKS is known for.
In the letter that was delivered to the Ministry of Education, the Student Council claims that some of the changes that the Principal made include the removal of the RKS prominent competition known as the Sovanivalu, not allowing the school chaplain to enter the school premises, the replacement of their meke practice every Wednesday by a dorm level meeting.
The Sovanivalu is the house competition for most disciplined, best cleanliness and academic of the year.
The Student Council also claimed that the Principal had told them that by the end of the year, the school roll should be 500 and that is why some students were suspended.
They claim that their Principal has never had an assembly and that is why students who were playing rugby were suspended because it was not addressed in the assembly. The RKS Student Council claims that they have many food shortage complaints and when they had informed the Assistant Principal, he said that the Principal is looking into it.
They have also questioned in their letter if the Principal is also teaching any class as he has not been teaching as every teacher is being employed to teach.
They claim that the flag-raising ceremony that was done over the years has been removed and it has been done anyhow now. The council further claims that the Principal’s son has been told many times from the teachers to cut his hair but they claim he does not want to listen.
There are other claims that the Principal leaves his dog untied and it has allegedly bitten the Deputy Head Boy.
There are also claims that the Head Boy’s quarters has now been changed to the school security guardhouse and they are also saying that it is a sign of disrespect when the Principal is crossing the main ground in the car when no one is allowed to cross the ground without special reasons.
The council says RKS is just the same as living in a village and it has it’s by-laws which everyone must follow.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Education Rosy Akbar says the team that is conducting the investigations regarding the protest and allegations against the Principal met with parents of some of the students who were believed to have been in leading positions of the incident.
Remember SODELPA leader Sitiveni Rabuka's claim: 'God whispered in my sleep to carry out the coup, for Hindus and Muslims are pagans who must be converted to Christianity."  |  |
The Final Conclusion of Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum's thesis Cultural Autonomy (download below) submitted to the University of Hong Kong. Fijileaks: If one were to examine it objectively, which our Founding Editor-in-Chief had the privilege to examine before it was submitted, there is nothing wrong in the 'Sunset Clause', for as we ourselves have argued, Tradition is a Guide, Not a Jailor.
After all, some of Fiji's most prominent chiefs had broken away from tradition and had appointed a coupist and commoner Sitiveni Rabuka
as chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs. Read Khaiyum's conclusion:
"Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women, the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of protecting Muslim interests...The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses."
Letter: Critique of FML decision to make submission to Constitution Commission
by A S Khaiyum
The claim by some executive members of the Fiji Muslim League ('League') that Muslims support a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji] and demand separate seats merely because the executive says so is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the everyday and majority of Muslims in our country.
The executive lack the mandate to speak as a representative body for Muslims since the League has been and is essentially an administrative institution managing and maintaining mosques, schools, orphanages, a sugar cane farm and real estate.
In addition to the lack of mandate the arguments and justifications espoused by the executive for a review and separate seats are flawed. They are flawed because our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji], in particular the Bill of Rights, namely, sections 38(2) and 35 more than adequately guarantee and protect religious freedom and minority rights. Indeed if an almost identical South African Bill of Rights provision protects the rights of the minority South African Muslims then what is so special about and differentiates Muslims in Fiji?
On the basis that last century the then nascent League made submissions on separate seats, it is argued today that so called Muslim rights will be achieved if these seats as submitted then are allocated now. To refer to a resolution passed some seventy years ago, in an era with its own specificities and dynamics, as justification for separate seats in today's Fiji illustrates a complete ignorance and denial of our political, social and constitutional history/experience as a nation-state.
Indeed if we were to hark back and uphold the standards of 1929 then commoner indigenous Fijians and women would not have the right to vote. Fiji and the rest of the world have moved along. Clearly such absurd referrals to the past illustrate an enormous vacuum in basic critical thinking and analysis, discourse and a general prevalence of obscurantism within the executive.
Furthermore, it aptly demonstrates a complete ignorance of contemporary developments in and interpretations of Islamic law and jurisprudence vis-a-vis constitutional, human rights and international law and conventions. More tragically, however, the opportunism of the executive displays the absence of and lack of belief in justice, compassion, selflessness and basic human decency.
Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women,the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of "protecting Muslim interests."
Indeed the absence of proper representation, transparency, accountability and ultimately legitimacy also plague other local institutions in contemporary Fiji.
The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses.
Therefore, the current administration and all Fiji Islanders must understand and recognize the majority of Muslims who believe in basic human decency, justice, democracy and constitutionalism reject the idea of separate seats and/or a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji].
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
[email protected]
Letter: Critique of FML decision to make submission to Constitution Commission
by A S Khaiyum
The claim by some executive members of the Fiji Muslim League ('League') that Muslims support a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji] and demand separate seats merely because the executive says so is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the everyday and majority of Muslims in our country.
The executive lack the mandate to speak as a representative body for Muslims since the League has been and is essentially an administrative institution managing and maintaining mosques, schools, orphanages, a sugar cane farm and real estate.
In addition to the lack of mandate the arguments and justifications espoused by the executive for a review and separate seats are flawed. They are flawed because our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji], in particular the Bill of Rights, namely, sections 38(2) and 35 more than adequately guarantee and protect religious freedom and minority rights. Indeed if an almost identical South African Bill of Rights provision protects the rights of the minority South African Muslims then what is so special about and differentiates Muslims in Fiji?
On the basis that last century the then nascent League made submissions on separate seats, it is argued today that so called Muslim rights will be achieved if these seats as submitted then are allocated now. To refer to a resolution passed some seventy years ago, in an era with its own specificities and dynamics, as justification for separate seats in today's Fiji illustrates a complete ignorance and denial of our political, social and constitutional history/experience as a nation-state.
Indeed if we were to hark back and uphold the standards of 1929 then commoner indigenous Fijians and women would not have the right to vote. Fiji and the rest of the world have moved along. Clearly such absurd referrals to the past illustrate an enormous vacuum in basic critical thinking and analysis, discourse and a general prevalence of obscurantism within the executive.
Furthermore, it aptly demonstrates a complete ignorance of contemporary developments in and interpretations of Islamic law and jurisprudence vis-a-vis constitutional, human rights and international law and conventions. More tragically, however, the opportunism of the executive displays the absence of and lack of belief in justice, compassion, selflessness and basic human decency.
Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women,the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of "protecting Muslim interests."
Indeed the absence of proper representation, transparency, accountability and ultimately legitimacy also plague other local institutions in contemporary Fiji.
The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses.
Therefore, the current administration and all Fiji Islanders must understand and recognize the majority of Muslims who believe in basic human decency, justice, democracy and constitutionalism reject the idea of separate seats and/or a review of our [1997] Constitution [of Fiji].
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
[email protected]
