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.

Advertisements

35 Responses to “Nawalowalo’s feeble excuse”

  1. LG Says:

    As always, an excellent thought provoking letter from Tui Savu.

    Much as Nawalowalo, Bainimarama, Ganilau WISH and WANT their WAY to be followed, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

    Theres also an excellent letter in the Sun from Dovi Mataitini advising Nawalowalo to LISTEN to the people. If not, why consult? why ask their views? why travel all over Fiji to make your presentation?

    If their views are ‘insignificant’, why seek their views? Sa votivoti dina na rogoci $2 man ena retio.

    Better start your presentation by saying this is what my tui voceqe wants, and the soldiers with their guns will enforce it and you should just OBEY. But nyet, you take your sevusevu, you vakarokoroko vakacikinovu and then outside of the vale ni bose, you point fingers and call the provinces ungrateful.

    On an aside, its wonderful to see the young people of Rewa VOICING their views and the people of Fiji seeing the fruits of education of the children of Rewa. E maleka dina vei keimami na saravi kemudou mai Rewa, Namosi, Naitasiri kei Cakaudrove. Qai macala nacava nai rorogo mai Macuata kei Bua ka rau sa baci lai kodrokodro ekea o nawalowalo kei ralogaivau.

  2. bodyguard Says:

    very good one Tui and indeed hit’s the issue on the nail….

    ulterior motive dina…..oilei….na repetition of words, arguments etc etc from this military govt is just mind blowing…..they hav run out of options and coming to the end of the road. time is running out cowardo vore…..choose wisely ur last decisions!!

    dou na mate na sotia taucoko ni tokona tiko na boci qo ra tu ena military govt. ni veicai…

  3. Mark Manning Says:

    Bula Tui
    thanks for your legal input , I personally have no legal expertise and value your knowledge of all matters legal .
    It’s my understanding that only an Elected Government can resolve Fiji’s current crisis . It alone , can restore the GCC as it was before , and hence the election or appointing of a Vice President can be done by the restored GCC . Anything proposed by the Interim Government to date , is illegal .
    God bless Fiji .

  4. Barr Watson Says:

    Tui,

    LG knows something that we are blinded to. Ralogaivau and Tui Macuata might be gunnig for theV P and eventually the Presidency.

    The equaqtion to rotate to the Matanitu seems to me will work in their favour.

  5. kaiveicoco Says:

    agree with barr watson.What somebdoy told me some years ago about this rotation is that Tui Macuata will be probably be the next VP.
    As for Nwalowalo the only reason he is barking so much and talking about development issues for the provinces is to score some good marks and hope for the best that the IG will reverse its decision about the Kadavu House which is now becoming a white elephant but the article by Tui Savu is spot on.

  6. Mark Manning Says:

    The IG has no legal authority in Fiji , that’s the reality . Fijians should never allow themselves to be dictated to by Frank and his mob .
    It’s time for Fijians to resist any further deterioration of their society and Governing bodies and Institutions .

  7. mela Says:

    @ BW – the rotation currently falls to Kubuna I think since the first 2 presidents were from Tovata, the 3rd from Burebasaga.Not that ambition is bad. Just in the current situation, we have enough of those who ‘kocova na itutu’ and cannot see beyond their personal wants. And its better for those with that ambition to be up front for something that is for their OWN good and not of the people ALTOGETHER. Na itutu e bunoci rau – na vavuvuli dredre taudua ka ra sega ni kila na makubui boroni, ganilau kei bainimahendras!

    @ kaiveicoco – Kadavu sound like they have secured an alternate tenant. They could take the IG to court to claim the $710,000 owing. The 8 month delay in occupation is due to the IG changing its mind as to which dept to house there – first it was PSC, then Police, then Justice – each time the landlord was given different floor plans – not the landlord’s fault, but the IG signed on the dotted line way back and OWES kadavu that $$ now. Thats why Rt Sela asked the IG to activate the exit clauses. Even if new tenants are secured, the IG still owes the rent for the last 8 months. No matter that chods is holding tight to the treasury keys like its daddyo’s paisa, it aint and you gotta pay ceasar whats his.

  8. Tim Says:

    Of course there is an alteria motive! Every last little action is taken with self-preservation in mind.
    There’s only one thing I disagree with Dovi Mataitini on. That is that the behavious is not typically left-wing, but rather exteme right wing. And THAT is the problem with where Chodo and cohorts have led Fiji. They have purported to support traditional “Labour” principles fighting for the working class and the oppressed, but in fact have hoodwinked their followers and done done exactly the opposite. The iIG junta could better be described as facist.

  9. mela Says:

    @ Tim

    agree with right-wing behaviour of this govt.

    So much for the anti-globalist kevin barr. First thing the IG did was break Pacific solidarity and signed an EPA with the EU….. (Kevina says: thas olrite, our new Fiji will break all that globalisation and structural adjustment demanded by WTO and the demon corporate sector through our SUPER charter farter).

  10. Glawyer Says:

    Its pathetic to see this grub going around mouthing off and wasting tax payers money on this useless exercise which he himself admits will go ahead with or without the support of the provinces. Good to see provinces like Naitasiri, Rewa, Namosi and Cakaudrove telling this illegal morons exactly what the people think of them. I hope the chiefs of the other provinces take note of what the people want and not their own ambitions. There are way too many sellouts, traitor and turncoats already like Nawalowalo. People who bow to money or bow to force. This is not the Fijian way and kudos to the people of Naitasiri, Rewa, Namosi and Cakaudrove for standing up to these illegal fools.

  11. Mark Manning Says:

    Thank God for multi culturalism .
    Ambassadors for world peace .
    We carry on surprising you .
    Bloody brillian
    thttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbxfVOIyJq8&feature=related
    One should celebrate lifes diversities .

  12. Tracker Says:

    The problem with the Indo-Fijians is not that they are Fijians or Indian origin in Fiji – the problem is their rootlessness – and it is the tragedy of all rootless people – but they rootlessness has also been Fiji’s gain – it gave Fiji and the Fijians the unique opportunity to live in a multi-cultural and multi-racial and multi-religious world – the issue is how to sustain it?

  13. BebeniBogi Says:

    Tui Savu – good one.

    Does anyone have the full text of Ratu Joni’s speech. Island Boy (from previous post) or SV team.

    Fiji heading to uncertain future -Ratu Joni (From Fiji Tv Website)
    30 Apr 2008 01:53:59

    Roko Tui Bau, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, is the only chief from Tailevu eligible to be represented in the new look Great Council of Chiefs.

    Ratu Joni revealed this, while addressing the Fijian Teachers Association annual meeting this morning, where he also said that the new GCC regulation has huge traditional implications.

    The Roko Tui Bau Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi was Chief guest at the 74th Fijian Teachers Association AGM this morning.

    The Bau Chief who was forcefully removed from Presidency at the height of the December 6th event, has been in the limelight, issuing statements on national issues.

    Today was no exception, he was invited to speak on the theme, contemporary views on Indigenous issues. Ratu Joni based his speech on the UN Declaration on the rights of the indigenous people.

    Ratu Joni says the interim government is leading the country to an uncertain future, calling on the Indigenous people to now value traditional ties, by mataqali, yavusa or vanua.

    And not to be easily swayed.

    Then the Bau Chief turned to the new GCC laws.

    The Former VP also made reference to the new selection criteria for the new look GCC.

    Then Ratu Joni’s personal views on whether the Indigenous Affairs minister had breached the UN Declaration.

    My humble 2 cents worth in front of this great leader who should take Fiji into the next chapter in Fiji’s history >>> It is apparent that the big question in the uncertain future, being the anhiliation of the Fijian Race. Indeed a very solemn day for the nation should that occur.

  14. FijiGirl Says:

    Isa, Nawalowalo is trying the old Jedi Mind Trick, where you bend weaker minds to your will. Compare –

    Obi Wan Kenobi “These are not the droids you are looking for.”

    Nawalowalo – “There is no inconsistency here.”

    Well, Nawalowalo, the Jedi Mind Trick is a great thing, except that it only works IF YOU ARE A JEDI.

    I for one, deeply wish you were a fictitious character in a movie.

    Btw, Fiji has a fantastic Vice President, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, who was illegally removed by the illegal regime.

    God bless Fiji

  15. Barr Watson Says:

    Mela;

    It would be difficult to get someone from Kubuna until a Vunivalu is installed.
    Ratu Jope and Ratu Joni resigned and Ratu Epeli is moving back to his ancestral homeland .

    It would be difficult to get someone who is not from Bau seeing the overflow of ambition coming from the Tui Kaba i cake clan

    The alternative is to look to Tovata and/ or Burebas ,but please no Ralogaivau.This gentleman has given us a sample of his deceitful ways in the way he conned his sisters

  16. mela Says:

    @ BW

    The Roko Tui Bau has been installed. But then the Constitution does not require the PResident or VP to be indigenous or even an installed chief. Mataca could be the next president, so could frank, if the IG bought enough chiefs for a quorum in their new GCC.

    8)
    My speculation/calculation:

    The IG only need 27 for quorum : assuming Rotuma, Lau and Macuata make their nominations = 9. + 6 nominated by Frank as interim minister = 15 (the 6 would include uninstalled IG chiefs like Ganilau, Nailatikau, Maras etc).

    They then need another 12 for quorum – and because the provincial councils (PC) do not sit to elect (under the Feb 2008 GCC regulations) their 3 reps, Frank can off the top of his head, choose certain chiefs to represent certain provinces if they were willing – add a $100/daily allowance and the additional 12 required won’t be so hard to get.

    Frank would probably appoint another 20 – including installed chiefs like Tui Macuata, Tui Ba (Sorokoba) and other IG sypathisers – even if Ralogaivau is no longer chairman of Bua PC, if the IG controlled NLC accept the letter signed by his mataqali members (including his sisters), he can be a rep from Bua, then just get a few more minor Turaga i Taukei (as defined by NLC) and the IG may collect up to 40 “chiefs” in their new GCC.

    Not that rotation between confederacies is set in stone.

  17. Indigenous Says:

    Could I request Mr. Peter Waqavonovono and YPCN to ask Rupeni Silimaibau who represents the youth of the 14 provinces if whether he mis-used any funds being employed as a clerk at the court house in Suva in the 90’s while still furthering his education I mean incomplete education. Just on transparancy and accountability side…Since he is a member of the NCBBF and sector committees of the IG who are so for transparency, good governance and accountability..

  18. Barr Watson Says:

    Mela;

    Wait till March 09. If their’s no election ,than its time to erase the the cabinet.
    Than we do the confederacies circuit which by than would set in gold

  19. kaiveicoco Says:

    Vinaka Mela,
    i would be curious as to who is the next tenant lining up for Kadavu House.there may be some flaws in the directorship of Kadavu Holdings which Chodo has picked up.One wonders how Rt Sela Nanovo with no experience got selected to manage the company,the IG nas got no money to pay the rent full stop.

  20. Pusiloa Says:

    The IG has no money to pay anything and yet Frankie & Chodopus are gallivanting around the world…no shame at all….rau veivutusona…

  21. mesquite Says:

    Just got this great speech by Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, (former VP, former High Court Judge, former Permanent Arbitrator) at the Fijian Teachers Association Annual Conference yesterday at the Dome at Laucala.

    Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark.

    Ia, e sega ni ura me tei damu
    ——————————–

    INDIGENOUS ISSUES: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
    (Opening Remarks to the Annual General Conference of the Fijian Teachers Association, Tattersalls Post Fiji Stadium, 10.00am Wednesday 30 April, 2008)

    The theme of this gathering celebrates the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the ‘Declaration’) at the sixty first session of the General Assembly on 7 September, 2007. It is particularly appropriate at this time given the coup of 5 December 2006. There is a feeling among many Fijians that their rights as indigenous peoples are under siege. Whether by the marginalisation of their elected representatives and preferred political party, the reversal of affirmative action programmes, arbitrary changes to Fijian institutions such as the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the perceived targeting of the Fijian elite: “something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” to quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. However, it is critical to remember the Declaration cannot be read in isolation.

    Article 1 makes reference to the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human rights and international human rights law as well. Put simply, indigenous rights are a category of human rights. They are not a superior form of rights. In our context, the assertion of indigenous rights is not a racist act of itself. They are recognised in the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries 1989 (ILO Convention 169) and the Declaration. They can broadly be described as the rights of peoples with a common identity that incorporates the land, territory and sea they occupy as well as the traditions, customs, knowledge, beliefs and heritage related thereto. Where these rights are invoked to elevate them against the rights of others, those assertions run contrary to the Declaration itself. The fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Declaration states that such efforts are “racist, scientifically false, legally invalid and socially unjust”.

    Rights co-exist with each other. They are inherent and we possess them as individuals or as part of a collective. Fijians therefore have rights as indigenous people and as individuals. It does not mean that our rights are superior to that of our nonFijian brothers and sisters. As indigenous people, Fijians have rights that derive from that characteristic. They are different because they focus on the fact of indigenousness. The fallacy of arguing that indigenous rights are superior to individual rights is simply demonstrated. The rights one has as a Fijian does not deny our rights to freedom of speech and conscience as an individual. Similarly, the rights a Fijian has in relation to a non-Fijian arise by virtue of our definition as indigenous people. However, this does not give us superior or special status in legal terms.

    The character of the Declaration is protective in nature. It seeks to safeguard indigenous peoples in terms of their way of life whether it relates to tradition, culture, knowledge, resources, health, education and territory. To that end it provides for self-determination and the means by which indigenous people control their own destinies. How does this translate to a multicultural society like ours where Fijians now form a majority? This protective characteristic is instructive. When one views the Declaration in terms of the indigenous peoples of the planet, the overwhelming majority of these communities are minorities in their respective countries. The Aboriginals in Australia, the Maoris in New Zealand, the Inuit and the First Peoples of Canada and United States, the Ainu in Japan, the indigenous peoples of Central and South America, Europe and Africa: all have similar experiences of disadvantage, marginalisation and degradation. It is important to bear that in mind in considering the relevance of the Declaration to Fiji in 2008.

    In the present highly-charged political environment, there has been considerable debate about the electoral system and governance generally. Both the Interim regime and the National Council For Building A Better Fiji have provoked the ire of certain sections of Fijian opinion by advocating a one vote, one value electoral system. Fijian protagonists have interpreted this as an attack on indigenous identity and the right to have their representatives elected on their own electoral rolls. Articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration guarantee the right of self determination. Article 5 assumes the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political institutions. Those views are held passionately and sincerely. However, in our present circumstances the rationale underpinning the Declaration does not equate. If one accepts that the principle of self-determination enables indigenous people to govern themselves, the dynamic must necessarily change where they form a majority. The paramountcy of Fijian interests as a protective principle (as stated in the Compact of the present Constitution) more aptly captures the spirit of the Declaration. As opposed to the paramountcy claimed in the 1990 Constitution. In the present situation, Fijians are able to exercise predominance over other communities as well. So the insistence of having separate electoral rolls and representatives becomes less obvious. The irony is that in this different setting, it is the minority communities who then need to be protected. The long term solution for Fiji lies neither in communal seats nor in a one vote, one value electoral system. The answer lies is proportional representation that provides the most appropriate safeguards for minorities.

    A related issue to political representation is the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, and the recent amendments to the Great Council of Chiefs Regulations made by the Commander as the relevant Minister. Apart from Articles 3, 4 and 5, Article 18 of the Declaration concerns the right to participation in matters affecting the rights of indigenous people through representatives chosen by themselves. The Minister has aroused much debate by the changes he made. He now appoints all 51 members of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga: the 42 provincial representatives (3 per province), the 3 representatives of the Rotuma Council and the 6 high chiefs appointed at large. The 42 provincial appointees must not only be title holders but are required to be installed as well. These amendments narrow the pool considerably from which provincial appointees can be drawn. The effect can readily be seen by taking Bau as an example. I would be eligible as an installed title holder, but my close cousins from the chiefly households of Mataiwelagi, Naisogolaca and Muaidule would not qualify for the three Tailevu seats. Neither would anyone else from the Yavusa Kubuna of Bau. Secondly, the requirement takes no account of the vanua throughout Fiji where there is no installation. A successor assumes the title as next in line or by validation from the king makers. These chiefs would not be eligible either.

    How do these changes stand in terms of the Declaration? To be fair to the Minister, the structure of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga has always been determined by the government of the day. What is controversial is the circumstances in which these amendments were made and their arbitrary nature. They came almost ten months after the Bose Levu Vakaturaga was dissolved or suspended for ostensibly performing its constitutional role. It reversed the practice of several decades where the provincial councils have appointed nominees to the BLV. Formerly, the Minister only appointed the six members of high chiefly rank. In the last decade, the Chair was appointed from within the BLV with the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Minister being ex officio members. The Minister’s actions do not appear to offend Article 18. But they are inconsistent with its spirit. There was no consultation with the provincial councils, the tikina councils or the constituent vanua. It behaved the Minister or his predecessor to have done so, given the regard with which the BLV is held. This followed some considerable time after the BLV’s suspension for its apparent defiance of the Interim regime’s wishes by vetoing its nominee for Vice President. Moreover, the concentration of powers in the Minister with respect is inconsistent with the more flexible method of appointment that existed previously. It confers on one person despotic powers inconsistent with the more egalitarian nature of our times.

    While I have fears about the divisive effect these changes have had on the Fijian people, the development and enhancement of the Fijian language is a more immediate concern for me. Articles 13 and 16 of the Declaration concern indigenous languages. In this regard, the State has been derelict in its obligations towards the Fijian language and dialects. This is not only the fault of the present administration. We have had Fijian-dominated Governments for most of our thirty-eight years of independence. The SDL Government was in office for over five years. It was perceived by many to have promoted indigenous priorities at the expense of other communities. Yet it too, did little to pursue measures to protect and promote the use of Fijian and its dialects. The reasons lie in the twin problems of inertia and the politics of language. A persuasive case can be mounted for promoting Fijian at least among our own if not wider. Language is the foundation of identity. It is the medium by which people interact with their surroundings and the world beyond. It is as significant as land ownership because through this conduit, the essence of who we are takes shape. It is the basis by which the defining characteristics of our culture and heritage develops.

    The ownership and use of resources remains an unsettling challenge. This was most keenly reflected in the debate over the Qoliqoli Bill. Never in our history has an issue been so bitterly and exhaustively debated. These issues are covered in Articles 25, 26, 28 and 29 of the Declaration. The attempt to enshrine the traditional fishing rights of traditional owners as proprietary rights was cited as a justification of the coup. Article 26 makes reference to “the lands territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” The phrase is sufficiently broad to include fisheries and fishing rights. This is not an attempt at scaremongering. Consider the facts: the Qoliqoli issue and native fisheries is not new. It has been raised by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the Fijian chiefs since the late 1870s. Given demographics, this issue will not fade away. However, it will call for a delicate balancing of indigenous rights with that of the public interest. Suffice it to say that the Constitution recognises and allows for the legislation of customary rights. Between the extremists at either end of the spectrum, there is a middle course that can be navigated given good will and an understanding of the sensitivities involved.

    The stated aim of the Interim Government to reverse affirmative action programmes particularly in the area of scholarships has not been well received by Fijians. Article 21 of the Declaration provides for special measures “to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions.” The debate and discussion in this regard is welcome. Because the appropriate safeguards to ensure that these initiatives benefited those who deserved it, have often been absent. There were also no proper benchmarks to assess the efficiency of the policies. It sparked resentment and disillusionment among Fijians and other communities. Conversely, it endangered arrogance and complacent attitudes among certain Fijians. Yet it is also apparent that the most marginalised and disadvantaged Fijians often fell outside these safety nets. It was more readily exploited by those with connections and an understanding of the system. What is now needed is a detailed and focused assessment on how these initiatives (in whatever form they survive), can benefit those who require assistance and are most in need.

    The Land Claims Tribunal was also perceived by the military as an attempt by racist elements in the previous Government to pursue an indigenous agenda. Article 28 of the Declaration allows indigenous people the right to redress (or compensation in lieu) where their lands have “been confiscated, taken, required, used or damaged without their free prior and informed consent”. Many fear that this would play to further reduce the amount of freehold land available. Again this is an issue that demographics will dictate remains current. A significant minority of Fijians do feel that their lands were alienated in questionable or dubious circumstances. They are at least entitled to be heard by a tribunal that is perceived to be fair and impartial. There is ample precedent from New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere to provide guidelines and insights. In such circumstances, the obligations and the responsibilities are borne by the State. It assumes the burden of history where restitution or recompense is required.

    What I have attempted to convey in these remarks are the complexities of applying the concept of indigenous rights as reflected in the Declaration. The process is by no means as straightforward as simply applying relevant provisions to the local situation. There are other human rights treaties and conventions to be considered. Those specifically mentioned are the UDHR, the ICCPR and ICESCR. Context is critical because these rights are not exercised in a vacuum. Where Fijians are now in a majority, other factors come into play and have to be considered. At the same time, the protective principles enshrined in the Declaration bear closer and careful scrutiny. Because there are rights such as language, identity, traditional knowledge, resources, lands and culture, the protection and enhancement of which is not racist, but an affirmation of human rights generally. The continuing task for a multicultural, multireligious and multiethnic society such as ours is creating the space that allows indigenous and other rights to develop and mutually reinforce each other. It yet remains our greatest challenge.

    Joni Madraiwiwi

  22. natewaprince Says:

    There is obviously only one person in Fiji who has all the qualities to make an excellent president.

    RATU JONI MADRAIWIWI FOR PRESIDENT.(mark manning for vp???)

  23. Mela Says:

    Vinaka NP. Kemuni ga mo ni qai VP!

    Kaila!

    😀
    😉

  24. kaiveicoco Says:

    vacava ya NP? Ni VP qai P toka o Nawalowalo !!

  25. Mark Manning Says:

    thanks natewaprince
    two toasters and two volkswagens for you my friend .

  26. Adore Says:

    MM for FB or MC

  27. LUVfiji Says:

    MM for WManagement!

  28. natewaprince Says:

    Na ‘P’ ga e qamita tiko o Nawalowalo. Qo na ‘P’ kabi,sega ni ‘P’ vuka.

  29. woilei Says:

    http://www.michaelfield.org/Qarase%20v%20Bainimarama.htm

  30. woilei Says:

    http://www.michaelfield.org/Qarase%20v%20Bainimarama.htm

  31. lulu Says:

    thanks woilei

    girl, you work hard posting that on all the recent articles! 😉

    Is that all transcripts for all 3 weeks of the Qarase hearing?

    Apparently the 3 stooges have not even started talking about/writing their judgment! The other rumour is the wicked witch and her masala head sister have finished writing it and the other 3 stooges are yet to complete their reefer which is required for them to make sense of the pre-written judgment. Rumour is Patheks pathetic refused to smoke the joint when byrnie left his saliva on the joint…. Pathek threw it on the ground but gaytes fears picking it up coz he promised not to bend over anymore after jamie passed… 😀 😀 😀 😀

  32. tartan Says:

    Can the lawyers here clarify whether there is a time limit for the issuance of the judgment please? Is it 3 months? 6 months? 1 year?

    Will it even come out before the elections or will they pretend the hearing didn’t happen and the whole of Fiji is waiting for them?

    Are they busy filing complaints against Dr. John Cameron and others talking about judicial independence in Fiji or blocking the visa request from the IBA and blocking the UN Expert on the Independence of Judges?

  33. kaiveicoco Says:

    tartan,
    the term national security is now becoming a norm in the IG vocabulary.
    So don’t be surprised that the judgement will be delayed because of ” national security” and also the elections will be delayed because of ” national security” even though I have my belief that the elctions will still go ahead on time.

  34. James Cribb Says:

    Can anyone please tell me why Nawalowalo is being compared or refered to $2?

  35. soro Says:

    James _ I cant be too sure but its either because he is known for “choking” people (ie asking for money) and its usually for $2 as thats the cost of a handle of beer , or its from an occassion where he went and made a donation of $2 instead of a bigger sum as was expected of him as a chief in the community (but I may be confusing the latter occassion with the $50 man – Epeli Ganilau) ….. someone else may be better able to enlighten us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: