Military Ruler Tests the Boundaries
I'm forever amazed at where news on Fiji turns up, and what it too often says. Reporter Julia Huang in NY-based The Epoch made at least eight errors or unsupportable statements in her recent report.1. The military is planning to oversee any newly elected government. Could be, but only by keeping government to the Constitution.
2. Bainimarama has exiled many of his critics. A small number of foreigners and Fiji-born critics who have renounced their Fiji citizenship have been deported or refused entry. But exiled and not many.
3. He intends to draft a new constitution. Along with many others!
4. Regions opposed to Bainimarama have been forced to apology. Fijian custom, no force, and one or two tikina (districts) not the four main regions.
5. He has cancelled the pensions of those opposing his government, including form PM Rabuka. These are parliamentary pensions funded entirely by government, not the general contributory pensions paid to civil servants and others on retirement. So far only one pension has been cancelled: Rabuka, who led the first Fiji coup in 1987 and ceased being PM over ten years ago.
6. Rev. Yabaki said this would cut off people's food line and starve those against Government. The statement was a reaction to false news spread by Fiji media misunderstanding and anti-government bloggers.
7. Ms Huang repeats Apolosi Bosi's dated, biased and exaggerated statements made on behalf of Amnesty International.
8. She quotes American Professor of Political Studies (not History) Steve Hoadley who thinks Leweni's nomination is Bainimarama "trying to provoke a fight" with NZ. Sounds good for the media but hardly an academic's evaluation.
10 comments:
Croz, why your sensitivity about this piece? OK, the Epoch Times is a front for the Falun Gong. So what? It's news to me that the FG might be trying to remove the regime in Fiji. What bothers me is how you're portraying the story itself.
1/ Fact: "The military is planning to oversee any newly elected government." Frank said so in Kadavu last week.
2/ Fact, though perhaps not that "many": "Bainimarama has exiled critics". Brij Lal and his missus, Jone Baledrokdroka, the Fiji Times clique et al.
3/ Fact:" He intends to draft a new constitution". He abrogated the last one and will set the terms for the next.
4/ Fact, though "felt obliged" might have been better: regions formerly opposed to FB have apologised.
5/ Fact: He's cancelled Rabuka's pension and has reputedly done the same to Mahen Chaudhry. There may be more we don't know about.
6/ Fact: Yabaki's comments duly reported by Ms Huang.
7/ Fact: faithful reporting of Amnesty's comments whatever you think about Apolosi.
8/ Fact: faithful reporting of Hoadley's comments, whatever you think about his credibility.
So no factual errors whatsoever and well within normal standards of reporting when it comes to emphasis. Croz, why not reserve your wrath for overt misrepresentation rather than nitpick over something as unremarkable as this? You're merely handing your opponents a stick to beat you with for oversensitivity and shooting an unwelcome messenger. We've got to be better than the regime haters, not ape them.
has any particular policy in relation to Fiji
It is an innings break and our turn to bat. It seems to hurt the Fat Cats who are not used to playing under neutral umpires.
Oversensitive? You're may be right, the advice is noted, and I certainly welcome the criticism. It helps to keep me on my toes. But media treatment has always been high on my priority list. I provided the extra info on Falun Gong to show how widely these stories spread, and for readers who may not have heard of them.
The errors, shortcuts or bias (call them what you will)are revealed in the inaccurate or misleading choice of words: oversee, exiled, forced, He drafts, pensions (all),(old piece by) Yabaki. It may be "normal" but I hope you agree it's shoddy reporting, to say the least.
My reply does not detract from your criticism but I hope it explains why I published the piece, wisely -- or not wisely, as you suggest.
Knowing the source of a media report is important - to me it is, because then I can decide whether who has written the story has an agenda or not. In this case it appears that Julia Huang has gotten her information from someone and I can only assume from what I read that whoever it was has a lot to do with Aliposo Bosi and Amnesty International. There also seem to be two definitive "camps" (could be seen as anti versus pro Fijian government) of learned opinion now emerging from Auckland University. The question is whose opinion is based on experience, truth and facts (historical and present day) and not personal opinion or just interpretation of events.
I think we need to reserve our firepower for when those journalists who really matter in Australia and NZ engage in distortion and errors of emphasis and fact. Ms Huang's piece is pretty unexceptional, generally competent, and certainly what you'd expect from an outsider faced with having to write a story about Fiji. We can hardly blame her for what Amnesty or anyone else says. And her choice of words, while sometimes loaded or colourful, is pretty much par for the course in the media nowadays. I don't detect a particular editorial slant, though maybe she doesn't like dictators because of the Falun Gung experience in China. The fact is any working journalist would leap on some of the quotes she has, especially someone from outside the region with no particular barrow to push ( other than the destruction of the Chinese government but that's hardly an issue here ). Ignore it.
Talking of the media, Coup 4.5 has finally put up a story about the Australia/NZ/Fiji talks, headlining the fact that high commissioners won't be exchanged. They've obviously been in a major tizz about how to cover the story at all and have been waiting for a negative to seize on. The comment sections are largely void, clear evidence that their usual readership is still reeling from shock. Just a couple of bland lines from the ubiquitous Mark Manning saying he doesn't see why it needed to happen. What a pathetic bunch.
If I were a reporter this is what my list would look like.
1)Bainimarama's leadership changed the Fiji Military Forces from a bullying, racist army of 1987 to an army that is disciplined and seeks eqality and a crime-free country.
2)Equal rights for every citizen is long, long overdue in Fiji. For 130 years Indians in Fiji have waited for their leaders to deliver them equal rights as Fijians and not one Indian leader has been able to deliver them their just and due rights. (No fault of their own. The constitutions have been biased). Bainmarama govt is working towards a future where equal rights for all citizens of Fiji might finally be a reality.
3)Bainimarama prevented a coup in 2000 that would have caused even more damage to the country and pain to the people of Fiji.
4)The Bainimarama govt continues to expose and purge the corrupt elements of government (past and present).
5)The Bainimarama govt, though not elected by the people, holds itself accountable on many of its actions. It involves relevant people when changing laws to reflect the needs of the people. Some of the recent decrees were long overdue. It also takes the trouble to make public comments to explain its actions. No dictatorship in any part of the world has been known to do this.
So, all in all, the people of Fiji are better off with this govt than they have ever been since the horrific events of 1987. Democracy? Do they really need democracy at this point? No! They need all the things that the Bainimarama govt is doing that I have listed above first.
It is very important for the people of Fiji to acknowledge and appreciate the good deeds of any person, any govt. Otherwise it will all be lost again.
I also don't understand the stance of some supposedly educated Indian people, like Brij Lal for instance. I guess it is not important to him that Indians get equal rights after 130 years.
Nive, why do people like you bang on about equal rights for Indians when the real issue here is equal rights for everyone? Why constantly express it from a racial stand-point? I think people like you need to have a good hard look at yourselves. Because frankly, you are a part of the problem of Fiji citizens constantly thinking of themselves as Fiji Indians or Fiji whatever instead of members of a single entity. Please, I don't mean to be insulting. I'm asking you to kindly embrace the notion of one people, albeit from different backgrounds, working together to build one nation. Because until this happens, nothing will ever change in Fiji. You can't beat a multiracial outlook into people, like Frank seems to think he can. They have to embrace it from within and live it in their own lives. The problem in Fiji is that Indians live like Indians and Fijians live like Fijians, the two cultures are poles apart and there's been more than a century of separate development, rivalry and distrust. Both sides need a fundamental change in attitude for Fiji to emerge as a thriving, multicultural nation like its bigger neighbours, Australia and NZ. Yes, I can already hear the collective groan in cyberspace. But I'm afraid that until that happens, Fiji will be the socially and politically retarded neighbourhood problem kid, a prisoner of its own prejudice and intolerance and unable to move on.
Alphonse
Everyone keeps saying that the Indo Fijians fully support the 2006 coup but the immigration department figures show that 71% of the permanent departures are Indo Fijian. I guess they are voting with their feet.
To One nation
The reason we Indians talk about equal rights is simply because we have not had equal rights for the past 130 years while we lived in Fiji and made it the country it is, economically speaking. Nobody has the right to tell Indians not to exercise their rich culture and traditions. Don't try to undermine our culture, our traditions and our religions.
Likewise, Fijians should be free to exercise their culture and religion. This is what multiculturalism is about. If you think Indians should be absorbed into the Fijian culture, that would be wrong.
You simply have no understanding of the 1970 constitution and the communal and national system of voting that existed. That system ensured that no one other than an Indigenous Fijian would become Prime Minister, unless the Fijians voted overwhelmingly for other candidates.
Do you have any idea what "equal rights" mean? Fijians shouldn't be getting preferential treatment for scholarships, jobs in govt. If you live in Fiji you would see these inequalities day in and day out. You are one of thousands of Fijians who is very good at pretending that that Indians are not being treated as second-class citizens in Fiji.
To anonymous -
The exodus of Indians is the result of Rabuka's coup. And it will keep happening as Fiji becomes less and less habitable.
To both of you I say - try and understand what Bainimarama is trying to do. First find out what "equal rights" really means and why we say equal rights do not exist in Fiji i.e. Fiji is a racist country because it has a racist constitution. Then you'll understand why Bainimarama wants to change the constitution.
Also, find out what multiculturalism means. Australia is a multicultural society. It also has a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all its citizens.
Indians don't necessarily support Bainimarama's coup. I certainly don't. However, I will be the first person to acknowledge that Bainimarama is the only person in Fiji's history who has acknowledged that Fiji is a racist country and wants to rectify this gross inequality. We Indians want the efforts of our great-grandparents recognised in making Fiji what it is today.
Post a Comment