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

PLAIN TALKING! Graham Davis to Wadan Narsey: 'Rather than these tortuous pieces about how you woz all robbed, what about regrouping for another tilt at the windmill at the next election?'

12/10/2014

19 Comments

 
Picture
Graham Davis has just posted a comment on your blog post, Wadan Narsey: The new catastrophic risks to Fijian sovereignty: "Gee Wadan, when you get SODELPA luminaries like Pita and Mere tickling you gonads, you must feel pretty damn important. But you're not so good at accepting the will of the people. It is the height of arrogance to cry foul after a democratic vote that people like Pita and Mere took part in, was declared credible, free and fair by international observers but which you all refuse to accept because the skittles didn't fall your way. I wouldn't be remotely bothered about commenting here except for the fact that you keep mentioning me in unflattering terms. I can understand your frustration but can I make a helpful suggestion? Rather than these tortuous pieces about how you woz all robbed, what about regrouping for another tilt at the windmill at the next election? And then taking your (surely revised) platform to the people just like Voreqe Bainimarama did and submitting yourselves to their judgment? This particular exercise in self flagellation may be therapeutic for you and your dwindling band of groupies but it is very tiresome for anyone who believes in genuine democracy and winning fair and square. I try to make a point of keeping an eye on the blogs just to see what it happening but this piece just stinks of very sour grapes."

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/wadan-narsey-the-new-catastrophic-risks-to-fijian-sovereignty

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/a-new-democracy-graham-davis-reflects-on-2104-election-for-fiji-it-is-a-wonderful-moment-in-the-life-of-the-nation-and-a-historical-watershed-the-birth-of-our-first-real-democracy
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/bula-fiji-keep-holidaying-in-fiji-for-democracys-sake
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/reality-check-truthforfiji-tells-it-straight-to-sodelpa-hello

Picture

A statement issued by the Fiji Native & Tribal Congress (FNTC) to mark Fiji’s Independence Day of October 10 2014

LEST WE FORGET

Exactly 140 years ago today, on Saturday 10th October 1874,  the Chiefs of the Vanua O Viti signed the Deed of Cession that contained within it under Clause 4 and Clause 7 the promise by the Queen to recognize and protect their right to self determination under the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and their right to own their native land. Recently during his campaign address at Naduri, Macuata, the Turaga Tui Cakau said such was an important and significant occasion to the Chiefs and their subjects that the ceremony had to be postponed to a later date to allow a “manua” to travel to Macuata to bring forth the Turaga Tui Macuata.

Shortly before the actual signing, Ratu Seru Cakobau handed over his favorite war club, the same war club that now sits as the mace, signifying authority, of parliament today. It was really a symbol of relief on his part. Earlier, in the face of wanton grab of native land by the white settlers, he had stated boldly to his fellow chiefs that if they do not cede the Vanua O Viti to a higher and stronger nation like England to protect their land and their rights, all their land will be taken, there will be nothing left, there will be no more Fijian race…. “We will be like flotsam on the beach to be picked up by the first passerby”

Relief because the Crown’s promise to protect their land and their cultural identity under the headship of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga were then entrenched under Clause 4 and Clause 7 of the Deed of Cession. These were later formalized into law under the 1876 Native Affairs Ordinance that established the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the 1882 Native Land Ordinance that established the Veitarogi Vanua to determine and register native landowners under the Native Lands Register and iVola ni kawabula.

Incidentally, the right to self determination recognized under Cl7 of the Deed of Cession and the 1876 Native Affairs Ordinance (now known as the Fijian Affairs Act) and the right to own native land under Cl4 of the Deed of Cession and 1882 Native Lands Ordinance (now administered under the 1905 Native Lands Act and 1940 Native Land Trust Act, are now recognized as Human Rights under the International Labor Organization 169 (ILO169) and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007 UNDRIP).

During the opening of parliament on the 6th October 2014, and in his Fiji Day celebration message, His Excellency the President has been echoing the “Government’s message and policy of a new dawn”. 

It is a policy that appear to label the period 15th May 1987 to December 2006 the date when Bainimarama carried out his coup as the darkest chapter in Fiji’s history. The new dawn appears to imply Bainimarama is a savior that is restoring to us the great era of equality that were being pursued prior to 1987, an equality that in the last 8 years has been achieved by the measure of equal citizenry that targets the removal of indigenous rights including the right to their name, the right to maintain their customary institution like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the right to maintain the ownership and control of their native land. These rights have thus far been removed by the 17 Decrees that have been passed to do just that and which under the new constitution automatically becomes law without the need for debate and vote.

The FNTC wishes to remind all that the Deed of Cession of 1874 was basically an agreement that entrenched the right of Native Fijians to self determination under the headship of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and other customary institutions. It is an agreement that entrenched their right to the ownership of their land.

The government’s so called policy of new dawn especially its aspect that is targeting the removal of native Fijian indigenous rights to achieve equal citizenry runs counter to the spirit of the Deed of cession and the ILO169 and the 2007 UNDRIP that recognize Indigenous Peoples rights to their name, customary institutions, and ownership of their land and resources.

The government will do well to take heed of the advise given to it by the UN Human Rights committee (CERD) at its 81st session in August 2012 at Geneva when it advised its representative that “the passing of policies and laws to dismantle customary institutions, to take away their name and take away the control of their land are acts of discrimination. Fiji should recognize native Fijian group rights, as well as recognize the rights of other communities and individual rights and make sure that none topples the other." FNTC
See also:
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/standing-up-for-indigenous-rights-listen-to-sodelpa-candidate-and-lawyer-niko-nawaikula-explain-how-aiyaz-khaiyum-has-introduced-anti-indigenous-decrees-based-on-his-controversial-thesis
Picture
From the Archives:

By VICTOR LAL,
Fiji Sun, 19 November 2006


THE GREAT LAND DEBATE:
"
The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation? It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers. It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries."

‘Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’. His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief." The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.
The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.

The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term. However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.

It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism. As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.

The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so. In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’ The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating: ‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.

The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk. He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912. The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant. Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.

Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills. The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’. The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.

The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared - the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau. Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.

The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three pounds a head. Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans. King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.

Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.

The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.

The missionaries were not behind - they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation. It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could framed.

The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’ In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.

Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.

The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation?
It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.
It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.

The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship. According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’. It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people. Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei - a land owning chief in the country?

Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.


Picture
Picture
19 Comments
First Time Voter
12/10/2014 05:24:54 am

Well put, Graham.

Vinaka Victor for highlighting it.

Reply
Aiyaz Khaiyum student of Victor Lal
12/10/2014 07:01:25 am

I am increasingly convinced that everything the outspoken Victor Lal wrote on land, chiefs,church and indigenous rights found their way into Khaiyum's decrees and FFP Manifesto.

Khaiyum is nothing but a protege of Victor Lal who had, as our nationalist hero Kubuabola said about Lal, an 'Indian herrevol' determined to control us i-taukei Fijians.

Graham Davis once wrote that Yash Ghai and Victor Lal are very good friends going several decades; now it makes sense to me - wasn't Khaiyum a student of the Kenyan professor Yash Ghai, under whom Khaiyum wrote the 'Sunset Clause' to finish everything Fijian.

Hmmmmm - how much of Victor Lal's thinking and writings found their way into 'The Khaiyum Thesis' and FijiFirst Party Manifesto.

We will never allow Victor Lal and Aiyaz Khaiyum to control Fij.

Isalei, Wake Up, I-Taukei before its TOO LATE

Reply
Ooi
12/10/2014 07:12:28 am

What wake-up and Taki.?
Nah Moce mada!

Reply
Commoner Happy
12/10/2014 07:50:13 am

The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners.

If this written by Victor Lal was appropriated by Khaiyum and Bainimarama in 2014, kaila, great - now we have share of the land money and not only bloody chiefs

Reply
Suffering I-Taukei
12/10/2014 07:54:01 am

In order to defeat our enemy we need to study their strengths and weaknesses

Lets blame ourselves. The likes of Victor Lal spent years studying us - and what did we do - just kept buying from their shops with how heads down - our intellectuals never studied the kai indias

Now, we are paying the price, thanks to the likes of Victor Lal and his Hong Kong remote controlled student Aiyaz Khaiyum, with batteries provided by the Kenyan Indian professor Yash Ghai

Reply
Bounty Hunter
12/10/2014 07:56:20 am

I-Taukei let us not despair.

Victor Lal's own people - the VHS (Fiji) - the right-wing Hindu fundamentalists have put a bounty on his head!

They want to behead him in Fiji or in the United Kingdom

Lets shed no tears!

Reply
why link
12/10/2014 01:36:45 pm

FijiLeaks, why give such prominence to Graham Davis' response to Warden's piece?
Is what Graham saying Gospel or something?

Reply
Hong Kong Examiner
12/10/2014 02:08:14 pm

WHY

Victor Lal and Graham Davis are buddies!

Brown sahib and White Knight of new Fiji

Reply
Hong Kong Examiner
12/10/2014 02:13:03 pm

Victor Lal was the External Examiner of Khaiyum's "Sunset Clause" thesis at University of Hong Kong, hand-picked by the Kenyan professor.

How else Victor had a copy of Khaiyum's thesis?

Reply
Plain Talking Bullshit link
12/10/2014 02:25:44 pm

Plain talking and Graham Davis parted company quite some time back when he decided to become a mouthpiece of the Bainimarama military dictatorship in Fiji. Now that's plain talking!

Reply
Truth teller
12/10/2014 02:50:08 pm

I don;t like Graham and hate Victor!

But the truth is truth.

Sodelpa screwed it big time and got their electoral strategy wrong.

If they had a strategy there would be no Graham Davis in Fiji, for he would have been on the next flight to Australia.

As for Victor, Sodelpa would have extended his ban!

Reply
what hypocrisy link
12/10/2014 06:33:24 pm

It is the height of hypocrisy when people like Graham Davis who has been talking with a forked tongue and twisting things to make the Fijian dictatorship look good starts talking about "Plain Talking"!!
How much "plain talking" you been doing in recent time Graham - the regime spin doctor - Davis?

Reply
dictator's mouthpiece link
12/10/2014 07:09:05 pm

I think Graham Davis does not realise it yet that gone are the days when some white fart opened his mouth the natives where struck with awe.
Now they know all too well when a white fala is talking shit to serve his own Hidden Agendas.

Reply
Observer
12/10/2014 08:11:34 pm

WRONG AGAIN GRUBBY!

Davis' predictable reply to Wadan's piece illustrates the hypocrisy of the man heralding the triumph of the current mob along with their trail of beggars in tow.

Davis would have us all obediently follow his masters calls. Just remember, Grubby this was not shown to previous governments we had elected and made a collective choice to have them govern. Removed by an illegal regime that carried out reforms it was not mandated to and installing a constitution that does not adequately address the will of the people.

Was the 2014 election free and fair? International observers conveniently observed what they were allowed to observe of the new election process which had many flaws.

Regardless of all the final triumph stuff, stay in Fiji long enough to see your new vision turn very pear shaped. Watch and learn something about the tenacity of the i-Taukei. See what good happens when you conveniently hand over their identity to all and sundry. Be content with your new image of "Fijian" for now, boy as the tables have yet to turn once more.

Reply
rolled sukhi link
12/10/2014 11:31:57 pm

Is Graham Davis now doing a rolled sukhi now that he has become more Fijian than the Fijian?
Or, is he still sticking to his Cuban cigars in the all is "equal" Fiji?

Reply
fair play link
13/10/2014 12:05:57 am

My Game Is Fair Play ( Fifa slogan). Bai and Kai's game is " mae rawa ga winny" - win any how. And we know that includes by crook. And Graham is a cheerleader for Bai and Kai's "winning" team. Man with weak moral compass.

Reply
journalism v propaganda link
13/10/2014 02:23:11 pm

Journalism is no crime. But Graham Davis brand of "journalism" is deviant. It is no longer journalism. It is propaganda. It is about singing full-time the praise of the fijian dictator turned democrat. No self-respecting journalist would do that. Graham Davis does.

Reply
plain talking link
14/10/2014 12:03:46 am

Graham Davis do some plain talking and tell us mada if you would have enjoyed the status and the good time you have enjoyed as a cheerleader for the Bainimarama dictatorship if you had remained in Australia as an ordinary journalist?
Now be honest for once.

Reply
what honesty yaar link
14/10/2014 01:18:58 pm

Honesty and Grahamdavis parted company from the moment Grahamdavis took up his role as a cheerleader of Frank's dictatorship in Fiji. Please don't ask him to be honest. That is such a hard thing for him to do now.

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