We can see through Frank’s lack of transparency

Who’s kept count of the number of times Bainimarama has publicly and
emphatically stated his desire for “greater transparency” and “better
governance” or his commitment to “cleaning up corruption”?

We tried, but lost count. Strangely, however, we have yet to hear the
ictator publicly affirm his commitment to “rule of law”. But that’s
another story.

Let’s concentrate instead on Bainimarama’s widely (and loudly) professed
love - indeed obsession, it would seem-with “good” or “better” governance.

For example, when launching the National Council for Building a Better Fiji
(NCBBF), on 16 January he used these glowing terms to describe his plan as
“….a process that seeks to transform Fiji, towards better governance,
sustainable parliamentary democracy, equity, stability, peace, and progress.”
Now that sounds magnificent (thanks Parmesh Chand!), just like JFK! But what
is governance? Apparently it means different things to different people.

To countries such as Denmark, Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia,
good governance means a process of administration that optimises the extent
to which it is lawful, fair, efficient, transparent and, above all, fully
accountable to the people being administered, the media and the outside
world.

So what on earth could it mean to Frank Bainimarama? Because he certainly
doesn’t follow (or optimise) the principles listed above. Perhaps Frank
has not been as, well, frank as he could have been (you know, “frank” as
in honest or on the level).

If Frank was on the level, he would have shown up at the proposed meeting
with Sir Paul Reeves. If Frank was on the level he wouldn’t have hidden
behind a hideously expensive Queens Counsel when he was the defendant in
the High Court case brought by the prime minister he ousted.

That’s right, if Frank was on the level about governance you would have
thought that he would have seized the opportunity and bounded into both
events and given them a blast about what he’s doing to give Fiji “better
governance” and why his actions before, during and after the coup were right.

Instead, Frank’s gone totally limp. In fact, he’s gone into hiding and his
public implementation program of “better governance” has suddenly gone
negative: NO public defence of his mission, NO dialogue with Sir Paul
Reeves (and all the other main political players in Fiji) and NO
appearance in the High Court to state his case for ousting Qarase.

What a transformation! From conquering hero to wimp and looser!

Where is the Frank who stuck out his chest at his media conference on 5
December 2006 to announce to the Fijian and international media that he had
taken over and he was going to “clean up” Fiji?

That was a question that must have been on the lips of the villagers of
Qauia in Lami, who were severely affected by cyclone Gene. As the Fiji
Times reported last Tuesday, 18 March 2008, they had still not received
any food rations from that great provider, the Bainimarama interim
government.

And when the Fiji Times called the great dictator to comment on their
plight, this was all they could report: “Interim Prime Minister Commodore
Voreqe Bainimarama yesterday said he did not have any comments to make on
the distribution of rations.”

Of course he could not comment! He knows the illegal interim government is
fast running out of money. Rations for cyclone victims are the last thing
on its mind. After all, despite stuffing the economy it still has
expensive legal counsel to pay!

More importantly, he knows that Mahendra Pal Chaudhry (CHODOPU$$) is the
guy who is really in charge, and he knows that neither of them either
knows, or cares, about better governance.

They only thing they care about is their respective personal agendas that
bind them together in a desperate attempt to sustain their illegal regime
for as long as is humanly possible.

So, was the call from the Fiji Times the straw that broke the camels back?
Coincidence or not (we don’t think so)/ shortly after Bainimarama spoke to
the Fiji times, the following appeared on the official Fiji government
Website:

” Note to members of the media Mar 18, 2008, 18:58 Editors and members of
the media, please note that as from today (Tuesday 18/03/08), all media
queries to the Prime Minister should be directed to the Department of
Information. Please do not make calls directly to the PM on his cell phone.
Contact: Deputy Secretary Information 3301806 ext 101 or 104. Please also
note that all matters and queries relating to the Commander RFMF be directed
to the RFMF Media Cell. Contact: 3385222 ext 1414 fax: 3370033″

So Frank has officially fallen silent (that HAS to be a mixed blessing!).

But in the meantime, those three well known proponents of governance,
CHODOPU$$, his eager hireling, Kid Cowboy Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and the
unprincipled and wanton Shyster, are free to spew their drivel as they like.

Is that not the strongest signal yet that, instead of riding the donkey
and telling it where to go, the donkey is now riding Frank and telling HIM
where to go?

Secretly, we hope not. You know, Frank can bekinda,funny when he gets
wound up in a prepared speech (thanks again Parmesh!). For example, just
listen to this mouth-frothing blast from his press conference on 24 Feb
2008:

“Why is the media rolling out the usual suspects, .the opportunists such
as Ratu Osea Gavidi, Ratu Ovini Bokini and Ro Temumu (sic), Taniela Tabu,
Pramod Rae and a number of disgruntled chiefs and pseudo chiefs to incite
people on so-called indigenous issues and rights?

“Even Mick Beddoes who should know better than to be hood-winked by
simple journalists and sophisticated lying politicians has also joined the
fray.

“These people are attempting to cause disquiet. These people are spreading
misinformation and attempting to incite people by falsely appealing to their
emotions, culture and traditions.

“They are not telling the truth….they are liars.”

Wow! Well, actually, Mr Dictator, that’s not exactly right. Most people in
Fiji think YOU are the cause of Fiji’s “disquiet” and that YOU are the
“liar”.

And the ease with which they can see this, despite your constant espousal of
“transparency” and “better governance” - is rock-solid proof that they are
on the right track.

And we at FDN believe it IS the right track because, despite your guns, your
lies, your deceit, not to mention your total lack of transparency, the
people of Fiji have their own powers of transparency.

It’s their ability to see right through you, which will lead us back to a
Fiji with a free and fair parliamentary democracy, and levels of
transparency” and “governance” than you couldn’t even begin to comprehend.

Fiji Democracy Now

Know who your Ahmadiyya are!!!

After the Fiji Muslim League refused to join the Illegal Charter NCFBBF, the Ahmadiya jumped in as the representative of the Muslim Community in Fiji. But like any other thing associated with these failures in the IG, the Ahamadiyas’ are not even recognised as Muslims in Muslim Countries and the opposition to their teachings are one of the rare things that unite the Sunnis and Shites. 

This self proclaimed Muslim Cult that started in Pakistan in 1908, are considered trouble makers and false in the Muslim world and are banned where it started, in Pakistan.

They have a presences in ROFTI (and a curse to us all) and guess who belongs to it. The Shameem sisters. No wonder they break all the laws of Islam such as drinking alcohol and smoking that strange weed that is farmed in the upper reaches of the Valley Road of Navosa. Others that belong are you friendly neigbouhood arse hole, I mean, Attorney Generals and the Sahu Khans.

You see main stream Muslims belong to the Muslim League, are law abiding and had politely declined to join the NCFBBF citing that its uuuhhhmm “Unlawful and unconstitutional”.

And in the tradition of our infamous Glawyer (God I loved that term, who ever invented it is a genius) a.k.a. the Shyster and the Illegal Chair of the Internationally Rejected Fiji Human Rights Abuse and Torture Commission we have managed to fish this out of Wikipedia via Google.

Ahmadi (Urdu: احمدیہ Ahmadiyya), is the collective name given to the two distinct groups[2] (The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement) comprising of followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 190 from Qadian, in Punjab, India. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to have fulfilled the prophecies about the world reformer of the end times who was to herald the Eschaton as predicted in the traditions of various World religions, the Mujaddid (divine reformer) of the 14th Islamic century, the promised Messiah (”Second Coming of Christ”) and Mahdi.[3][4][5][6][7] Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims and claim to practice the Islam that was taught and practiced by Muhammad and his companions, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad termed his movement the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat (community) envisioning it to be a revitalization of Islam. However, Ahmadis are not considered to be Muslims by Sunnis and Shias.[8][9][10]

The original Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat split into two separate groups[11] after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s death, known respectively as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the smaller Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam (Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-i-Islam). These groups vary in their specific interpretations of Ahmad’s teachings and claims. They also differ in their views on who should have succeeded Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and how such a successor should be chosen.[12][13]

The Ahmadi view on certain beliefs in Islam has been controversial to mainstream Muslims since its birth. Majority of Muslims have not accepted Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims and do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, citing in particular the Ahmadiyya view on the death and return of Jesus, the Ahmadiyya concept of Jihad and their view on the finality of Muhammad with particular reference to interpretation of verse [Qur'an 33:40] of the Qur’an. [14] Ahmadis however argue that their beliefs are in accordance with Islam,[15][16] and using arguments from the Qur’an, Hadith and opinion of Islamic jurists and theologians, challenge the contention of the groups calling them non-Muslims.[17]

A very confused lot as you can see while they considered themselves Muslims and strictly follow the Koran, they believe in the Ressurrection of Jesus and believe that their founder was fufilling Jesus second coming as promised in the Christian Bible.

No wonder the Shameems, The Arse and the Sahu Khans don’t know whether they coming or going most times.

Failures of Past Politicians

Bainimarama told the NCBBF, that ‘the solutions to the deep-seated problems of this country are not entirely in the hands of the familiar politicians who have failed us in the past 20 years. They have failed us with their narrow-mindedness, racially divisive politics. Lack of vision and irresponsible social and economic management.’

These kinds of general, selective and inaccurate statements riddled with erroneous facts, seem to be the only consistency with Bainimarama.

Rabuka in his 2^nd book revealed the 1987 coup was instigated by familiar politicians at the time and used him as a willing puppet.

The evil consequences of those familiar politician’s greed for power continue to haunt Fiji today, but this time, the puppet is Bainimarama himself.

Bainimarama should heed this quote; ‘Progress, far from consisting in change depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there is no being to improve and no direction to set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it ‘

Tui Savu.

Townsville. QLD.

There is no personal agenda against Chaudary - Victor Lal in the Fiji Sun

The Military Council must not be swayed into supporting any media legislation just because the interim Finance Minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry claims that by publishing his tax affairs the media was trying to foster a division between the interim administration and the military council. They must come to an independent decision on the documentary evidence that Mr Chaudhry had secretly hid $2million in his Australian bank account from FIRCA, Parliament, the military, and the people of Fiji In 2005, he had claimed that he had not received a cent from his ancestral homeland in Haryana. And the council must not easily swallow Mr Chaudhry’s claim that the news media and Fiji Sun’s deported publisher Russell Hunter had a personal agenda against him. If Mr Hunter had a personal agenda, why didn’t Mr Chaudhry make his (Mr Hunter’s) removal from Fiji a pre-condition for FLP MPs joining the Qarase-led multi-party Cabinet after the 2006 election? Why is he raising the issue now? Is it because of the publication of the $2million Haryana story? Mr Chaudhry has also accused me of conspiracy, an allegation that I have dispelled in a previous column. What was Mr Chaudhry doing when he was criss-crossing the globe, calling upon us, and the various governments, to impose sanctions against the Bainimarama-installed interim Laisenia Qarase government after the 2000 coup? Was he, as a former minister Simione Kaitani claimed, encouraging us to commit treason with him against that interim government? Mr Chaudhry has no right to complain or accuse Mr Hunter and I over the tax stories. As I pointed out previously, he had every opportunity to end the speculation when the tax story first broke in August 2007. But, no, he chose to remain silent, and only went on the offensive when the Fiji Times took up his challenge and named him as the minister concerned. What Mr Chaudhry was, perhaps, unaware of was that I had a far more explosive story than the tax story, and that is, that he was hiding $2million in Australia. His allegations and outbursts against the media must be interpreted in the context of the $2million story. He is now claiming that the media is racist and divisive - a claim which is patently false and misleading. When Mr Chaudhry was ousted in the 2000 coup, one foreign journalist claimed as follows: “For reasons not yet fully explained, Chaudhry however had no honeymoon in office and quickly found himself ensnared in a bitter media war. “Part of the problem was, plainly, his own behaviour; he was startlingly arrogant and when confronted with genuine issues of concern (such as hiring his own son to a lucrative post) he responded with all the hostility useful in his former profession as a trade unionist.” It is evident that whenever Mr Chaudhry is not happy with a story about him or the FLP, he invokes the words, “personal agenda”. In 2000, as Prime Minister and Minister for Information, he removed a radio presenter and then publisher of Daily Post, Thakur Ranjit Singh, from the news and current affairs programme on the Hindustani station Radio Fiji 2, accusing him of being biased against the FLP. Mr Singh hosted the twice-weekly programme called “Tanik Hamari Bhi Suno” (Hey mate, listen to me). Mr Chaudhry said his government was the “custodian” of the taxpayers’ money and Radio Fiji had a responsibility to be fair, accurate and unbiased. He said Mr Singh violated this and was biased against the FLP. Regarding media criticism, he said: “In the name of freedom they want to commit murder.” Mr Chaudhry also suggested that the Fiji Media Council would take too long to handle a complaint. So he took it upon himself to remove Mr Singh from the programme! What about the counter-claim of Sir James Ah Koy, the former finance minister and current Fiji ambassador to China, that there was no personal agenda against Mr Chaudhry? On February 25, 2008, Sir James stressed that the two FIRCA chief auditors, Lepani Rabo and Joseva Leano, who were sacked last year had no personal agenda against Mr Chaudhry when the two started their intensive investigations against the FLP leader for allegedly evading tax over a period of time and his source of income in the off-shore accounts.. Meanwhile, on the advice of Mr Hunter I had, on Monday August 6, 2007, sent Mr Chaudhry a list of questions regarding his tax matters to a private e-mail account of his which I had been using over the years to communicate with him. It was a formal e-mail and was sent under the Fiji Media Council’s Code of Ethics. The e-mail read: “Dear Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, Further to my earlier questions, I would be extremely grateful if you could indicate whether you are willing to confirm or deny that the interim Cabinet Minister that the Daily Post alluded to is none other than yourself. As I mentioned, I am working on a general tax story and your co-operation as interim Minister of Finance would be greatly appreciated. “You will also agree that although the Income Tax Act requires the FIRCA to maintain secrecy, it does not permit the taxpayer not to be untruthful in reporting his tax details. “Again, I would be extremely grateful if you could explain why you did not submit your tax returns in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, presuming you are the minister in question? “Also, why were you allegedly wrong in calculating your earnings, given that you are a former government auditor, a former finance minister in the ousted Bavadra government, and now the official purse keeper of the nation?” In the same e-mail I raised other matters: “I would also be grateful if you could answer the questions that I sent you on the Cyclone Ami and the Haryana funds. I hope you fully understand the seriousness of the matter and that your name is now being floating around on the internet, especially on Why Fiji is Crying website. “It is therefore in your own interest and in the interest of the nation and the interim government to confirm or deny that you are the minister in question, and are willing to give your side of the story… I look forward to hearing from you, preferably by the end of the week, as my deadline for the story is approaching, and as required by the Media Concil’s Code of Ethics. Yours sincerely, Victor Lal.” Mr Chaudhry completely ignored my questions so, on Wednesday August 15, 2007, I ran my version of his tax affairs, without naming him as the minister: “Taxman and the Minister: Revealed: How FIRCA did not believe him.” He, thereafter, continued to maintain stony silence, except claiming that an internal FIRCA inquiry had cleared the minister concerned. He refused to disclose his identity until the Fiji Times named him lately. Since he declined to respond to my earlier questions, neither I nor the Fiji Sun had any further obligation to ask him why he was hiding $2million in his Australian bank account. Now, Mr Chaudhry suddenly claims that Fiji’s media should be licensed because it’s divisive and racist. He said the media is not practising the way it should be and is not following media principles or ethics. What were we at the Fiji Sun doing when we sent him a list of questions in August 2007 to answer about his tax affairs - did he think that we had sent him a card wishing him Happy Diwali? Mr Chaudhry said Fiji’s media is not responsible with the freedom it’s been given. Frankly, it is he who is abusing his position as a servant of the people, albeit in a non-elected interim Cabinet. According to him: “Media freedom and any sort of freedom come with a sense of responsibility and if the media cannot comply with its own ethics and if it cannot discipline itself in the matters of the ethics and the conduct of the media, then obviously legislation is necessary to ensure that the media does not play a role which is detrimental to the country, which is dividing, which is racist in nature. “This is the hallmark of a number of media organisations in Fiji which have not even hesitated to destabilise the country for its own narrow agenda.” he said. Mr Chaudhry said the media in Fiji has earned itself a critical hallmark through its biased reporting. “Because of the bias that the media has shown in relation to a number of issues, the media is creating a political agenda and they have sacrificed the principle of media ethics. They have not reported on matters accurately and in a fair and balanced manner. And they seem to be frequently biased with freedom,” he said Mr Chaudhry added there was enough evidence to show why media legislation was important in Fiji. In the same breath, one could argue that there is enough evidence in the three-member team’s report which investigated his tax affairs that warrants a legislation to bar the likes of Mr Chaudhry from ever holding political office, not to mention as the chief treasurer of the nation, and as line manager of FIRCA. The report of the independent inquiry into the taxation affairs of Mahendra Pal Chaudhry found as follows: “Mr Chaudhry lodged his tax returns for the 2000 and 2001 financial years together on May 30, 2002, which was outside the March 31 due date for the lodgement of those returns. He lodged his returns for the year 2002 year on December 12, 2003, which was also outside the time allowed. Mr Chaudhry did not declare interest on the Australian and New Zealand financial institution accounts in his return lodged with FIRCA in respect of any of the 2000 and 2003 (inclusive) years.” These were some of the very questions that I had asked him to answer on August 6, 2007, and which he blatantly chose to ignore. Now, after thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money was paid to the team, we know that there were anomalies in his tax records, the very anomalies I had claimed in my stories. It is not the media but Mr Chaudhry who needs a lesson in ethics and should be subject to legislation - and the Military Council should deal with him immediately. We followed the Media Code of Ethics when we confronted him about his tax details. It was he who chose to brush us aside, and adopt an ostrich-like position until recently. He must, therefore, explain about the Haryana letter and who is the mysterious Harbhajan Lal. No media legislation can stop our search for the $2million that belonged to the Fiji-Indian community in Fiji. The media does not need a lecture in ethics from him nor be subjected to legislation when he ignored questions sent to him under the Media Council Code of Ethics. Perhaps Mr Chaudhry should disclose how much was paid to the three-member team to compile that tax report on him. It’s only ethical, since the money paid out belongs to the taxpayers, which includes the members of the Military Council. The views expressed are those of Oxford-based Victor Lal and not those of the Fiji Sun.

Democracy vs. The Charter

The Pig’s latest bout of brain-seizure has delivered us yet another opportunity to examine just how much he doesn’t understand about the subject matter he has set for himself and the nation. Below are just two of his latest bloopers:

“How can an election, on its own, solve the deep differences that our constitution has perpetuated between the different races in our country?

“Unless there are fundamental reforms, how can an election succeed where it will take us straight back to the grimy old politics of self interest, cronyism and scam mongering?”

Imbecile!

One might just as well ask him “How can the Charter, on its own and without the support and ownership of large sections of society, solve the deep differences that exist between the different races in our country just by changing the electoral act. Don’t these idiots know anything about group psychology and identity?

“Unless there are fundamental change in behaviour and attitude by the Charter’s own sponsors, how can a Charter succeed when those very same sponsors are mired so deeply in the grimy old politics of self interest, cronyism and scam mongering?”

In any case, below, in point form (sort of), is a “slow motion replay” of the Pig’s brain-dead misconceptions and ass-backwards logic, that were again put on full display in his latest foray into the minefield of theoretical politics.

1. These statements are emotive, factually incorrect and discuss matters before the courts. Therefore by the AG’s definition, none of them should be quoted or reprinted by any media organization in Fiji!

2. The Pig has fallen again into the age-old trap of trying to think his dumb-ass way through issues that are way beyond the limited scope of his pea-brain! And he has again forgotten that his words come as those of someone without an iota of public credibility or mandate.

3. Any fool knows that democratic elections are not the solution to problems – they are the framework within which problems get addressed or solved. In a democracy, political parties present their election manifestoes (detailing their programs of problem-solving policies) to the public. The public then chooses which manifesto they like best, or which party they trust most. Then five years later, if the Government hasn’t achieved what it promised, or if public has second thoughts, or its concerns or interests move on to other issues or paradigms, then the public simply kicks them out in favour of someone else.

4. In that sense, the Charter process is another case of ass-backwards logic by Frank and his Colonels. The Charter could easily be accommodated within a democratic framework by simply hiring John Samy, or someone even more qualified, to produce a position paper on whatever subject the Government-of-the-day saw fit. That could then be taken through the normal parliamentary sub-committee consultation process without any fuss or extra expense. It would then have the added benefit that if it didn’t work, or didn’t meet expectations, it could be rolled back, or selectively enacted or whatever. No problemo! In this respect, the Charter process is needlessly grandiose as it is nothing more than a policy consultancy dressed up as a Constitution review.

5. Furthermore in a democracy, you don’t have to spell out every last problem or solution beforehand (as the Charter is idiotically trying to do). You just let the people and the times decide what these things are, and what they think the best solutions might be at the time. If the parties elected are serious enough about staying in power, they will make sure that they will choose the best possible policies, or hire the best possible consultants. And if they’re not serious, or not capable, or they don’t do a good enough job for some other reason, then there’s no big deal. Because they will have to give an account of themselves to the media every day, to parliament every session, and to the people every election. What is the big mystery here?

6. In that sense, democracy does not make any guarantees that mistakes won’t be made, or that bad Governments won’t be elected. All it does is to allow for time and opportunity for actual Government performance to render those judgments in the minds of the voters. And then it simply gives voters the opportunity to turf out bad or error-prone Governments after all is said and done. But since the Charter ALSO CANNOT GUARANTEE that “good” or capable Government’s will always be elected, or that they will never make mistakes once so-elected. So what then are we missing out on without the Charter? Or more to the point, what are we missing out on if the Charter is simply put off until later for a legitimate Government to attempt?

7. In any event, what guarantee is there that the Charter can even achieve the goals it has laid out for itself? Since the IG has never been good at discerning fact from opinion, or opinion from expert opinion, the chances of them coming up with a straw man here is quite high? In addition, the fact that the Charter has as one of its stated goals the very same unity and public trust that the illegal Charter process is itself wrecking – well, that is surely a sign that this enterprise has self-defeat built right into its very DNA.

8. In this regard, the Charter sponsors are being COMPLETELY disingenuous about building the kind of trust they say is pivotal to underpinning the social unity that the Charter espouses. Don’t these fools know anything about how trust is built? It is build by consistent, honest and forthright behaviour over time. It is built by being consistently open about your intentions, and honest about your mistakes. And it is built by acknowledging other peoples’ opinions, felt-needs, complaints and misgivings, and apologizing for your own transgressions in any of that. The IG has never been able to demonstrate any of these imperatives for more than a month or two. Conversely, it has continually destroyed whatever little trust it had, by its constant lies, propaganda, failure to deliver on promises, and underhand attempts to manipulate the very same people it talks about building trust with!

9. Frank is talking as if the Charter is Fiji’s only hope for “moving forward”, but how do they know that? What expertise, education, ability or track record, can they point to that could give anyone the confidence that they even know what they’re talking about? Everything that’s happened since December 2006 suggests the polar opposite! And the only one of them with anywhere near the kind of credentials needed to even have a hope of tackling an enterprise of this magnitude, is John Samy. But he cuts a forlorn and lonely figure there as he is basically surrounded by dunderheads, opportunists, b-graders and no-hopers. (Also, you have to doubt his character and judgment given that he so readily accepted an illegal appointment like this). Even so, he is not even the best or most qualified consultant that Government could have found. Much better, smarter and higher-paid finance men than Samy are today reeling overseas from the effects of the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis that none of them even saw or predicted. And that was in their own fields of banking expertise. What hope does Samy then have of anticipating all the possible future developments, permutations, consequences, and then responses, that Fiji might face in the multi-disciplinary fields of economics, finance, law, politics, sociology, commerce, agriculture etc?

10. How can Frank claim has no hope of change except through the Charter? The democratic process is precisely how change is enacted and initiated in the real world! It may not deliver the change Frank wants. But it will certainly offer the change that most people voted for. And if the people find they don’t want that change again later, or what was promised was not what was delivered, then they are free to change their minds again then. There is no great mystery here!

11. Why should Frank think that the issues he is complaining about now, and which we all heard before the last election in the T&J campaign and the NAPF Manifesto, are so important to be worth all the current economic and political pain that he is now forcing on Fiji? Those NAPF manifesto promises only drew 3% of the national vote in 2006, so why would anyone think that they could be such a priority now? That means they were rejected by the VAST MAJORITY of the electorate! So how can it be such a “big deal” as to warrant holding the entire democratic future of the nation to ransom now?

12. Where is all this obsession with unity coming from anyway? Frank cannot blame his lack of progress or performance (as he seems to be trying to) on a lack of unity! In a democracy it is strong and effective opposition which actually forces Government to lift its game, and IMPROVE its performance! So far from being the destructive and obstructive force that Frank seems to think it is, political opposition is actually a fail-safe against Government complacency and incompetence! And any democratic Government that ever achieved anything of note did so in the face of such opposition!

13. The FLP and the SDL also had their own “versions” or proposals for national unity at the last election, and those were what the people voted for. It would seem then that, just as he did with the clean-up, Frank is again making a mountain out of a molehill with this new unity obsession of his! Doesn’t he know anything about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Doesn’t he understand that there are more pressing issues like PUTTING REGULAR MEALS ON THE TABLE that are more of a priority to the average voter? Doesn’t he remember how the FLP’s “bread and butter” grassroots campaign in 1999 absolutely THRASHED the SVT/NFP’s Constitution “feel good” one? That is basic human nature! Why does he think that anything would have changed now?

14. To wit, Frank keeps pointing to the nebulous and unproven “feel-good” aims of the Charter as the justification for what he is trying to do (now). But he conveniently forgetting that in the real world, people and Governments are judged on what they DELIVER, not on what they promise.

15. In that sense, Frank is “cheating” because the comparison he is asking people to make, is to compare the promise of the Charter with the actual performance of the SDL. For a start, that’s apples and oranges. A more valid comparison would be the actual performance of the IG, with the actual performance of the ousted Government. Or the Charter with the 2009 SDL Manifesto. But since those are both untried and untested documents, what kind of certainty could we have about any choice we made between them? In the real world, people are hired on promise, but fired on performance. And that is exactly what democratic elections offer – a chance for voters to make up their minds when all is said and done! We don’t all have to agree. But we can certainly find out what the majority thinks.

16. This highlight’s Frank’s current strategy for dealing with the negative repercussions of all his failures and dead-ends. Namely, to keep “moving the goalposts” to avoid being judged or confronted over them. From “national security” to “clean up” to “good governance” to “racial unity” to “electoral reform”, and now the latest buzzword the “Singapore of the South Pacific”. His coup justifications have led a merry dance over Fiji’s political landscape. And then there is their growing litany of excuses as to why they haven’t been able to deliver on anything yet – “we need more time”, “the SDL left too much mess”, “opponents don’t want the country to ‘move forward’”, “the international community doesn’t understand us” and the ever-popular “the media has an agenda against Government”.

17. It also highlights the other great “fail-safe” about democratic elections that protects the public from the kind of avoidance maneuvering that Frank (or any other Government afraid of facing the peoples’ verdicts) is trying on. And that is, once the Parliamentary term has passed, that’s it! Time’s up! It doesn’t matter what excuses you come up with after that, or how close your thought you were to achieving your goals, or what unfinished work remained to be done, or what new buzzword you were about to come up with, or how many more times you planned to “move the goalposts” of your promises to the people! The job of assessing all the goals, excuses and intentions of any Government automatically switches from their own opinions and judgments, to the opinions and judgments of the people!

18. So in March 2009, it no longer matters how convinced Frank is over the value of his goals, or the validity of his excuses, or the desirability of any new imperative he might discover in future, or the sustainability of the Charter! All that will matter is what the people think of these. Frank’s control-freak character flaws means that he thinks that something can only be true or valid or worthwhile if he accepts or understands it first. But in a democracy, the bottom line is not what the leader and his advisors are able, or not able, to comprehend. It is what the people think! And if the leader is unable to understand why the people think differently to him, too bad and no big deal! It is certainly not grounds to turn the whole nation upside-down in a democracy!

19. The point is, it is the people who choose what the main issues and priorities are, and what solutions they want to try with them! In that sense, Frank’s hand-wringing over national unity is true as far as it goes. But in a democracy, it is the people who decide what priority and potential solutions to apply to that problem, or any other one for that matter. It is the electoral and media processes which can alert the leader if his priorities are falling out of synch with those of the people. But if he doesn’t get it, no problem! Because there will always be other political suitors for the public to try out!

20. By the same token, the problem here is not that the International community or political opponents don’t understand the Charter. The problem is that Frank and his cronies do not understand democracy!

21. Finally can’t these fools see the self-defeating effects of pushing ahead with the Charter against the wishes of the International community, and more than half the nation? The famous Chinese road loan hasn’t even been signed-off on yet. Jim’s much-touted Cassava-ethanol project is only a feasibility study at this stage, not an investment deal. Meanwhile, the EU Sugar Restructure funds are now in deep, deep freeze. Can’t they see that the Sugar Industry is toast without those funds (or the land leases that are still not being renewed by landowners despite all the IG’s promises and fine words)? If Sugar goes, so does Chaudhry, the FLP, the economy, the IG, and ANY hopes of achieving a “better Fiji” in their lifetime! Ditto for the prospect of intensifying international sanctions if there are no Constitutionally-compliant elections next year! Neither will the Charter be able to deliver the kind political stability needed for the consistently high levels of local investment required for a better economic future. What economic foundation do they hope to erect their “better Fiji” on, then? Fuggedaboudit!

Pote tiko vei ratou!!

Naulukau’s Bodyline shot:

Chair, Colleague Ministers and Heads of Delegation of Member Governments, Kia Ora, Ni Sa Bula Vinaka, and Good Morning Chair, I have the honour to seek your indulgence to make a brief statement to this august meeting, given that this meeting had been specifically called to discuss the Fiji situation following a resolution taken at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting held in Tonga last October.

That resolution called for a meeting of the Forum Foreign Affairs Ministers in January 2008 to review the progress being made towards the preparation for a general election in Fiji in the first quarter of 2009.

Chair, let me at the outset extend the gratitude of the Fiji delegation to the Government of New Zealand for giving us the necessary entry visas to attend this meeting despite the travel sanction to Fiji that each member of my delegation has endured in the last 15 months. That travel sanction applies to all Interim Government Ministers, Permanent Secretaries, all Republic of Fiji Military Forces personnel, and all Board and Statutory appointments made by the Interim Government since its formation early last year. The travel ban includes our immediate families, relatives and surprisingly even our friends.

Chair, I would also like to take this opportunity to extend Fiji’s deep appreciation to the Pacific Islands Forum – Fiji Joint Working Group and to the work they have been doing since its establishment in April last year following our meeting in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Fiji has remained committed and fully engaged in the meetings and deliberations of the Working Group.

Chair, I would like to acknowledge and extend particular gratitude to H.E. Mr. Peter Eafeare, the Papua New Guinea High Commissioner to Fiji who assumed the role of the Chair of the Working Group. While the High Commissioner ended up with the onerous responsibility, he nevertheless carried out a remarkable job in keeping the meetings of the Working Group focused, and that he always steered the discussions and resolutions to that middle ground in the true “Pacific Spirit.”

Chair, today we meet without the services of our Secretary General Mr Greg Irwin who, I am reliably informed is recuperating after a major operation. We wish him comfort in his recuperation and a speedy recovery.

Chair, Fiji has come a long way since the events of 5th December 2006 in terms of our resolve to restore civilian rule, continue to uphold the 1997 Constitution, address the allegations on human rights infringements and the setting up of an independent Anti Corruption Commission.

With regards to demonstrable and the gradual confident progress on Fiji’s return to parliamentary democracy, the Interim Government has so far;

- completed the national census last year; (ahead of schedule);

- appointed members of the Electoral Commission;

- appointed a Deputy Supervisor of Elections and an adequate number of staff of the office of the supervisor of Elections;

- appointed members of the Boundaries Commission; - allocated funds in the 2008 National Budget for preparatory work on the 2009 Elections. In this connection the Interim Government is working on the two following projects:

 - is in the final stages of appointing the new Supervisor of Elections; because of the travel sanction we are forced to go abroad for this “national” appointment.

A thoroughly demeaning and colonial foray especially when we have well qualified people in Fiji. - is working closely with the Pacific Islands Forum/Fiji Joint Working Group/Elections Donor Coordinating Committee in identifying and securing technical and financial resources from donor sources to assist Fiji’s return to Parliamentary democracy.

The focus of our work in the coming months would be to coordinate with the Electoral Commission, Office of the Supervisor of Elections and the Constituency Boundaries Commission, the development of robust and realistic work programmes for these respective bodies.

We will work closely with the Election Donor Co-ordination Committee (EDCC) to seek and co-ordinate international assistance to help us achieve the deliverables and milestones in each of the respective work programmes. Chair, the Interim Government is committed to holding democratic elections in March 2009 in line with the commitments Fiji has given to the international community, the EU and the Pacific Islands Forum.

This however, can only be realized with constructive dialogue and engagement from all those interested parties in Fiji, the international community, our bilateral and multi-lateral development partners and the Forum.

Chair and colleagues, you will be aware that the Interim Government has embarked on a major national initiative to develop a People’s Charter for Change, Progress and Peace (PCCPP). This is being done by the National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF), that has been tasked to undertake wide ranging dialogue and consultations with all sections of the Fiji community to develop a comprehensive agenda of actions and measures to address in a systematic and comprehensive fashion the long outstanding political, social and economic challenges.

It will then provide a strategic framework for holistic development by successive Governments. The objective of the PCCP is to rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, culturally vibrant and united, well-governed, truly democratic nation that seeks progress and prosperity, through merit-based equality of opportunity, and peace.

The vision for rebuilding Fiji that underpins the overarching objective is guided by six key principles:

i) a just and fair society;

ii) merit-based equality of opportunity for all Fiji citizens;

iii) transparent and accountable government;

iv) uplifting the disadvantaged in all communities;

v) mainstreaming indigenous Fijians in a modern, progressive Fiji; and

vi) growing the economy through sound policies.

Chair, the PCCPP initiative will not undermine current commitments to holding parliamentary elections in 2009. When the initiative was launched by His Excellency The President on the 37th anniversary of our independence day on 10 October, 2007 he set a realistic but challenging timetable. His Excellency had directed that the PCCP must be handed to him by 10 October, 2008. This deadline is well before the first quarter of 2009 which is the timeline for the holding of parliamentary elections in Fiji.

Chair, in our resolve to move the country forward to true Parliamentary democracy, the Interim Government is facing two fundamental constraints;

- firstly, the political position which some of our bilateral partners and international institutions have taken after the events of 5th December, including the subsequent formation of the Interim Government in Fiji is counter productive to our efforts to address the cause (rather than the symptoms) of our political problems and move the country forward. In particular, some of our metropolitan neighbours are siding with non-governmental organizations and members of the deposed Government to bring disrepute to the work of the Interim Government, derail our dialogue and consultation initiatives and prolonging the achievement of the Presidential mandate given to the Interim Government.

- Secondly, the Fiji representatives in the Working Group continue to raise, but no to avail, the debilitating effect of sanctions, particularly travel bans imposed by Governments of the US, Australia and New Zealand on Interim Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants, statutory appointees, and Members of the Republic of the Fiji Military Forces. Whilst Fiji welcomes the relaxation of travel bans on people appointed to positions involving electoral preparatory work and the PCCP, the concerns of the Interim Government are that the application of such bans on other appointments is adversely affecting the Interim Government’s ability to attract senior and qualified civilians to key positions. The simple fact is that many in Fiji have their children and grand children now residing in these countries or are citizens of these countries so the acceptance of an appointment means, devastatingly, no visiting rights. The end result of the travel ban is that there is only a small pool of qualified, experienced and forward looking people that the Interim Government can turn to for advice and/or appointments to key positions. This has also to some extent contributed to the Interim Government turning to qualified Military personnel for senior Civil Service, Statutory and Board appointments.

Chair and colleagues, you might wish to discuss these two issues and come up with resolutions as appropriate to assist Fiji in effectively meeting the commitments she has made with regards to returning the country to true Parliamentary democracy.

You all know that Fiji’s bilateral relations with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand over the last 15 months has remained somewhat strained despite the close historical, cultural, sporting, trade, economic, defense and other strategic ties we have with each other.

Let us work together, and with each other, as genuine and equal partners, as neighbours and as friends to address the challenges faced by my country. I would like to reiterate the plea which Commodore V. Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji made at the October meeting of Leaders in Tonga: “Let us put in place a new era of understanding, respect and dignity”.

Thank you for your attention.

And the diplomatic rebuff (gently telling them we aint buying) which will need the expert of Pita Drisi to read between the lines to these morons:

As directed by Forum Leaders at the thirty-eighth Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga in October 2007, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Forum met in Auckland, New Zealand on 26 March 2008 to discuss the situation in Fiji and in particular, to review the progress being made towards a parliamentary election in the first quarter of 2009. The meeting was chaired by the Hon Sonatane Tu’akinamolahi Taumoepeau-Tupou, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Tonga, and was attended by the Premier of Niue; the Prime Minister of Samoa; Ministers from Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu; and officials from the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Fiji’s delegation was led by the Interim Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Civil Aviation. Ministers expressed their appreciation to the Government of New Zealand for hosting the meeting.2. Ministers received a report from the Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum-Fiji Joint Working Group on the Situation in Fiji (the “Working Group”), on the Working Group’s discussions and activities since its inception in March 2007, particularly its efforts to encourage and support the return of Fiji to democracy. Ministers received a presentation from the Fiji Interim Government on Fiji’s election preparations and related issues. Ministers also received a briefing from Commonwealth Representative Sir Paul Reeves on the Commonwealth’s ongoing efforts to facilitate a broad-based political dialogue in Fiji.

3. Ministers:

(a) reinforced the importance of the Fiji interim government honouring the undertakings made to Forum Leaders that a parliamentary election would be held in the first quarter of 2009, that this election would be held in accordance with Fiji’s Constitution, and that the outcome of the election would be accepted by the Fiji Interim Government and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces;

(b) noted the preparations advised by Fiji for the holding of an election in the first quarter of 2009, expressed concern about slow progress to date, and encouraged the Fiji Interim Government to intensify its efforts to achieve the election milestones endorsed by this meeting;

(c) noted advice received from Fiji that a detailed timetable for election preparations would be considered by Fiji’s interim Cabinet in the second week of April and provided to Forum members upon the interim Cabinet’s approval. Ministers emphasised the importance of such a timetable faithfully reflecting the commitments already made to Forum Leaders and the Working Group, and being provided and implemented without any further delay;

(d) welcomed advice from Fiji that the appointment of the Supervisor of Elections would be finalised by the end of this week, and looked forward to such an announcement, recognising the impetus this could provide to election preparations;

(e) emphasised the importance of the Fiji Interim Government ensuring that the People’s Charter process would not delay or distract from the holding of an election in the first quarter of 2009;

(f) urged Fiji to ensure that adequate and timely resources are made available to ensure the election timetable is met, both through its own budget and by cooperating with the international community to facilitate necessary assistance;

(g) noted Fiji’s position on the effects of travel bans, and the position of Australia and New Zealand;

(h) expressed their concern about human rights abuses, threats to media freedom and judicial independence, and similar actions that were inconsistent with the creation of an environment in which free and fair elections could be held and Fiji’s longer-term issues resolved;

(i) acknowledged that an overall resolution of issues in Fiji would be a long-term exercise, and that resolution processes should be independent and inclusive. Ministers also affirmed that elections constituted a crucial prerequisite to creating the conditions in which this longer term resolution could be promoted; and

(j) confirmed their support for efforts to encourage a genuinely independent and inclusive political dialogue to complement progress towards the March 2009 election, and welcomed the work of the Commonwealth to this end; recognised the potential for an initiative of this nature, along with elections, to assist in the achievement of a longer term resolution to the situation in Fiji; and expressed their appreciation for the Commonwealth’s close cooperation with the Forum in pursuit of their respective and complementary activities in Fiji.

4. Ministers considered appropriate mechanisms for the Forum to continue monitoring and supporting Fiji’s progress toward holding an election in the first quarter of 2009. Ministers acknowledged the assessment of Forum Leaders that the Working Group had proven a useful means for engaging with the Interim Government and implementing the decisions of Forum Leaders and Ministers, and as such, agreed that the Working Group should remain constituted. Ministers decided that a Ministerial Contact Group should be formed to further monitor the progress of Fiji’s preparations for the election and the return to democracy, and report to the 39th meeting of Forum Leaders. Ministers called on the Fiji Interim Government to work closely with the Ministerial Contact Group. The Contact Group will consist of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs from Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Tuvalu.

5. Ministers requested the Secretary General to write to Forum Leaders informing them of these outcomes.

Forum Secretariat
Auckland, New Zealand
26 March 2008

More evidence of whose the real problem in Fiji

Its that damn poison viper!

(As per Fiji Sun today)

Commonwealth Special envoy to Fiji Sir Paul Reeves says he’s planning another meeting of Fiji’s political leaders.
Speaking to reporters in Auckland today, Sir Paul said coup leader and interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama has not shut the door completely on dialogue with the man he ousted from office, Laisenia Qarase
“There are indications that dialogue is not finish. We in fact intend to return to Fiji round about the end of April, early May, hoping this time we will be more successful and I think they could well be the case”.
This would be Sir Paul’s second attempt to convene political dialogue in a country that is trying to recover from its fourth coup in 20 years.
His first attempt was held in Suva where five political leaders - Commodore Frank Bainimarama, ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, National Alliance party leader Ratu Epeli Ganilau, National Federation party and Mick Beddoes had agreed to meet.
Leader of the Labour Party, Mahendra Chaudhry declined to attend the dialogue session.
Sir Paul also met with Fiji’s foreign affairs minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau on a possible date for his return to Fiji.
Meanwhile, a statement issued by the interim government said that Ratu Epeli was satisfied with the outcomes of the Auckland meeting. - Pacnews

Why does Frank stand by his man?

Why does Frank stand by his man? That’s the real mystery. I’ve always
thought it was because he thought the Chodopu$$ could bring the
overwhelming support of the Indo-Fijian community. But now I’m not so
sure.

We know the tax scandal has outraged the Fijian community, that’s for
sure, because they see the man who called Qarase corrupt, was exposed as a
tax cheat. But has it outraged the Indo-Fijian community? They see their
hero being attacked by people the Chodopu$$ says are their political
enemies. May be they have doubts but the Chodopu$$ is a master of creating
divisions and
suspicions.

But Chaudhry also accused Qarase of being incompetent. Chaudhry said he
was ruining the economy. He accused him of spending too much on civil
service salaries even though Chaudhry was prepared to demand civil service
increases from the Mara Alliance Government despite claims that the
increases were unaffordable. Those who were around at the time will
remember that Charlie Walker as Finance Minister fell on his sword over
the issue.

Now Chodo is in charge. Not for nothing is he known as the Chodopu$$,
manipulating everything, winning every argument with anyone who opposes
him. Everybody knows Frank is his puppet.

But what has the Chodopu$$ achieved with all his power? As far as I can
see he’s achieved nothing but the ruin of the Fiji economy.

The sugar industry has had the worst year since 1970. The mills were a
shambles. $4.5 million of cane was left standing in the fields. And there
is no end in sight. The promised aid from the European Union will not
materialize if the elections are not held and he has shown no signs of
trying to ensure that happens. He does nothing to help with the problem of
renewal of leases for sugar farmers other than to stir up a hornet’s nest
by provoking landowners.

Water and roads are still in a mess. Health services are worse. A little
boy with no particular health problems is admitted to hospital with a
broken arm and dies and then the authorities can’t even explain what
happened, except to try and say that it’s not their fault.

The Chodopu$$ picks a fight with every major industry that could deliver
jobs. Vatukoula has not opened and will be working any time soon thanks to
his eight heavy eight hands. Fiji Water, the one success story in exports
is subjected to gross bullying. If FIRCA had the legal right to charge
Fiji Water more, why not take the issue to court? Why stop the exports?

Then there is tourism. With the industry struggling after the coup in
December 2006, his answer was cut away from the funds for promotion and
burden hotels with new taxes just as they were forced into discounting
just to survive. His only objective is to flex his muscles so they know
who is the boss, a pattern of behaviour that has been  his style since he
entered politics.

Well, I’m afraid it doesn’t work any more. It worked when he was an
Opposition leader, it doesn’t work as a government.

It looks like the Chodopu$$’s hold on the Indo-Fijian community is on the
way out. So why does Frank stand by his man?

Corruption Fighter

NB: Bloggers, be weary of Budhau and the Military bloggers as they will throw in a line so way off the topic. Please stick to discussion of this article. We need maximum impact!!

Kutu

(Co-editor).

I never dreamt of the day

when we would belong to the same club as these countries:

1. Russia (a defector dictatorship of Putin with supression of the media, rigged elections and nationalisation of Commercial Enterprises to control the Nation’s wealths;
2. Syria (Ruled as a dictatorship by the Baath Party and a well known sponsor of terrorism);
3. North Korea (need a say more)
4. Vietnam (Like China, ruled by a Communist Dictatorship with an iron grip)
5. Benin (This landlock African country has a long history of Military Coup like Fiji but currently ruled by an elected government)
6. Belarus (A Russian satelite reminiscent of the Soviet Era and feeds of the crumbds of Russia and China)

What club am I referring to??? The ones that have sent letters of support to China for the brutal suppression of the uprising Chinese occupied Tibet.

NB: Mugabe has not given his support yet until some Chinese Yuan gets credited on his Swiss bank account

Race Card

Dear Sir (Editor Daily Post)
 
Akuila Yabaki attempts to defend the CCF submission to CERD by calling those who opposed it as racists. The labelling of Fijians who defend Fijian institutions, traditions and culture as racists is often the last line of defence of those working to systematically weaken the Fijian people and their institutions. Such people include Yabaki, Bainimarama, Aiyaz Khaiyum and Chaudry and his Labour cronies.
Yabaki accuses Fijians such as me of inflaming racial tensions. Didn’t members of the IG such as Bainimarama and Chaudry inflame racial tensions with their anti Fijian statements and actions on the GCC and land de reservation? He is silent on these two. Isn’t this hypocrisy of the highest order? Or has he been truly and well ensnared within the deceit of the Interim Government and the NCBBF?
 
I did not agree with Yabaki on a lot of issues but did respect him and the CCF for their consistency on the rule of law and democracy. However, that respect has evaporated with his support of a government and Peoples Charter imposed by the power of the gun.
Yabaki continues to berate Fijians, their leaders and institutions in the media and through the NCBBF structure of which he and Jone Dakuvula are key members. They forget that for changes in Fijian society (or any where) , the consultative process never fails.
 
 Yabaki therefore needs to make his presentations to CERD to the NLTB Board, Fijian chiefs, Tikina Councils and Provincial Councils. He should also pass copies of his submissions to political parties so they include it (if they agree with it) in their manifestoes for the 2009 Elections. Better still, he should stand in the elections and not hide behind guns. The ultimate arbiter should therefore be the voter and no one else.
 
I enlighten our readers with Martin Jacques Research Fellow in London School of Economics (The Guardian 17 March 0 article on Tibet riots - ” Events in Tibet have served to expose the achilles heel of modern China: its inability to recognise and respect ethnic difference within its own borders”.
 
Unfortunately, Yabaki continues to advocate revolutionary change under the power of the gun and acting as if ethnic differences are non existent, which is why he and the Interim Government and its cronies have already lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Fijian people even before the war began.
 
 
Filipe Tuisawau