On Monday a special Fiji police team, acting on a tip off from a neighbour, arrested Devesh Sharma in Rakiraki where he had been hiding. Four-year old Akash is being looked after by his mother's relatives. It is understood the Fji Police is working closely with the NZ Police who will seek to extradite Sharma once the summary of facts is heard in a Fiji court. The judge has the authority to order his extradition, under a New Zealand-Fiji agreement. If only the same spirit of co-operation marked the two countries' relationships in other regional organizations and arrangements. Photo: NZ Herald.
N0069. BREAKING RUGBY STORY BROKEN. This is the story that was syndicated world-wide: "WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - The International Rugby Board has threatened to expel Fiji, preventing its participation at this year's World Cup, because the nation's military regime has attempted to depose the entire Fiji Rugby Union."
It now seems this "breaking story" is well and truly broken. The IRB did not threaten to expel Fiji; it advised it do nothing until the situation became clearer. The "military regime" did not attempt to depose the entire Union (Board). It said it would withhold $3m unless the Board step down. Once again political capital has been made at the expense of the Fiji Government.
We know the main story.The FRU Board had botched its lottery, moving the $20 goal posts to $10 half way though the game, and some $155,000 of the $350,000 raised from the lottery could not be found. The Commerce Commission cried foul. Government, the main sponsor, threatened to withhold a $3m grant and said (or ordered, depending on who you're listening to) the FRU Board should resign. The IRB world body —that had been led to believe this was political interference— hinted at expulsion. Journalists, with some prompting from the Board that resigned but only temporarily, said it was more than a hint; it was a threat. The IRB says it's coming to Fiji to see for itself. The PM and the Council of the FRU, that appoints the FRU Board, think this is a good idea.
But not reported in the international media is Council spokesperson and legal adviser Carl Ngamoki-Cameron who said "the majority of the Council had lost trust and confidence" [in the Board, and that] at the end of the day, the Board is answerable to the FRU Council, not the IRB."
Ngamoki-Cameron said: "These internal democratic mechanisms within the FRU are completely independent of the Fiji Government and whether or not it decides to financially assist the Board of the FRU that has failed to procure adequate funding for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, despite its best efforts. It is unfortunate that the Board has attempted to use the media to resolve internal issues at Rugby House, further eroding the reputation and credibility of Fiji Rugby locally and abroad."
And FRU interim Board chairman Rafaele Kasibulu said there were a lot of misquoted and unfounded reports regarding Fiji’s possible suspension from the IRB. The IRB merely asked to withhold everything that we have going on at the moment.”
Conclusion? There was no political interference. Someone in Suva, to exonerate himself, and someone in Auckland, for the sake of another good story, knew this, but they went ahead regardless. It doesn't take a private eye to work out who spread the inaccurate story. The impartial Pacific Media Centre is well worth reading.
N0070. CONSUMER COUNCIL CRITICIZE FEA. The Consumer Council has criticized the Fiji Electricity Authority for cutting off power to customers, mainly in rural areas, who had no way of knowing their bills were in arrears. Consumer Council CEO Premila Kumar said it is unacceptable for FEA to charge pre-pay customers for an error they are responsible for.
N0071. RESORT TARIFF TO INCREASE. Fiji's heavily discounted tourist accommodation tariffs may be about the end as the industry continues to attract large tourist numbers. Outrigger on the Lagoon Manager Peter Hopgood believes that all hotels and resorts around the country need to increase their rates and other charges to reflect the unique product Fiji has to offer. His resort that has had 75-100% occupancy, will increase its rates by 10% from April. Sad as they are, the Queensland floods are also likely to benefit Fiji tourism.
6 comments:
Croz
Military junta interference in the FRU is a serious matter. If for some reason a new executive is forced on the FRU it must not under any circumstances have any representatives of the Fiji military or any persons associated in any way with the military junta. If it does it would be clear evidence of direct interference and Fiji should not be allowed to participate in the World Cup. Regardless of what happens it goes without saying that no members of the military (players, officials or members of the junta) or their families must be allowed entry into NZ for any part of the World Cup events.
I am sorry but you are wrong, wrong, wrong on your reporting of the FRU saga. A couple of points:
1. Being a collection of stakeholders, the Council of the FRU cannot express an opinion unless it is derived from a legally constituted forum, ie a Special General Meeting or Annual General Meeting. No such gathering has taken place since the furore over the Lottery/Commerce Commission/Govt funding broke. Therefore, by any reading of the FRU's constitution, the FRU Council cannot be said to have expressed its opinions. Just as, for example, Parliament cannot be said to have expressed its opinion unless it is sitting, the MPs are present, a vote is taken etc.
2. Even more bizarrely, you are now pointing us towards comments made by legal counsel for the 'Majority of the FRU Council'. The FRU Council either has an opinion or doesn't. It can't be said to have a Majority opinion because it has not recently had a legally constituted meeting. The piece in the Fiji Times - by lined by Amit Raj, reproduced whole sale by the Pacific Media Centre - is wholly without merit. It's just a statement from a lawyer who - by his own admission - does not represent all the views of the FRU Council, therefore all of the stakeholders. I don't think the Fiji Times did themselves any favours by reproducing this verbatim, but they did acknowledge at the bottom of the piece its provenance. I believe in a letter to the editor, a spokeman for the FRU has already raised some of the points I have referenced.
3. You are very keen in all that you write to ensure a scrupulous standard of journalistic integrity. I don't think that has been maintained by your contributions so far. I posted recently about a comment you wrote in which you suggested the IRB might be condoning the wrongful use of public money. Wrong, they didn't say that.
4. It's also wrong to say the lottery tickets were discounted 'halfway through the game'. I think what the FRU did in discounting was wrong and created a whole host of needless issues, but it didn't happen halfway through the game - but in the very last hours before the lottery was drawn. A big difference in fact, and in terms of altering the probabilities of the lottery.
5. I am sorry but I cannot accept your reading of the government's position. On January 11 the Fiji Sun quoted the Minister of Sport as having said the day before: “three million dollars will be given [to the RWC campaign] with the condition of having a new administration in place". And yet you write: 'Conclusion, there was no political interference.' Huh? The minister responsible is saying, in a pro govt/pro Fiji newspaper, that the government would not fund a certain set of directors and administrators. Ergo, the only way to get that funding is for them to go. How can that be anything other than interference (whether well-meaning or otherwise)?
I am sorry but you are wrong, wrong, wrong on your reporting of the FRU saga. A couple of points:
1. Being a collection of stakeholders, the Council of the FRU cannot express an opinion unless it is derived from a legally constituted forum, ie a Special General Meeting or Annual General Meeting. No such gathering has taken place since the furore over the Lottery/Commerce Commission/Govt funding broke. Therefore, by any reading of the FRU's constitution, the FRU Council cannot be said to have expressed its opinions. Just as, for example, Parliament cannot be said to have expressed its opinion unless it is sitting, the MPs are present, a vote is taken etc.
2. Even more bizarrely, you are now pointing us towards comments made by legal counsel for the 'Majority of the FRU Council'. The FRU Council either has an opinion or doesn't. It can't be said to have a Majority opinion because it has not recently had a legally constituted meeting. The piece in the Fiji Times - by lined by Amit Raj, reproduced whole sale by the Pacific Media Centre - is wholly without merit. It's just a statement from a lawyer who - by his own admission - does not represent all the views of the FRU Council, therefore all of the stakeholders. I don't think the Fiji Times did themselves any favours by reproducing this verbatim, but they did acknowledge at the bottom of the piece its provenance. I believe in a letter to the editor, a spokeman for the FRU has already raised some of the points I have referenced.
3. You are very keen in all that you write to ensure a scrupulous standard of journalistic integrity. I don't think that has been maintained by your contributions so far. I posted recently about a comment you wrote in which you suggested the IRB might be condoning the wrongful use of public money. Wrong, they didn't say that.
4. It's also wrong to say the lottery tickets were discounted 'halfway through the game'. I think what the FRU did in discounting was wrong and created a whole host of needless issues, but it didn't happen halfway through the game - but in the very last hours before the lottery was drawn. A big difference in fact, and in terms of altering the probabilities of the lottery.
5. I am sorry but I cannot accept your reading of the government's position. On January 11 the Fiji Sun quoted the Minister of Sport as having said the day before: “three million dollars will be given [to the RWC campaign] with the condition of having a new administration in place". And yet you write: 'Conclusion, there was no political interference.' Huh? The minister responsible is saying, in a pro govt/pro Fiji newspaper, that the government would not fund a certain set of directors and administrators. Ergo, the only way to get that funding is for them to go. How can that be anything other than interference (whether well-meaning or otherwise)?
5. On a more general point Croz: you are absolutely right to insist, as you do, that comments about what happens in Fiji should be anchored in fact. This same standard should apply to what you write about the FRU. To paraphrase CP Scott, commentary about Fiji rugby is free, but the facts should be sacred. Some things for you to think about:
- I posted several days ago about your throw away line in which you suggested that the IRB's intervention might be read as somehow approving of the misuse of public funds. You've not replied to that post, but I stand by what I wrote. I am not a huge fan of the IRB, but they did not say, suggest or imply what you ascribed to them. You might just acknowledge that, as you expect others to do when you point out their transgressions.
- Again, you have repeated as fact several things relating to the lottery investigation that have not yet been tested in court. In my earlier post I pointed out that the FRU have said they feel, with legal advice, confident of being able to defend themselves. As such, surely, whatever the Commerce Commission has said (especially relating to funds) should be referred to as allegations. Instead you relay them to your readers as fact. Not the case, unless you're lowering your journalistic standards drastically.
- You are factually incorrect to say that the FRU changed the pricing of the tickets 'half way through the game'. It happened in the very last hours before the draw took place. A very important factual distinction, and one that means the probabilities of winning are less affected than had there been 9 months of half-price selling. [Just to be clear, I think the FRU were ill-advised to change the price, and that it created needless problems.]
- Interference versus non interference. Call the Fiji Sun what you will (pro-regime, pro-Fiji), in the January 11 edition the Minister of Sport was quoted as saying (from a press conference the day before): “three million dollars will be given [to the FRU's RWC campaign] with the condition of having a new administration in place.”
You wrote of this non-intervention, intervention: 'The "military regime" did not attempt to depose the entire Union (Board). It said it would withhold $3m unless the Board step down.'
Huh?
I am sorry. I just do not see the distinction you are trying to make.
The relevant clause from the IRB's constitution reads as follows:
A Union may be suspended or expelled 'if state authorities interfere in its affairs in such a manner that ... (ii) in the opinion of Council or the Executive Committee it is no longer in position to perform its constitutional and regulatory tasks in an appropriate manner.'
Even a cursory examination of what the Government is attempting to do (if you want this $3m of taxpayers' money, then we require an entirely "new administration in place" [in the words of the Minister quoted by the Fiji Sun]), would seem to be interference.
I don't understand how you can see it any other way.
Substitute 'the board of Maori Television' for 'the board of the FRU', and 'the Minister of Finance and/or Minister of Maori Affairs' for 'the Minister of Sport' ... and see whether withholding $3m in return for requiring a 'new administration in place' would be seen as interference.
Finally, I feel the need to explain myself. I have contributed this comment under my name but I am not writing this as a defender of this board, or that CEO. Just someone who has worked at the FRU and therefore knows better than most that there are no magic bullets for whichever administration is in place. Either way the expectations will be huge (and, significantly, there are big political risks in ploughing $3m of taxpayers' money into a RWC campaign when so many are being asked to go without) and perhaps not particularly helpful to this government.
All that I ask is that you and your readers drill through some of the nonsense. And if there is a widespread consensus that change is required, fine, follow the constitution, call that SGM, make sure its legal, that there is a quorum etc. and get the job done. The message the IRB is sending - see the Fiji Sun of January 26 - is FOLLOW YOUR CONSTITUTION.
Croz is typically quiet on the suggested militray appointees and will always trot out the civilians are disniclined to take the role for fear of sanctions etc. But I am sure he will give his devoted support to the convicted criminal Kean and brother in law of the military commander to be appointed as 'nothing out ofthe ordinary'. Still no word on his oponion on the commanders daughter being appointed to the Fiji sports council.?? I though not.
Post a Comment