Nawalowalo’s feeble excuse

Nawalowalo’s feeble excuse to appoint a VP so they can assist President Iloilo on all matters with regards to the good governance of the indigenous people, their welfare and aspirations is both inaccurate and misleading.

 

The body empowered with the responsibility to recommend to the President issues regarding the good governance of the indigenous people, their welfare and aspirations is the GCC and not VP.

 

If President Iloilo himself could properly carry out this role, then there is really no urgent need for a Vice President, unless there is an ulterior motive.

 

President Iloilo’s health has never been an issue with the IG and his Private Secretary; Rupeni Nacewa adamantly rejects any concerns raised concerning the mental competency of President Iloilo.

 

But Nawalowalo exploits this issue amongst the 14 Provinces conjuring them to nominate 3 members to the GCC and then has the gull to call some renegades for not wanting to support the IG’s proposed GCC.

 

Who is responsible for the quandary the GCC finds it in?

 

Has Nawalowalo already forgotten it was Minister Ganilau and the IG who scrapped the GCC and is responsible for creating this legal quandary?

 

If Nawalowalo, Tabakaucoro and his cronies are truly concerned with President Iloilo’s health, the good governance of the indigenous people and their aspirations, then the most obvious, convenient and legal option would be to invite back the former VP and Roko Tui Bau, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, who resigned (not sacked) and in accordance with the new criterion of the GCC imposed by the IG, is the highest installed Fijian Chief.

 

Roko Tui Bau’s nomination will ensure a quick, smooth transition back to democracy, the rule of law and could be a catalyst for positive things in the best interest of Fiji.

 

Furthermore, Roko Tui Bau adequately fulfills all the legal requirements for VP or President stipulated in section 89(1) of the Constitution.

 

Finally, Roko Tui Bau is widely respected and accepted by all ethnic communities within Fiji and abroad; his nomination will definitely restore honour and prestige to the Presidential Office and without doubt is more qualified, than the previous nominee.

 

Tui Savu.

Townsville QLD.

AUSTRALIA.

 

and this on from Dovi Mataitini in today’s Fiji Sun Letters to the Editor

 

Jo Nawalowalo seems to have taken over the portfolio of the Minister of Indigenous Affairs (micro-coup, perhaps), judging by his comments over his ill-conceived committee’s visits to Rewa and Namosi.
Perhaps he would be better off pausing and pondering over the direction he is going, because the more he says, the more revealing of exactly the kind of leadership Fiji does not need.
His consistent declaration that those provinces that do not accept the Charter should not expect assistance from the government is dictatorial, at best, for one who has made known his presidential aspirations.
This is typical leftist behaviour seeking to suppress debate. Dare to disagree with the left and you will not only be warned that you are treading on ‘dangerous territory’, but you can expect a barrage of the usual verbal vitriol: ‘extremist’, ‘reactionary’, ‘bigoted’, ‘racist’.
Even Akuila Yabaki and the CCF have waded in with a personal attack on Ro Filipe Tuisawau and his employment at USP. I am surprised Yabaki has stooped this low.
These people cannot engage in debate because their ideas are bereft of rational argument based on facts, and cannot be defended They have adopted the typical leftist tactic of focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the fundamentals, one of those fundamentals being the social responsibility of the government towards the people.
Social justice is the condition in which, ideally, all members of a society have the same basic rights, security, opportunities, obligations and social benefits.
We cannot live under the kind of threat that Nawalowalo mindlessly advocates, for it makes Government unaccountable for its actions.
The people of Rewa have accepted the bulk of the population into their province and that must never be taken for granted. At the same time, we will never bow down (no one should) to the kind of pressure that Nawalowalo is exerting, and quite unilaterally too, I might add.
Listen to what the people are really saying. There might be a few things yet to learn.

Bainimarama urges Qarase to support regime

Update: 11.14am Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has reiterated his call for ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and others to join the process towards moving the country forward.

Commodore Bainimarama says this should not only be for the General Election in 2009, but also in building a democratic society that promotes true unity as well as equitable prosperity.

Speaking from Singapore while on a fact-finding mission criticized by many at a time families in Fiji faced financial problems, Commodore Bainimarama said Mr Qarase and other critics would do better if they re-directed their energy to meaningful use.

(from fijitimes.com)

Voreqe Bainimarama, if you are reading this blog or if any of you close aid are, then please consider this/ pass it onto your boss.

If you Voreqe are a real leader then you must be prepared to swallow your pride sometimes and take the olive branch offered by Laisenia Qarase. He has offered to establish dialogue with you. You must remember that he was voted in by more then 80% of the Taukei voters and therefore represents their view.

Why is it so hard for you to have him seat across the table from you, look at each other in the eyes and talk as man passionate enough to move our beloved country forward? 

I can assure you now that history will judge you well if you come down from your pedestal, and unconditionally negotiate with Lai on equal terms. It takes a greater man to humble himself, eat a bit of humble pie and negotiate for the betterment of everyone rather than an elite few.

 

Anti Fijian (Taukei) Charter: For your analysis

gcc_regulations_2008

Above is the link to the PDF Version of the GCC regulation by the Interim Government.

Below is the reported outcome of the Bose Vanua of Namosi as reported on fijilive.com on 24/04/08

Chiefs of Namosi Province today rejected the proposed restructure of the Great Council of Chiefs and establishment of the National Council, both introduced by the interim Government.

The traditional leaders of the province’s five districts met in Navua Town today in the ‘Bose ni Turaga ni Vanua’ before hearing submissions from the GCC taskforce and a team promoting the National Council to Build a Better Fiji (NCBBF) and the People’s Charter.

Spokesman Ratu Romanu Matanitobua confirmed the decision reached by the chiefs soon after the meeting.

He said the chiefs would still allow the two visiting teams to make their presentations to the Bose Vanua later today.

“But that will not change what we have decided. We will let them know of our stand after they make their presentations,” he said.

Ratu Romanu said the district heads decided that if its high chief, ousted Cabinet minister Ratu Suliano Matanitobua, is not allowed to be part of the new-look GCC then they can not support the restructure.

He adds, they also resolved to take their cue from the Rewa Province that also rejected the Charter and GCC changes at the Rewa Provincial Council meeting last week.

The head of the Rewa Province, ousted Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa, is also head of the Burebasaga Confederacy, which includes Namosi.

“We are part of Burebasaga, if Rewa is not in support then we too will not support,” said Ratu Romanu.

Ratu Romanu said the Namosi Provincial Council, which is yet to meet, will endorse whatever the Bose Vanua decides.

The interim Government intends to convene the GCC mid-year with new membership criteria.

It will exclude chiefs who are active in politics.

Now read this news media report on Saiyad Kayum’s Thesis recommending the weakening of Fijian Institutions:

Cover Story: KHAIYUM’S ROADMAP
AG’s thesis casts doubts on chiefs’ body, Fijian loyalty

Samisoni Pareti

Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) and the Fijian Affairs Board should have evolved or be dissolved over time if they were to keep abreast with the changing needs of indigenous Fijians, a key member of Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s regime had suggested.

The perpetual existence of these creatures of British rule could only put such Fijian institutions in a ‘time warp’ and give rise to the consolidation of power to and “self-preservation” of an elite few.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum when writing his thesis for a masters in law degree at the University of Hong Kong in 2002, had also raised the possibility of these institutions operating independently of the state.

This, he wrote, would not only weaken the state but also throw into question the allegiance of Fijians to the nation-state.

Observations Khaiyum made in his thesis titled ‘Cultural Autonomy-Its Implications for the Nation-State’ has become much more relevant in light of recent pronouncements and actions of the interim government of which he is the attorney-general.

Not only has the interim regime suspended the operations of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) after the chiefs rejected its nomination for a vice-president in April, the interim government has also announced its intention to review and most probably change the membership of the chiefly body.

BLV review will continue

Work on this, however, is in doubt after the European Council-following its meeting with three senior ministers of Bainimarama’s regime in Brussels last month (that included Khaiyum)-issued a strong statement calling for, among other demands, the preservation of the “substantial independence and functioning of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC)”.

FIJI ISLANDS BUSINESS has learnt however that the legal advice given to the interim regime has given it the thumbs up to continue with the proposed review and changes to the membership of the BLV, saying it is proper under the law.

The council was not created by the 1997 constitution like other constitutional offices, but set up through an act of parliament.

As such, the minister responsible, in this case Ratu Epeli Ganilau as Fijian Affairs minister, is perfectly well within his rights to be doing what he has proposed to do, and this, according to the legal opinion, would not be in breach of the European Commission’s demand.

Since the December 5 coup last year, Bainimarama had also on several occasions spoken publicly of his desire to introduce common roll into Fiji’s voting system. This was another key point of Khaiyum’s thesis.

Calls for common roll not new

In fact he argued that the two issues of common roll and the dismantling of the Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga shared a common historical link.

Khaiyum wrote that when Sir Everard im Thurn, who became governor of Fiji in 1905, introduced his policy of ‘galala’, or greater freedom to indigenous Fijians, “some European members of the Legislative Council wanted indigenous Fijians to be made “free men” by ridding them of separate administration, which they also viewed as being financially mismanaged.

“Yet the European settler representatives in the Legislative Council made an about-turn in their individualisation mission when the girmitiyas started agitating for the right to vote and common franchise based on a common roll.”

In appointing Khaiyum into his cabinet in January, it is not clear whether Bainimarama had known about the young lawyer’s strong views about the Fijian administration and the very detailed research and analysis he had given it in his thesis.

‘Chiefly system must go’

“Cultural autonomy must have a sunset clause,” Khaiyum wrote in his conclusion.

“Its prolonged continuation will place a stranglehold on the very members it seeks to protect and it will concomitantly disallow the critical cultural space in which a just, vibrant and coherent nation-state can flourish while embracing diversity.”

That observation was preceded by a quote from the late Siddiq Koya, then a young, fiery National Federation Party orator in Fiji’s pre-independent Legislative Council.

“Why should there be poverty in the village? The place is your own, yet you are imprisoned.

“We are telling you to wake up! We want to give you the right that God gave you.

“Think for yourself who you are-you are a man!

“We want to give you the honour and dignity due to you.

“You are a man, you are an individual, and I respect you.

“But for goodness sake, your old chiefly system must go!

“It is not helping you, it is not helping this island, it is not helping us. So let’s change and move forward!”

‘Cartel of leaders’

Khaiyum’s research showed that calls for the abolishment of Fijian institutions like the BLV were nothing new, tracing it back to the administration of colonial governors like im Thurn.

He cited numerous reports compiled during the 1950s that spoke of the need to inject changes into the Fijian administration, and the resistance to such calls by people with vested interests like Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.

“The Spate’s comprehensive report of April 1959 which examined the ‘economic problems and prospects of the Fijian people’ brought to the fore that separate administration was no longer useful.

“He noted Sukuna’s interpretation of culture and his solution through a (re) structured separate administration ‘were biased by his half conscious vested interest in a society in which chiefs were chiefs.’”

Later, Khaiyum went onto observe: “European contact in Fiji was primarily in the East/North which consequently led to the confirmation of a new chiefly elite from those regions.

“This led to the establishment of a cartel of hereditary leadership families and their cliental network.

“Madraiwiwi (Sukuna’s father), Sukuna, Cakobau, Mara, Ganilau and lately Qarase have all been beneficiaries of this bias forged through the perpetuation of the separate administration.

“On the other hand, those such as Bavadra and Gavidi, westerners were not accepted and were outsiders-did not represent indigenous Fijian culture-since they encroached upon the territory of the establishment clique.”

Allegiance to state

That separate and autonomous bodies like the BLV could work against the state, Khaiyum said, was evident in the coups of 1987 and 2000.

Such a state of affairs should be worrying as it could also throw into question the loyalty of Fijians to the state.

“The manner in which the separate institutions reacted to and were utilised following the election of the Labour coalition governments and their subsequent overthrow in 1987 and 2000 demonstrated that separate institutions (Fijian Affairs Board, Bose Levu Vakaturaga, Bose ni Yasana, Bose ni Tikina, Bose ni Koro) were perceived to be and indeed viewed themselves to be independent of the institutions of the state.

“Autonomy or more appropriately the institutions of autonomy can become completely independent at the expense of superseding the institutions of the state-coming into direct conflict with the state and creating and perpetuating the ethos of the particular race and difference.

“This ultimately creates not only a very weak state but also stunts the growth of nationhood.

“In other words, cultural autonomy could provide benefits to minority groups, however culture-based institutions could get caught in a time warp and subsequently not responsive to the changes and needs of the group which has autonomy.

“Indeed one of the effects of creating culturally autonomous institutions which invariably is in relation to the ‘other’ is the homogenising of the identified group.

“This process increases the propensity to relegate and ignore intra group inequalities and injustices such as socio-economic and gender issues. At the same time, by placing too much emphasis on culturally autonomous institutions, individuals and groups could have the tendency to not only become insular but also have negligible levels of allegiance to the nation-state.”

Military ineptitude

The role of the Fiji military was hardly mentioned in the in the interim attorney-general’s thesis. All it got was one or two paragraphs in the preface of his paper.

“Mahendra Chaudhry’s reign as Prime Minister lasted only a year. He and members of his cabinet were taken hostage by a George Speight and seven armed ‘gunmen’ on 19 May 2000.

“One would have thought that given the few number of kidnappers a rescue of the Prime Minister and cabinet in particular by the Fiji Military Forces, which prides itself in its military prowess, was obvious and a relatively easy task. However this was not to be.

“The ineptitude, inertia and reluctance displayed by the military and other law enforcement agencies in the first few weeks of the crisis allowed the kidnappers a free hand in mustering support at the parliamentary grounds for their ’cause,’ holding the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in captivity for 56 days.”

Below was an assessment presented to the Rewan Provincial Council Meeting (In Fijian and English):

Na Leqa Bibi Ni Peoples Charter/ Problems About the People’s Charter.

 

1.     Bucini mai ena kaukauwa ni dakai ka vakagalala taki kina na Matanitu eda a digitaka na lewenivanua;  Formed from the illegal overthrow of an elected government through the power of the gun.

 

2.     E vakarorogo kina Interim Government baleta ni liutaka na NCBBF na Interim PM, Minisita kei ira na dau veitokoni ni Labour Party; Lacks independence and is just an instrument of the IG to further its agenda noting that IG PM and Ministers chair or co chair committees.

 

3.     E bucina mai o John Samy kei Francis Narayan, e rua na dau veitokoni kina Labour Party; Drafted and masterminded by John Samy and Francis Narayan two long time Labour supporters and funders.

 

4.     E veicoqacoqa keina Yavu Ni Vakavulewa ni 1997 ka cala tu vakalawa; Inconsistent with 1997 Constitution as shown time and time by leading legal experts.

 

5.     E tu taka mai e dua na Viti ka sega ni kilai kina na kawa tamata ; se eda I Taukei (Kai Viti) se sega (ie creation of a non racial Fiji); It de-identifies imdigenous Fijians by its ultimate objective to create a non racial Fiji.

 

6.     E na kena tarai cake e dua na Viti e sega ni kilai kina na kawa tamata (creation of a non racial Fiji); eratou sa vakatura tiko na Electoral Commission ka vakadeitaka na NCBBF me veisau nai walewale ni veidigidigi ka me sa Common Roll (one man one vote) ka me sa biu laivi nai dabedabe vaka kawa tamata wilikina na I dabedabe ni Taukei (Fijian Communal Seats); It disenfranchises the Fijian people as a group to be represented as a people in Parliament as confirmed by the latest NCBBF releases which is working to abolish Fijian seats and introduce an all Common Roll. This is an insult to our chiefs and people who have since the Legislative Council days opposed this move so as to ensure that the rights and interests of the Fijian people are protected and upheld in Parliament.

 

7.     E vakalusia nai lavo ni Matanitu ena gauna dredre e da sotava tiko e dai (e saumi tiko e $772,080 kivei ratou e lewe 5 na dau ni vakasala mai valagi ena loma ni 10 na vula; rauta e $10,000 kina $12,000 dua na tamata dua na vula); It is an expensive exercise and a waste of money noting that the cost of just 5 consultants over ten months would be in excess of $700,000.

 

8.     Sega ni tokoni mai na vei Matanitu tale eso (International Community); It has no credibility and support in as far as the international community is concernid.

 

9.     Veicoqacoqa kei na Lawa ni Dodonu ni Taukei Ni Vanua (UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples) ka a vakadonuya na Matabose Levu kei Vuravura (United Nations General Assembly) ena vula ko Seviteba 2007. E voroka na People’s Charter na Dodonu ni noda mata taki kina Palimedi, Dodonu me da vakaduria ga noda vei mata bose, Dodonu me rokovi noda vosa/ I tovo vakavanua, Dodonu me da vaduria ga noda koronivuli, Dodonu me da cicivaka ga vaka taki keda noda liutaki keina veivakatorocake taki.

 

            It totally contradicts the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People passed by the General Assembly in Sept 2007 where Fijians as a people have a right to be represented in Parliament, to be consulted on changes to their institutions, to have their own forms of governance and education and for their cultures and chiefs to be respected.

 

 

 

Na Leqa Bibi Ni Veiveisau ni Lawa Ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Fijian Affairs Great Council of Chiefs Regulations 2008)/ Problems about the GCC Regulations 2008.

 

1.     Cala tu Vakalawa;  It is an illegal promulgation forced by the power of the gun.

 

2.     Sa vakadeitaka oti na Bose Levu Vakaturaga ena 2007 ni na sega ni tokona edua na Matanitu e cala tu valalawa (Illegal Government); The GCC had already resolved that the IG is illegal so will not support it;

 

3.     Tikina 3(2) – me mata ga na Turaga I Taukei; vakacavi ira na sebera ni vakadeitaki, o ira sa toso na yabaki ni bula, o ira na gone vuli vinaka??

            Section 3(2) is impractical ie only Turaga Taukei to be members – what about those not installed, educated chiefs but no installed? It is counter productive.

 

4.     Tikina 3 (3) – Oath of Allegiance to President ; me dua na vosa ni yalayala ni veitokoni : baleta na cava? Oqo e vaka e dua nai vesu.

            Section 3(3) – Why have an Oath of Allegiance? This is designed to subjugate the chiefs to the whims of the IG.

 

5.     Tikina 3 (5) – Me Liuliu ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga na Minisita ..baleta. Oqo e dua tale nai vesu me lewai tiko kina na BLV.

      Section 3(5) Minister to Chair – this is also a way for the IG to control the agenda and outcomes. It is an insult for Voreqe to Chair after he told GCC to sit under the mango tree and drink homebrew.

 

6.     Tikina 5(2) – E rawa ni veivakasakei na Minisita.

 Section 5(2) – the Minister can terminate. He has too much power and is a means of control to manipulate the GCC for his own ends.

 

7.     Tikina 6 (d) – Tabu me dua e tu ena politiki se lewe ni Palimedi se Seneti e lewe ni BLV yacova ni oti e 7 na yabaki maina gauna e tu kina ena Palimedi/ Seneti. Oqo gona nai vadi lawaki me kua ni curu na Marama Roko Tui Dreketi, Turaga Tui Cakau keina na Turaga Tui Namosi.

      Section 6(d) -  7 years standown period. This is meant to exclude chiefs such as Roko Tui Dreketi, Tui Cakau and Tui Namosi as they are opposed to IG.

 

Kenai Kau

 

Ni da dikeva na veiveisau,  e sa kenai naki ga me ratou lewa na IG na Bose Levu Vakaturaga, lewa o cei me lewena, ka me rawa kina ni ratou rawata kina na IG nai naki me digitaki totolo na vukevuke ni Peresitedi eratou vinakata tiko.

 

      Conclusion

      The GCC Regulations (200 is designed for the IG to control the membership and hence the agenda and outcomes of the GCC so as to choose their own Vice President who will replace Rt Iloilo and who will continue to pass promulgations to change the electoral system by abolishing the Fijian Communal seats, manipulate boundaries and ultimately delay the elections to suit the Labour Party and its allies.

It is obvious that Charter, GCC changes, downgrading of Fijians Affairs originates from Khaiyum, John Samy and Labour while Voreqe and Army are just the dumb tools.
Pls post anonymously in Solivakasama with your own assessment.

 

A Charter to end all coups?

THE article by Lorine Tevi, Desmond Whiteside and Ratu Jolame Lewanavanua of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF) is very revealing.

It reinforces the doubt many citizens have about the work and integrity of the NCBBF and intent of the People’s Charter.

The tone of their comments is dictatorial, boastful and personal. As members of NCBBF they should take an independent approach but they are pushing a line of propaganda from Mahendra Chaudhry and the Fiji Labour Party.

Ms Tevi, Mr Whiteside and Ratu Jolame demonstrated that they are infected by the coup virus. They stand condemned by their apparent endorsement of the removal by force of the government led by the SDL-FLP multi-party Cabinet.

The authors suggested that the charter will ensure there is no repeat of December 2006. In other words, the charter will mean an end to coups.

It is difficult to understand the logic of this argument. After all, the charter will merely be a document full of words, without any representative popular support.

It will never guarantee there will be no coup in future.

Questions have been asked about whether there will be another coup if the military and NCBBF do not get their way with the charter.

The illegal overthrow of an elected government amounts to treason. That is, perhaps, the most serious crime. The cycle of coups can only be eradicated if the hearts and minds of those inclined to carry it out undergo radical change.

They must permanently turn against treason as a means of imposing their will and commit themselves to following the law.

This is the only sure way to eliminate the coup culture.

The NCBBF members asked the question what is the SDL’s alternative beyond the election?

The answer is simple if the SDL party wins the majority of seats in the House of Representatives it will form a multi-party government in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution.

A fresh five-year Strategic Development Plan (SDP) will be prepared to guide the development efforts of the Government.

Since the 2007-2011 SDP remains very much relevant this document will be used as the base for the policies of the new government. It will be complemented by the SDL election manifesto and those of other parties in the Government.

If the charter contains principles with which the SDL agrees and approved by the people, there is no reason why these might not form part of the government’s agenda. This is a political issue to be dealt with through political procedures but the charter cannot be forced on Parliament.

Ms Tevi and her associates think that calling the SDP a People’s Charter is a joke. There is no joke. I refer to the SDP as a plan rather than a charter.

The authors boast that the consultative process adopted by the NCBBF was more comprehensive and superior to that used for the SDP. They are wrong.

While the procedures for the preparation of the charter and SDP have some similarities, there are crucial differences. In the case of the charter, the NCBBF is helped by nine working groups consisting of 200 participants representing various interests. In comparison, the SDP preparation involved 11 working groups comprising a wide representation from the community, public and private sectors, civil society and non-government organisations. A national economic summit (NES) was the equivalent of the NCBBF.

A significant difference in the consultation process is that the SDP was not taken to the village and rural level. However, the people were represented by their elected members in the House of Reps who had a mandate to speak for them.

Unfortunately, the People’s Charter consultation with village/rural people is questionable and open to manipulation.

Typically, government officials hold meetings with the people for one or two hours; the charter is explained to them and then a “question and answer” session is allowed before the officials leave.

There is no time for the audience to absorb the charter information, let alone make contributions. I suspect the officials would require expression of support from the people before they leave.

The Vitogo meeting shown on Fiji One was a disturbing example of what is happening. The soldiers presenting material to the villagers made it clear that for the next election there will be no need for party manifesto. It is the opposite of democracy and an attempt to curtail freedom of thought, speech, expression and choice.

Ms Tevi, Mr Whiteside and Ratu Jolame should declare whether they, too support this authoritarian and dictatorial approach. The most important differences between the People’s Charter and SDP processes are: The SDL’s national economic summit consisted of elected members of Parliament, chief executives of the public and private sectors, representatives of political parties, NGOs and civil society, reps of Fijian institutions and many other interest groups, irrespective of political affiliation.

The NCBBF and its working groups contain a sizeable contingent of Labour party members, ministers of the interim Government and representatives of a few industry groups, NGOs and civil society organisations, including coup sympathisers and supporters. So it is not independent.

Some large NGOs, political parties, trade union organisations, religious groups and other key stakeholders in society are not represented since they do not support the charter.

In addition, NCBBF meetings are held in secret, whereas the NES was open to the media. Ms Tevi, Mr Whiteside and Ratu Jolame, as supposed champions of transparency and accountability, should tell the public when the door will be opened to NCBBF meetings.

I did not paint a rosy picture of the SDL term in office (2000-2006). I merely gave a factual account that reflected the performance of the government I led.

Before the 2006 coup, the economy was making good progress. Economic growth for the previous five years recorded an average 2.8 per cent GDP, the highest average for any five-year period over the past 15 years. Inflation averaged 3.5 per cent, foreign reserves averaged about three to four of imports, interest rates were low, investment rose from 10 per cent in 2000 to about 18 per cent of GDP in 2006, employment increased substantially and wages were increasing.

We had additional work to do to ensure a more even distribution of income to address a 4 per cent increase to 33 per cent in the number of people living below the poverty line. The policies in the SDP were geared to achieve this. Our major industries performed well. Tourism and the construction and building industries were booming, the 2006 sugar season achieved an output of 320,000 tonnes of sugar, mining, agriculture, fisheries and forestry performed to expectations.

Both investor and consumer confidence was high. Government finances were sound. The police force was well led and violent crime was on the decline.

These are facts that cannot be disputed. Ms Tevi, Mr Whiteside and Ratu Jolame can verify them. They will also find that the Asian Development Bank described growth under the SDL as solid and noted the strong performance by the private sector. It listed our external debt outstanding as the lowest among 12 Pacific Island states. The International Monetary Fund, part of the World Bank, also commented favourably on Fiji’s economic progress from 2000.

Ms Tevi and her colleagues concentrate on the issue of public debt. Before the coup in 2006 it stood at 52 per cent of GDP, which is at the highest end of the medium range. In 2001 when the SDL came to power it announced that Government would take an expansionary approach in public expenditure in order to revive and stimulate the economy after the events of 2000.

This policy obviously paid off. The proof is in the results that were achieved. An important issue is management of the debt level. In presenting the 2007 Budget, Finance Minister Ratu Jone Kubuabola said the Government would bring it down to 45 per cent of GDP by 2011. I believe the issue is being highlighted because of the inability of the interim Finance Minister to manage the economy and government finances.

Compare our accomplishments with the disastrous performance of the interim regime after 16 months in office economic growth in 2007 registered a negative -3.9 per cent of GDP. In contrast with an initial forecast growth of 2 per cent of GDP for that year, the actual negative growth of -39 per cent of GDP represents an overall contraction of the economy of 5.9 per cent of GDP in 2007.

A forecast growth rate of 2.2 per cent of GDP in 2008 is unlikely to be achieved. Inflation registered more than 4 per cent in 2007 and by early 2008 was running at well over 7 per cent, the highest during the past 10 years. Prices of basic food items have soared to record levels. Our major industries have performed poorly. Sugar output for the 2007 season was only 24,000 tonnes, the lowest in the past 20 years, tourism continues to suffer and struggle, the construction and building industry is in decline, mining, forestry, fisheries and agriculture are performing poorly.

Investment has virtually dried up and both investor and consumer confidence is extremely low. Lost jobs due to the coup have not been recovered, unemployment has increased substantially, more and more people live below the poverty line and in squatter settlements. In fact, when Mr Chaudhry delivered the 2008 Budget he mentioned that about 50 per cent of our population now live below the poverty line. He was admitting that during the 16 months of the interim Government’s rule, poverty rose by 17 per cent from 33 per cent in 2006 to 50 per cent in 2008. Allegations of corruption, nepotism, cronyism, abuse of office and law-breaking against the interim regime is rife. It has made bad governance one of its specialities. There is still abuse of human rights and liberty and threats to constitutional freedom. Violent crimes continue to increase.

Ms Tevi and her co-authors questioned the inclusion of elements of the FLP manifesto in the SDP for 2007-2011. When the SDL/FLP multi-party Cabinet was established, an officials committee in the PM’s office was appointed to prepare a comparative analysis of the SDL and FLP manifestoes.

The analysis revealed only a few issues on which the two parties had differences. So the SDP contained measures consistent with both manifestoes. It was approved by the multi-party Cabinet and later tabled in Parliament. Ms Tevi’s team has expressed doubt that “national unity and identity, constitutional changes, social cultural reforms and good governance” are in the SDP. All I can say is that they should read the SDP carefully.

My claim that the charter is being rejected is based on the widespread negative reaction from citizens and organisations. The charter has become a source of division, rather than unity. The solution to Fiji’s crisis lies in dialogue between Commodore Bainimarama and the country’s main political parties.

In the SDL’s case, it won the 2006 election with about 80 per cent of the Fijian vote. Our party can therefore speak with authority derived from the people on issues affecting the country at this time of uncertainty and national disarray.

A first step in this dialogue was to have been held last month through the good office of Sir Paul Reeves of New Zealand. Sir Paul, a Commonwealth emissary, was here at the invitation of Commodore Bainimarama.

Unfortunately, a scheduled meeting I was to attend was cancelled at the last minute. However, I understand that Sir Paul is to return soon. Our party still stands ready to engage constructively in the discussions he is hoping to organise.

The SDL’s agenda is quite clear we will act in the best interests of Fiji with the immediate purpose of advancing the country to election early in 2009 or sooner.

We are willing to pursue with open minds the national reconciliation necessary to repair the damage done to Fiji by the coup.

Laisenia Qarase (as taken from the FijiTimes Feature Column)

Teleni’s kafuffle

Teleni’s comments over Peceli Kinivuwai’s wrongful prevention to travel to Australia shows his gross ineptitude and utter failure to comprehend the seriousness of the breach.

Fijilive quotes him as saying ‘I told him that I will check the matter first’ and ‘Kinivuwai should check with me today. He will have to get back to me today not me getting back to him.’

Teleni is also quoted as saying that Kinivuwai should have first checked with the Ministry of Home Affairs before approaching him directly, despite the fact, the forged letter purports to have been signed by him.

Teleni is correct in pointing out the proper administrative channels to follow during normal business, but the breach was ‘extraordinary’ and time was of the essence.

The fact Teleni was purportedly the author of the said letter, would have been reason enough for any competent Police Commissioner to act swiftly.

Teleni should have acted swiftly, denied authorship, rejected its authenticity, informed Immigration to allow Kinivuwai to depart Fiji, then launch a full scale investigation into this very serious breach.

Yet, Teleni tells Kinivuwai, he’ll look into it and then for Kinivuwai to contact him later to find out what he’s uncovered.

This is sheer ignorance. Kinivuwai knows very well trying to contact Teleni later on in the day, would be impossible, if he does not want to be contacted.

What is the purpose for the talks when the purpose of Kinivuwai departure no longer matters?

Teleni’s investigation would have taken its normal course, but Kinivuwai, the victim has been left stranded.

Teleni should have acted more professionally, apologised for any misunderstanding and give an undertaking that he’ll utilise the full resources within the Police Force to uncover this conspiracy.

However, the impression one gets from Teleni’s comments is his indifferent to the seriousness of the security breach, which naturally raises suspicion of his involvement, knowledge or acquiescence of the forged letter.

I had written last year that Teleni was not suited for this position, when he was chosen over then Acting Police Commissioner Romanu Tikotikoca and this kafuffle further validates my claim.

Another note of concern, which some may find trivial, is that Teleni seems to have forgotten the fact; there is no longer a Ministry for Home Affairs.

When Cabinet was reshuffled, Minister Ganilau became the 1^st Minister for the newly renamed Ministry of Defence, National Security and Immigration taking over the former Ministry for Home Affairs.

Teleni’s continual kafuffles is a serious breach of national security and is a matter of grave concern.

I am reminded of the Roman poet, Juvenal’s famous quote ‘quis custodiet ipsos custodies’ which is so true of Fiji’s situation today.

Tui Savu.

Townsville QLD.

Script from Dr Couglan’s hearing with the NZ Law Society

decision-1992

Cick on the above link to read the details of Dr Couglan’s hearing before he was struck off by the NZ Law society in 1992. He was dishonest with some mortgage loan dealings and was an alchoholic.

decision-2003

Click on the above link to read on the NZ Law Society hearing that re-admitted him back as a solicitor in 2003. While in exile, he made use of the time to study and got his PHD as well as an MBA and also speciliased in Project Management and indigenous land resource utilisation use in Papua New Guinea. So on paper he was not a bad choice after all and would have been useful later on with NLTB or Taukei Resource Owners.

HOWEVER, he failed the test!!! WHY DID HE FAIL TO REVEAL THAT HE WAS STRUCK OFF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY IN 1992?????

That shows a flawed character so no thanks. We have better people in Fiji that can do the Election Commisioner’s job!

Gross Legal Incompetence

decision_1992

 

The Constitutional Commission’s decision to revoke Dr. Coughlan’s appointment as Supervisor of Elections highlights the absolute incompetence of the IG and its appointees.

 

Chairman Rishi Ram’s excuse that Dr. Coughlan never disclosed the fact of his disbarment during his interview, seriously questions his competency for the job.

 

What is more alarming is the fact Chairman Ram sent Dr. Coughlan’s name over to the Minister for Elections, whose office vetted his name and gave the green light before Dr. Coughlan’s contract was dully executed.

 

COC’s lawyer, Gavin O’Driscoll speaking on behalf of the Commission tells the media, they will not commit the same mistake again, which is simply not good enough and too little too late.

 

How can these so-called legal professionals Gavin O’Driscoll, Minister Khaiyum and Christopher Pryde allow such a glaring omission by-pass scrutiny at the preliminary stages of the Selection Process?

 

It seems very strange to me, that Christopher Pryde wasn’t aware of Dr. Coughlan’s disbarment, as they both practiced in New Zealand?

 

O’Driscoll, Khaiyum and Pryde should disclose to the people of Fiji, what steps (if any) did they actually take to pass Dr. Coughlan’s application?

 

For instance, did they inquire with the New Zealand Law Society or New Zealand Bar Society?

 

Did they insist on seeing his Certificate of Good Standing before advising the Commission? If not, why not?

 

A quick look at the New Zealand Bar Association website reveals Dr. Coughlan is not a Member of that Association, although he maybe a Member of the New Zealand Law Society.

 

However, if he was a Member of the NZLS, then a Certificate of Good Standing if requested, would have disclosed his disbarment.

 

How can these incompetent so-called professionals continue to practice in Fiji with immunity?

 

Expatriate lawyers working in Fiji; know full well, gross incompetence of this magnitude back in their home jurisdictions would have cost them their job; reputation and even possible disciplinary action for bringing the Law Society into disrepute.

 

Expatriate Lawyers, Judges, Consultants, etc working in Fiji should maintain at all times the same professional and ethical standards expected of them in their home jurisdictions when working in Fiji because much more is expected of them, hence the higher salary and benefits they receive over their local counter-part.

 

If they can’t, then they should resign because they’ve now become a financial burden on the taxpayers of Fiji.

 

Tui Savu.

Solicitor.

Townsville QLD.

Australia.

 

And then we have this letter on the Fiji Times from retired politician Militoni Leweniqila!

 

Supervisior of Elections

THERE has been a lot of discussion on the appointment of the Supervisor of Elections, leading up to the appointment of a highly qualified New Zealand lawyer which is presently being queried.

I have had some experience on general elections.

I am questioning the necessity to look overseas when we have hundreds of locals who qualify and can easily carry out the functions of the Supervisor of Elections. While the Constitution requires a legal qualification, the functioning of this office is more logistical than legal.

A suitable candidate would be a person with local administrative experience, has a fair knowledge of the geography, communication and transport system.

The cost of an election is dependent very much on how the Supervisor of Election handles his logistics. Experienced Returning Officers in the planning (budget) stages are essential.

They should have a fair idea of the transport and communications system to each and every polling station. A local appointment on the above basis can cut costs drastically.

Militoni Leweniqila
Delainavesi

The floor is yours, Chaudhry: Tell us about the secret $2million

Due to popular demand we are bringing you this article from Saturday’s Fiji Sun. Yes, this was the one they quickly took off line on Saturday. Why, because????? 

By VICTOR LAL
Mahendra Pal Chaudhry is once again furiously riding on his favourite hobby horse – media bashing - accusing the media of arrogance, and of imposing its own views on the people of Fiji. He says that the media is, therefore, denying the people the right to information. Excuse me, to borrow the form of address “Chaudhry saheb” used by that mysterious Haryana “Indian Santa Claus” – one Harbhajan Lal - if it had not been for the media, and the Fiji Sun and its deported publisher Russell Hunter, the people of Fiji would not have been aware that you had been secretly hiding $2million in your Australian bank account for the last eight years from them, which you got from India after you were overthrown by George Speight’s 2000 coup.
If the “arrogant” Fiji Television had not given you prime time following my disclosure to the nation about your secret millions, you would not have belatedly informed the nation that the money was personally given to you for re-settlement in Australia. Moreover, since my disclosure, the media have given you ample opportunity to come out clean on the millions and yet you have patently chosen not to answer any questions. You cannot choose to roar like a lion when it suits you, and to retreat into Buddha like silence when faced with awkward but important questions the media and the nation demand from you – in this particular instance regarding the following questions.
Since I disclosed that you, as the FLP leader and interim Minister of Finance, had been secretly hiding $2million from us (or as the catch phrase goes in Fiji – “me and my family”) in your Australian bank account, I have been inundated with requests to ask you to explain to the nation, through the media, on what grounds were you entitled to the money from Haryana, even gifting $50,000 to your daughter? Who is the mysterious Harbhajan Lal who wrote to FIRCA on your behalf on 9 September 2004 claiming the money was raised for you?
In forwarding the unauthenticated letter, whose opening sentence sharply contradicted with the corresponding evidence tendered from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to FIRCA, did you or your delegated tax agents, make false representation to the tax authorities and were, therefore, in breach of the Income Tax Act?
The opening sentence of Harbhajan Lal’s letter to you reads as follows: “Dear Chaudhry saheb…I received your letter. You have asked for details of the funds…The total amounting to nearly AUD 15 lakhs was sent to you with the help of Government of India through its Consulate General in Sydney.
We sent AUD 503,000/ as first instalment in the year 2000. In 2001, AUD 486,890/ was sent and then in 2002 AUD 514,148 was sent.”
Although we do not know when or what you wrote to Harbhajan Lal about the state of the Haryana funds, there is incontrovertible evidence that you were acutely aware that you had received into your private Australian bank nearly $2million between 2000 and 2002. Are you willing to make public, through the media, that letter of yours that you allegedly wrote to Harbhajan Lal?
Why was $514,148.50 transferred into your account via the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney? There is no evidence whatsoever that Harbhajan Lal directly transferred $503,000 and $486,890, so who transferred these first two sums into your private bank account? Why did you want the money to be deposited into your Australian bank account and not into your Fiji bank account?
Did you and your FLP use the $2million, or a part of the sum, to fight the 2001 and 2006 general elections? Did you lie to Parliament on 2 December 2005 when you declared that you had not received a cent from Haryana? Did the Indian Government lie on your behalf when it declared that no money was given to you from India? Is the so-called “Haryana Letter” from Harbhajan Lal a forgery? If not, why not? Why didn’t you tell the people of Fiji in December 2005 that you, in fact, had been using the money since 2001?
When will you open up the 2003 Cyclone Ami relief funds for public inspection that were sent into your Bank of Baroda account in Fiji (Account No: 155728)? You may recall that it was on 10 August 2006 that I had asked you to disclose the amount collected worldwide. It had occurred to me to raise the matter publicly after I had read you demanding an immediate audit investigation into the funding for the 2003 South Pacific Games held in Suva, the same year that the Cyclone Ami had struck.“It is three years now since the Games were held, yet a financial report on the SPG accounts has still not been presented to Parliament by FASANOC and the Ministry of Sports,” you said.
In a statement you said your party had been informed that a sum of $18 million was spent on the Games, of which the Government made a substantial contribution of some $7 million. You said taxpayers had a right to know how this money was used and why an audited report of the finances had not been submitted. Similarly, on behalf of all of those who had generously responded to your appeal, I had demanded that you account for every cent collected and spent on the cyclone vicitms. Its nearly two years now, and yet the public have not seen any figures? When will we hear from you?
One recurring question thrown at me is how could anybody from Fiji just fly into a foreign country like India, and coolly and secretly walk away with not two dollars but two million dollars? Since you never settled in Australia, why didn’t you return the money to whoever gave it to you? Was the money intended for the Indo-Fijian community, as you had initially claimed after FIRCA had found out about the millions in 2004? Was it intended for the Indo-Fijian refugees at the Girmit Centre in Lautoka?
Well, “Chaudhry saheb”, you might want to explain to the nation why a Fiji citizen like you were entitled to secretly get the $2million into your Australian bank account? And why you and your family were only entitled to it when thousands upon thousands of peoples in Fiji suffered because of the events of 2000 upheaval, especially Indo-Fijians? How much was paid to the three-member tax team which controversially cleared you? Or do you want me to inform the people, via the Fiji media, on how much each of the three members were paid for three days of work in the preparation of that whitewash tax report?
Finally, should the likes of you be barred from contesting the next general election because by not disclosing the $2million to the voters of Fiji, you had breached the trust deposed in you as a national political leader, and potential prime minister in waiting, for if you had won the two consecutive general elections in 2001 and 2006, you would have taken charge of the ship of the state, irrespective of, as you claim now, the skewed electoral system ?
In fact, should any political leader who had been hiding millions from the Fiji taxpayers be barred from becoming the country’s Finance Minister, and line manager of FIRCA? Or even be disallowed to represent the voters in Fiji’s next Parliament? It is also worth pointing out that the unelected and unaccountable National Council for Building a Better Fiji is not the right forum for you to bash the media.
It seems there is a familiar pattern, bordering on gross obscenity, that whenever the media dares to question how and why vast amounts of taxpayers money is used or abused by a bunch of self-anointed people claiming to be working in the interest of the people (when the people had no say in the execution of the coup, the re-appointment of the President and other appointments and developments since 5 December 2006 coup), it is the media which is accused of lacking in ethics and code of conduct.
The media has every right, in the name of the people, to question you on your $2million, including the salary of NCBBF’s John Samy, and all others who have been hired from within Fiji or brought from abroad on hefty pay packets, to impose on the people of Fiji their vision of a non-racial Fiji, and in breach of the 1997 Constitution.
And the media has every right to ask you and all others like you to explain that what right have you to simply fly into a foreign country like India, touch roots with your ancestral homeland in Haryana, return home, but leave behind in Australia $2million sent from India into your Sydney bank account. While Haryana claimed you as one of its own, you also, on 18 May told an audience in New Delhi: “ I myself am a descendent of South India, although my father is from Haryana, my mother was Malyali, her parents immigrated to Fiji from the south of Kerala in the year 1912.”
One major problem in the elimination of racial politics in Fiji is that many Indo-Fijian leaders still look towards India despite their ancestors being in Fiji since 1879. It is time they were forced to decide where their loyalty rests. They cannot have it both ways.
And perhaps the Indian High Commissioner should explain to the people of Fiji why his country secretly gave you the $2million after the 2000 coup? For India seems to have suddenly become very keen about the welfare of Fiji and her people since the 2006 coup.
You told the NCBBF that Fiji was going through a very fragile stage in its national development and “cannot allow irresponsible, immature and politically biased media to create further divisiveness and instability”. Your comments were made in response to recent newspaper stories that you claim made allegations against you on certain matters and denied you the right to reply. You questioned whether it was responsible journalism that the two dailies and Fiji TV were practising and if the media was being held accountable to anyone.
You asked: “Does the newspaper have the right to publish what it pleases, and attack people at whim, without any regard to accuracy, truth, fairness and balance?” The answer is no if it is not truthful but as far as your Australian millions are concerned, the truth and questions peering out of the documentary evidence warrant persistent media queries and replies from you.
Maybe you, “Chaudhry saheb”, who are once again railing against the media, claiming that it is bias towards you by not publishing your letters etc, would put to pen where your mouth is, and answer the many questions raised above, and any other questions that might follow from me if you take up the challenge.
And the people of Fiji would love to read, through the media, your side of the story about the mysterious $2million from “Mother India”. The floor is yours, “Chaudhry saheb”.

The views expressed are those of Victor Lal and not that of the Fiji Sun. E-mail:victor_lal@yahoo.co.uk

Remember This??? From our archive

As translated from this hand writen letter in hindi scripts

“Did Mr Chaudhry mislead the nation, the Government of India, the people of Haryana, and the citizens of Fiji when he categorically denied ever receiving any money from Haryana?

Why didn’t he disclose that he had received $2million from one Harbhajan Lal, who had been a part of a committee which channelled the money into his private Sydney bank account?”

Still in doubt then read the evidence above and people please print and PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY PHOTOCOPY and distribute to anyone and everyone until all the villager and the squatters and the cane farmers have a copy as evidence of the working of this crook. So the 850,000 Fiji Islanders can all have a copy and wherever M P Chaudary goes in Fiji we can confront him waive this letter in his face and ask him the $2 million question,

Where did the money come from and what was it’s intended purpose??? Why did he not declare the interest earned from it in his tax return????

Oh and I almost forgot, why no investigation Bai???? do you want us to scan and upload the whole content of his tax file on this blog so the world can see what you have been denying about your illegal and Butabutako Finance Minister???? THAT HE IS A TAX FRAUD!!!

 Well we’ve republished it as a sweetner as there is more coming tomorrow. Watch this space!!!

Go Fiji TV

The Fiji Sun has reported that Fiji Television Limited is challenging the
legality of the presidential promulgation last year that took away its tax
exemption status. The constitutional redress application was first
mentioned in Justice Davendra Pathik’s chambers yesterday and lists the
Commissioner for Inland Revenue and President Ratu Josefa lloilo as
respondents.

Outside court, Munro Leys lawyer representing Fiji TV, John Apted said his
clients were exempted from paying tax by an Act of Parliament before the
forceful overthrow of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua-led government.

The constitution clearly says that laws are made by the Parliament. The
pieces of paper purporting to do otherwise should be challengeable. Let’s
hope that Fiji TV refuses to pay and so makes the illegal regime prove
that its actions are legal, instead of citizens having to prove to courts
that their actions are illegal.

The hotels should do the same with the turnover tax increase. Just
don’t pay and make the illegal regime prove its actions are legal.

Navosavakadua