Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes, mathematician and philosopher,1599-1650)

Friday 31 August 2012

Safeguarding iTaukei Culture

WEEKEND READING. •Allen Lockington column • Changes in Constitution-Making:Aftermath of 1977 by Subhash Appana • One Man One Vote One Value: How Many Seats? by Crosbie Walsh

It is important to acknowledge the quiet and unheralded activity announced in this press release because it puts a lie to claims that the Bainimarama government is undermining iTaukei rights and culture.



Officers of the iTaukei Institute of Language and Culture at the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, are currently documenting Traditional Knowledge & Cultural Expressions in the province of Macuata.

Commonly known as the Cultural Mapping program, the exercise includes documentation of tangible and intangible cultural data using modern information gathering technology.

Data collected includes phonetic or verbal expressions such as stories, legends, words, signs & names; tangible expressions such as material expression of art, handicrafts, carvings, sculptures and pottery; and visual and performing arts or expressions by actions such as dances, plays, ceremonies, rituals, sports and traditional games.

This is later analysed and stored in the Traditional Knowledge & Expression of Culture (TK&EC) Database, at the iTaukei Institute of Language & Culture. The database is the first software to be developed in the iTaukei language and is able to store cultural data in the form of audio recordings, transcribed scripts, and digital and video footages.

The Ministry of iTaukei Affairs permanent secretary Mr Savenaca Kaunisela said that the Cultural Mapping exercise which started in 2006 is geared towards the safeguarding and promotion of iTaukei traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. It is part of Fiji’s commitment to various international regimes such as the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage that Fiji ratified on 7th January 2010. He added that Fiji is taking a lead role in this important area and has contributed significantly towards development of similar programs in other Pacific Island countries.

A team of eight field researchers started work in the province in June this year following the completion of the same program in all villages in the Naitasiri province. So far the Cultural mapping team has completed 16 villages in the District of Macuata and will commence mapping of villages in the district of Dreketi from Monday 3rd September. It is envisaged that all villages in Macuata will be completed by June 2013.

It has so far been concluded in the provinces of Serua, Namosi, Rewa, Tailevu, Lomaiviti, Ra, Bua, and Naitasiri.    --  MOI press release.

News and Comments Friday 31 August 2012


FORUM DIVIDED CLINTON TO THE RESCUE? Nauru's Foreign Minister Dr Kieren Keke says the ongoing suspension of  Fiji has divided the Pacific Islands Forum between those that are pro its return and those that are not. Fiji was suspended from the Forum in 2009 over concerns there was not a genuine commitment to elections, but Dr Keke believes that is no longer true. The 43rd Forum opened on  Wednesday in Rarotonga. Ocean issues and Fiji  are likely to dominate the agenda.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads the highest-level US inter-agency delegation in the 41-year history of the Forum. Reports have emerged that diplomatic sources say Hillary Clinton wants the Forum to readmit Fiji. She has also urged Australia and New Zealand to end its isolation of Fiji, suggesting it is giving too much opening for Chinese moves in the region.  China is believed to have put US$600 million in aid and soft loans over five years into the Pacific while the US barely comes up with US$20 million a year.

NEW METHODIST PRESIDENT the Reverend Tuikilakila Waqairatu is making more realistic overtures towards the Bainimarama government than his predessessors and, significantly, he was elected by a wide margin (460 votes to Rev Tugaue in second place with 69 votes).  The Rev. Waqairatu says the church  needs to work positively with the government in the formulation of the new constitution and preparations towards the general election in 2014. He takes over from the Rev. Ame Tugaue next year.

MORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR POLITICAL PARTIES. Soon Fiji's political parties, like those in Australia and New Zealand, will be required to divulge sources of funding.

Elections Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said, “As you may be aware, the rules pertaining to the formation or registration of political parties in Fiji is rather archaic, so what we’re looking at, for example, is to  increasing the threshold of the numbers required to register or re-register political parties and whether they they will need support in all  four divisions of Fiji. It is also critical that the assets and liabilities of political parties are made public.”

His mention of Fiji's four administrative divisions hints at a government preference for 2014 electorates to  be based on these divisions.

SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION. Among the submissions to the Constitution Commission in Ba this week has been a call for a "reconciliation" clause to be included in the Constitution. Submitter Inayat Ali said that "the healing process was an important first step in building a better Fiji." Commissioner Professor Christina Murray agreed, saying that in South Africa, reconciliation didn't solve all problems but it contributed to solving many.

In another submission, Ratu Wiliame Ratudale Sovasova wanted the new constitution to  "ensure village by-laws are introduced in every iTaukei village in the country."  The Radini vanua o Vitogo, Adi Litiana Sovasova, said village by-laws were important in a traditional Fijian community because they were used by their ancestors (and the laws) set them apart from other ethnic communities in the world." The proposal has merit if the by-laws do not infringe on human rights or other laws in Fiji.

Calls for the protection of native land and Fiji to be declared a Christian state continue but Commissioner Peni Moore some says some of these submissions were withdrawn when the full protections that already exists were explained.

Khalid Ali from Ba said the constitution should be the source of all power and every public institution must derive its authority directly or indirectly from it and act in accordance with the document. All cultures, languages and religions must be treated with equal respect, the values of democracy, equality, justice and the equal treatment of  men and women must be promoted.  Mr Ali was also in favour of dual citizenship, and thought the state should provide land for the landless.

Other issues raised related to the social welfare assistance scheme, squatter settlements and road works and people being displaced from their homes.

There was also a submission that extramarital affairs should not be allowed. That's going to be a hard one to monitor short of the introduction of shari'a law.

ANTHONY TO BE DISCIPLINED: CHAUDHRY The initial fallout between Mahendra Chaudhry and Felix Anthony widens with this disciplinary  call, and FTUC talk of a new breakaway party.

 In my recent FLISLUP posting I foretold that Chaudhry was likely to "rupture" the talked of  FLP, SLP UPP coalition. This happened in 2001 when the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP)  split. A further split now seems likely.  SDL and UPP be warned! He's a hard man to work with.


Thursday 30 August 2012

Getting More Out of this Blog

BLOGGING FOR DUMMIES. This is not to insult readers. I've just taking advantage of the popular Word for Dummies, Excel for Dummies series. For readers who have problems with the new blog format, here's what to do.

Wednesday 29 August 2012

FLP Blames Government for Increased Poverty

Chaudhry & Son Ltd

Related item. See what long-standing FLP party member Felix Anthony has to say about how the FLP meeting was conducted. Anthony was so disgusted at the way the Chaudhry father and son manipulated discussion that he left the meeting. Click here to the Grubsheet article. UPDATE. Chaudhry said Anthony’s statement is not an official statement from the Fiji Trades Union Congress however FTUC President, Daniel Urai has just confirmed that it is an official FTUC statement.

BOTH CAN'T BE 100% RIGHT, CAN THEY? While the Fiji Labour Party, on the one hand, is blaming the Bainimarama government for the increase in poverty “over the past four years” (that is, since the FLP leader Mahendra Chaundry left or was dismissed from  government!), on the other hand, we have a National Federation Party member, Rajendra James, congratulating the government for all the things it has done to help the poor.

Labour's list of “harsh measures inflicted by the interim administration” include increasing VAT to 15%; reducing pension benefits (that has “forced 90% of our retired elderly into abject poverty”); deferring Wages Council recommended wage increases; the removal “100,000 poor households” from subsidised electricity costs of benefits to some; and sanctioning increases in water meter connection charges. They also blame government for the decline of the sugar industry brought about by land lease problems, milling inefficiency, incompetence, inadequate financial support to farmers, and the loss of $420 million from the EU “due to adverse political developments.”

In the opposing corner, Mr James asks “What is wrong with the current administration that has been looking after the affairs of Fiji for the past six to almost seven years? They have provided the elderly with food vouchers and subsidised public transport; school children are also getting free bus fares, and the sugar industry is getting a “much-needed financial boost to help it get back on its feet.”

Mr James told the Constitution Commissioners in Nadi that “having another general election will not make any difference right now for us. There are more important things to address. What Fiji needs at the moment is good education standard, infrastructure improvement and that is what the current administration is doing very well.”

How can we balance these opposing view? Government has done some things that have not helped the poor and the increase is VAT was one of them, though basic food was exempt. The wage increase delays is another. The sugar industry is also in a mess but many of its problems were not of government making. Government has also taken many measures, some mentioned by Mr James, to assist the poor.

The FLP has selected the negatives and blamed them all on government. Mr James has selected the positives. Both are about 50 % right. One sees the cup over half empty; the other more than half full.


The FLP Submission to Come?



FLP General Secretary
Many people acknowledge there are problems with the Bainimarama Government and the way it is conducting the Constitution dialogue process,  but many of them are also trying their best not to derail the process in the hope and expectation that the result will be  a better constitution,  a more equitable electoral system, and a fairer Fiji following the elections in 2014. 

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Fiji Labour Party do not belong to this group.

 At their Annual Delegates Conference on Monday they stated their opposition to the dialogue process and signalled the likely contents of their submission to the Commission.

Briefly, they want the appointment of a caretaker government to "take charge of the process of restoring Fiji to democratic and constitutional rule".   They claim the dialogue process is  "being driven by the regime in a pre-determined direction to serve its own interests and agenda" and is non-inclusive and non-participatory. They object to provisions for immunity; the "absolute powers" of the Prime Minister; and the size and composition of the "Constituent Assembly" (That has still not been decided. Perhaps they meant Commission).

In other words, they don't like it; they don't trust it, and they are not going to go along with it.  

Several  delegates spoke in favour of retaining the 1997 Constitution with some amendments to the electoral system to  be worked out by "an appropriately constituted forum similar to the aborted President’s Political Dialogue Forum of 2009."  

One wonders whether the amendments will include  the abolition of the race-defined communal electorates, making all electorates Open with candidates standing from the different races,  and  an insistence on one man one vote one value. Or  whether they are happy to live with a patched-up system,  a compromise with the SDL and UPP,  as long as it is seems to be in their short-term interests. 

Yet, unless there is a radical change to the electoral system, Fiji will revert to its old confrontational politics, the racial divide will widen, and the resultant instability could well herald yet another coup, this time less favourable to the Indo-Fijians who voted for the FLP.


Maybe the FLP should have been consulted about the composition of the Commission but they weren't and whatever they now say, the Commission does represent a fair range of views and it is definitely no push over. Criticise by all means but know where to stop.  The derailment of the dialogue process is the worst thing that could happen to Fiji at this time. A reversal now could well herald a return to the far less tolerant days following the Abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in 2009.

For this, if for no other reason, leaders with foresight should be offering their full support to Prof Yash Ghai and the Constitution Commission to  help  make its recommendations so strong and so well accepted that no one, not even Bainimarama should he wish,  would dare to oppose them.   

I should refrain from pointing the finger at the FLP General Secretary but there's little doubt Mahendra Chaudhry's influence is  there somewhere. In times like these, one continues to  hope that  people will  put the needs  of the nation ahead of their own personal or supposed party interests.   

 -- Crosbie Walsh.




Monday 27 August 2012

# THE FORUM’S GAPING HOLE

# THE FORUM’S GAPING HOLE

The FLAPSLUP Party: Do Not Be Deceived

The call by Mahendra Chaudhry's Fiji Labour Party (FLP) for a coalition with its former enemy the Laisenia Qarase's Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) party and Mick Beddoes's United People'e Party (UPP) should come as no surprise.

Chaudhry and Beddoes in particular are interested in only one thing: a return to power, preferably in government or if not, a return to the mana and exercise of some power as senior members of parliament. Qarase is likely to be "otherwise engaged.”

Forward to the past with the Old Team
 I really wonder why they have not gone the whole hog.  They should form one party, the FLPSDLUPP party, or FLAPSLUP for short.

In this way, the essentially Indo-Fijian FLP, the essentially iTaukei SDL and the leftover-of-other races party, the UPP,  would no longer have to pretend to be multi-ethnic.

They could keep their agendas while posing as a single party that would include all ethnicities and so meet one of the criteria for entering the 2014 election. What is more, they would certainly win seats in the election, perhaps enough to become government.

And then, as they enjoy the spoils, they could start to dissemble all the measures that have been moving Fiji towards a truly multi-ethnic society for the past six years. Later along the road, if Chaudhry has not already caused a fatal rupture in the set up, they could go their own separate ways,  return to the type of party  they were in 2006. And all the fun of having each race pitting itself against the other would start all over again.

Meanwhile, with  FLAPSLUP controlling a large number of seats, they could carve up the goodies in the absence of an effective parliamentary opposition. Thus, the  supposed party of national unity would become a party of national disunity — and  Fiji would be back at square one.

What Fiji needs are new parties representing new interest groups and new policies, with new and younger leaders. not the same old parties, based on race, and the same tired old faces.

If Fiji citizens allow themselves to go along with this hoax, they will have thrown away the opportunity to rethink and reshape their future. 
  • To ask what sorts of parties are needed to represent their needs and hopes. 
  • What sort of Opposition they need in Parliament. 
  • What assurances they need to give  to iTaukei so they will know their interests will be honoured. 
  • What new checks and balances they need to protect minorities, women, children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and others who are socially or economically vulnerable. 
  • What measures they need to prevent politics being used again as a plaything by a defeated government, and so forestall future  coups. 
  • What structures they can help put in place, when the Constitution Assembly meets next year, to ensure that all politicians, public servants, the judiciary, the military and those in the different branches of iTaukei administration honour their oaths to uphold the new constitution. 
These are among the issues that need to be considered by the Constitution Commission and the Constitution Assembly.

No one in FLAPSLUP  is talking about these issues. They have given them little to no thought because their main concern is a return to power.

Chaudhry says he wants another chance. But he and they have already had the opportunity to show what sort of country they want Fiji to be —and they blew it in a very big way.

Saturday 25 August 2012

Fiji - A Secular State


Does Religion Have a Role to Play in the State?
Fr. Kevin J. Barr

Today, in most countries of the world, there is a recognised separation of Church (or religion) and state. Both are autonomous and one is not subject to the control of the other. Where this separation of religion and state is recognised we say that society is “secularised”. Peter Berger defines secularisation as “the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols”. In a secularised society institutional religion in the form of a state religion ceases to impose order on the world by way of external controls.

However one of the characteristics of a secular state is that it recognises the freedom of its citizens to practise the religion of their choice and respects their religious traditions – be they Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sihk – or perhaps non-religious stances such as humanism or atheism.

The secularisation of society has given rise to two different interpretations and reactions among religious people.

Some see the church and religious organisations as having no role to play in politics and in the development of this world. They think that they should be concerned only with ‘spiritual’ things and ‘other-worldly salvation’. Religion is a private matter for individuals. Its concern should not be with this world but with the world to come. Some may even say that this world is evil and that religious people should have nothing to do with it. We should look for salvation only in a future life beyond the grave.

Others however react strongly to this “privatisation” of religion - to the narrowing down of religion merely to the inner life of the private individual. They say that religion must always be personal but not private. They stress that our religious faith cannot remain aloof from what happens in this world and that religious people can and must exert an influence in the social, economic and political areas of their societies. Our religious faith must help to enlighten and direct our existence on earth. Religion is not a separate compartment of our lives. We cannot separate faith and life. Because politics, the economy, culture, and religion are all part of life, we cannot dissociate faith and the economy, faith and culture, faith and politics. Moral principles and religious values are involved in the areas of economic and political decisions. Mahatma Gandhi once remarked: “I am told that religion and politics are different spheres of life. But I would say without a moment’s hesitation and yet in all honesty that those who claim this do not know what religion is”.

It should be clear that religious organisations do not seek to be involved in politics in the sense that they promote a particular party or political platform. But, if they are to fulfil their prophetic role in society, they must be ‘political’ in the sense that they bring the message and values of religion to this world today. This message cannot be divorced from the economic, social and political dimensions of a particular historical situation and the challenges and demands that arise from it.

It would be naive to think that the church or religious organisation must support any government simply because it happens to be in power. Those who use Romans 13 to uphold the status quo misunderstand Paul’s meaning and the total message of the scriptures. It is incumbent upon the church in its prophetic role to hold up to the scrutiny of the gospel and the values of the Kingdom any government or regime in which it finds itself and under which its children must live, and to evaluate and, if necessary, criticise the actions and policies of that government.

In 1976, President Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya said to the Catholic Bishops of Kenya: “The Church is the conscience of society, and today’s society needs a conscience. Do not be afraid to speak. If we go wrong and you keep quiet, one day you may have to answer for our mistakes”. And the American theologian, Monika Hellwig, wrote: “The task of the churches is at all times to protest against injustice, to challenge what is inhuman, and to side with the poor and oppressed.” The church must raise its voice in criticism whenever the values of human dignity, justice, freedom and community are at stake.

So religion and religious organisations are still important in a secular state and exert an influence on the lives of individuals and, through them, on society – its policies and its structures.

Should the Constitutional Review Process be Looking at the Fijian (iTaukei) Administration?

Opinion by Crosbie Walsh

A drua (ocean-going canoe)
The itaukei administration is in several respects a government within a government that has a special role to serve the itaukei population.

It may be compared to an  outrigger to the main Government hull,  comprised the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs), Bose ni Turaga (all chiefs), 14 Provincial Councils, and further down, Tikina (district) Councils, the Turaga-ni-koro and village (koro) councils.

The platform linking the hull and outrigger comprises the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs, the iTaukei Lands Trust Board, four Divisional Commissioners, and the government-appointed Roko Tui who generally serve as the CEO's of the 14 provincial councils. Provincial Councils are partly elected and partly appointed. Their most important member is usually the most senior traditional chief. Hence Tui Namosi, Tui Serua, Marama Roko Tui Dreketi (Rewa) who often chair the Council meetings.

Most Provincial Councils have business arms such as Yasana Holdings and Lomaiviti Holdings, funded mainly by provincial fundraising but often, in the past, by lump payments from government.  The Councils also raise funds, to supplement government funding, with a levy, usually $10, on all adult males.  Membership usually includes urban representatives thereby giving migrants to urban areas a say in their provinces of origin.

The island of Rotuma, some 500km north of Viti Levu, is administered by its own Council of Rotuma that comprises the traditional chief and two elected representatives from each of the island's seven districts.

In colonial days the role of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) was limited to advising government on native affairs. Since Independence, however, its role  greatly increased and, under the 1997 Constitution no president or vice-president could be appointed without its approval. Since 1987  it has periodically openly engaged in national politics, adopting one party as its own, and instructed ethnic Fijians for which party they should vote.

Prior to its suspension and later abolition by the Bainimarama government, the GCC  consisted of 55 members.  Three each were nominated from the 14 provinces, three by the Council of Rotuma, and six by the Minister for Fijian affairs in consultation with the President. The Prime Minister, President and Vice-President were members, and 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka was a life member.

Fourteen members of the 32 members of Senate were appointed by the  GCC, one by the Council of Rotuma, 9 by the Prime Minister and 8 by the Leader of the Opposition. It was unclear whether the two latter nominations were supposed to represent all parties in Parliament and at the time of the 2006 Coup the matter had been taken to Court.  Nor was it clear whether the political appointees were independent or expected to toe a party line.  But either way, Senate, as constituted, was merely an overlay of Parliament and seemed to add little to Fiji's good governance.

The opposition of Senate —or, more accurately, the opposition of some of its senior members— was instrumental in the overthrow of the Bavadra government, deposed by the 1987 Rabuka Coup, and the Chaudhry government, deposed by the Speight Coup of 2000.  The Bainimarama coup of 2006 is the only coup they have actively opposed.
  • With most itaukei now living in towns and away from their traditional villages (and with many never having visited their 'home' villages);
  • With many chiefs now also living in towns;
  • With itaukei women denied rights to land and little to no say in any of the Councils, unless they are chiefs; 
  • With the offspring of mixed marriages where, if the man is non-itaukei, the children are denied their part itaukei identity and its accompanying rights; 
  • With the gaps and overlaps inevitable to a "dual" system of governance; 
  • And, most importantly, with Indo-Fijians, Kailoma, Kai Solomoni, local Europeans and others not part of the system, and with government's intention to abolish institutional racism .....
..... it could be time to re-examine these structures to avoid duplication and gaps in services, to ensure all Fijians are treated equally and fairly, and to make the Provincial Councils, at least, more inclusive.

Consideration could also be given to the status of iTaukei urban villages, all but one of which is located adjacent to cities and towns. The exception is Namoli which is administratively part of Lautoka City although it has never paid rates.  The Local Government Act of 2006 released urban non-leased native land from paying rates, but villages may be charged for services such as rubbish collection.    Elsewhere —and most obviously in Nadi, Lami and Tamavua—town boundaries "perform miraculous loops to exclude urban villages" (Walsh 2006).

A government policy paper published in 1992 referred to the urban villages as a "continuing enigma" and nothing has been done to change this situation over the past 20 years.  A review of the relationship between the urban villages, municipalities  and provincial councils is long overdue.

The same may be said of rural Indo-Fijian settlements that, although geographically located in the domain of provincial councils, are none of their responsibility.

None of this would necessarily involve the abolition or even major changes to  itaukei structures. It is maninly a case of fine tuning.  What is suggested is a re-examination of  their roles, functions, memberships and relationships with the intention of making them more representative of today's demographics, more efficient,   more conducive to the tasks of  nation building, and just as sensitive to iTaukei concerns as they always have been.

The Constitution Commission, of course, is not mandated to do more than make recommendations to the Constitution Assembly, and the the Assembly will have insufficient time to do much more than put ticks or crosses against  the recommendations.  The "real" work will come afterwards with  the government elected in 2014 left to set up other commissions and committees to consider in detail the adoption or modification of a mountain of Assembly recommendations.

I think a strong case can be made to the Commission for it to set one of it many balls in motion by recommending  a review of iTaukei administration.

 _____

Walsh, Crosbie 2006: Fiji: and Encyclopaedic Atlas, USP, Suva. My immediate sources are sections on urbanization (p.84), iTaukei administration (pp.106-107);  the parliamentary system (p.361); and municipal administration (p.384).

Prasad: Political Stability Vital for Healthy Economy


6:12pm Jul 28
POLITICAL stability and certainty are vital for our economic progress, says University of the South Pacific's Professor Biman Prasad.

Prof Prasad said political stability was important for economic prosperity.

"I know what some bloggers and my critics say but that is what you have been saying for a while," he said.

"Yes we know, but the issue of political stability in my view is one of the missing links in our prosperity and one that we have to understand is the cause of a lot of economic problems.

"If there is one lesson we should now learn as we move towards the formulation of the new constitution, that is, political stability and certainty is vital for our economic progress."

Mr Prasad made the comments yesterday at the Citizens Constitutional Forum Ltd organised seminar on "Bringing Fiji together — Addressing Inclusivity in Constitution Making".

"If one were to take stock of the progress we have made in the last 25 years, there will not be much to show," he said.

"In the 1970s the average growth was 5.5 per cent, in the 1980s it was 1.9 per cent, in the 1990s it was 3 per cent, in 2000s were reduced to 0.8 per cent and in the last five it has been less than 1 per cent.

"The economy grew at 2.1 per cent in 2011 after two consecutive years of contraction.

"The Bainimarama government can be given credit for articulating the creation of inclusive economic and political institutions and that is an important transformation that could be achieved through our new constitution."

Prof Prasad said in the past five years, the government had reformed various aspects of the economic institutions which could be considered inclusive and would be beneficial in the long run.

He said these include dismantling monopolies and reforming institutions to allow for broader participation.

"The attempt by the government to address the land issue through the Land Bank is commendable and more serious thinking would require us to look at further to ensure that land ownership and tenure becomes an inclusive economic institution in Fiji."

Mr Prasad said a lot of empirical evidence shows that political instability and coups were a major cause of economic decline in many countries and Fiji was no exception.

"The new constitution must address and include provisions which create and preserve inclusive political and economic institutions," he said.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said it was apparent that Fiji's lack of political stability since 1987, even before that, had been precipitated by the lack of a fundamental State apparatus and legal framework to address issues of communality, to remove statutes that created division and statutes that disallowed national support to socio-economic and political advancements.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said the non-negotiable advancements put in place by the Prime Minister addressed the co-fundamentals of political stability and economic prosperity.

He said this included a common and equal citizenry, one person one vote one value, addressing systemic corruption, having merit based appointments and promotions, removing cronyism and nepotism.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

The Mango Season

The mango season will be with us soon. All over Lautoka thousands of trees can be seen flowering and many of us are looking forward to when we will have mangoes in abundance. We will have mango chutney, mango juice, plain mango and many other stuff.

I have a unique story to tell. I have a hybrid mango tree at the back of my home in Lautoka which used to bear fruit that was not good to eat. It was sour and bitter sweet and the flesh of the mango is stringy and it used to have worms. The tree is huge and during the cyclone season it’s a threat to my neighbours home including mine. So we decided to make our place safe and we debarked the tree. It has been six months and the tree is dying a slow death.  Since the debarking, we have had fewer  fruit but they  are no longer bitter sweet and are nice to eat.   I look up and I see the  tree is again in full bloom. Soon we will be having mangoes.

One day as I sat under the dying tree, I looked up and said, “Are you telling me something?” “Why have you suddenly given us better fruit now that we want to cut you down.”

And a thought crossed my mind. Trees are like people. Only when we have life threatening experiences do we change for the good.

I have lemon tree that has not fruited in all the years that it has stood beside my home. I have a feeling it needs a life threatening experience to make it come to its senses and bear some lemons.


Allen Lockington is a self-employed customs agent and business consultant who has regular articles published in Fiji. I thank Allen for permission to reprint some of them in this political blog. They remind us that life goes on, whatever the political situation. And it's good to know that. 




Wednesday 22 August 2012

Changes in Constitution-Making in Fiji. Part II: After the 1972 Elections

WEEKEND READING • Allen Lockington column  • The Secular State: Does Religion have a part to play? by Fr Kevin Barr • Political and Economic Stability by Biman Prasad • Should the Constitution Commission be Looking at the iTaukei Administration by Crosbie Walsh

By Subhash Appana

My last article focused on the process and context that gave Fiji its 1970 constitution. It needs to be noted that in the lead-up to independence in 1970, the two main communities in Fiji were distinctly separate not only in appearance, but also in terms of administration and government. Both communities had very different colonial experiences – one was a favoured child while the other a dangerous threat to be used to the full at any and every opportunity.

It was this threat that had to be roped into a constitutional framework that not only neutralized the threat, but also ensured a smooth transition to independence without changing any of the power positions. To this end, a number of assumptions were made. One, that the indigenous Fijian would remain united as an ethnic voter bloc. Two, that the Generals would always support Mara. And three, that the Indians would be fragmented with its business interests supporting Mara. Unfortunately, each of these assumptions was to fall over time.

The fall came mainly from two sources. One, fragmentation within the Fijian community; and two, Indian demands for equal status in the new nation. In both cases the unspoken issue in contention was resource allocation. In the lead-up to 1970, a key factor that brought consensus on independence was an acceptance by all parties involved (especially NFP leader, SM Koya) that Ratu Mara could be relied on to do the right thing for all of Fiji’s peoples.

That’s partly why Fiji’s first post-colonial elections took place in 1972 - two years after independence. Everybody believed at the time in the benign oligarchy that was being championed as democracy for Fiji. The 1972 elections delivered as expected – Ratu Mara ascended to PM and Koya became the Leader of the Opposition. Voting had largely proceeded on ethnic lines as prescribed by the electoral provisions of the constitution even though 25% of the Indians voted Mara in the cross-voting constituencies.

This trust dissipated soon afterwards as Mara had to walk the tightrope between nationalist Fijian demands for Fijian paramountcy and Indian expectations of equality. Particularly problematic was the increasingly popular message of “Indians go back home” espoused by Fijian firebrand and government backbencher, Sakeasi Butadroka. In an embarrassing faceoff, Mara let Butadroka face the full brunt of the law for inciting racial animosity and Buta ended up in jail. That helped launch his Fijian Nationalist Party (FNP) in 1975.

Meanwhile, PM Mara continued to juggle between two sets of demands for the country’s finite resources within an environment where making any allocations to Indians painted him as a traitor, while looking after Fijians made him appear racist and anti-Indian. His moment of truth came in 1975 when he set up special education funds for Fijians as a gesture in affirmative action. That signaled the end of any real Indian support for the PM.

1975 also saw the appointment of a Royal Commission under Sir Harry Street to reconsider the electoral provisions of the 1970 constitution as agreed in 1969. None in the Alliance were interested in any changes to a constitution that was delivering as expected citing that it was too early to have tested the constitution adequately. That was the end of any talks of constitutional changes and especially the question of common roll – one man, one vote, one value!

Mara now had to face political opposition on two fronts: the NFP and Butadroka’s FNP. Those Indians who had previously supported Mara were now disillusioned with his affirmative action programs for the Fijians and moved to the NFP tree. On the other hand, those Fijians who felt threatened by the increasingly loud and visible Indian presence, saw the FNP as the only vehicle that would remove the pesky Indians from their midst.

These two mindsets broke the unity of the Fijians on the one hand and forged the unity of the Indians on the other – thus two of the three pillars that propped Alliance rule were broken. Now it remained for enough Generals to abandon the Alliance. This would not happen at the impending 1977 elections, but ten years later would prove to be revealing.

As elections approached in April 1977, Mara faced the biggest political challenge of his life even though this has been underplayed in literature. The magnitude of Fijian resentment of the Indian, the loosening hold of the Fijian chiefly system, the popularity of Buta’s “Indians Go Back Home” chant, the resentment of the Indian towards special treatment of Fijians especially in education and the civil service, were all underestimated by the Alliance strategists.

Butadroka pulled away 25% of the Fijian vote base from the Alliance as the NFP won an unexpected victory. One can only speculate about the aftermath if they had succeeded in forming government at that juncture. What happened instead is that a defiant group led by Irene Jai Narayan, KC Ramrakha and Jai Ram Reddy believed the country was not ready for an Indian PM, especially a belligerent one like SM Koya.

That bitterly broke the NFP and paved the way for Mara’s return via a minority government followed by a landslide elections victory in September of 1977. Life returned to normal in Fiji, but the constitutionally prescribed ethnic basis for politics would continue to hound the country. It is this that had caught Mara unprepared in 1977.

Ethnic based politics was not going to allow for merit-based decision making and broad-based political power play focusing on the performance, policies and personalities offered by the two main political parties. Anyone wanting to gain Fijian support had to rebuke Indians and have handouts ready for the Fijian electorate. On the other hand, anyone looking at Indian support had to be prepared to oppose, thwart and ridicule the Alliance government at every turn.

Within this framework, there was no room for cross-ethnic, development-focused policies because the electoral provisions of the 1970 constitution prescribed racial segregation and competition. It paid to remain in your racial compartments because government’s allocation decisions were guided by that very same compartmentalization. And this was directly linked to political popularity. Fiji politics was thus played out within a dire constitutional framework that had to become moribund in the face of socio-economic changes that were not going to wait for the niceties of politics. 
 
Next, we will look at the aftermath of the 1977 elections and the lead-up to the 1982 elections to understand what led to the 1987 upheaval. Keep tuned.

Subhash Appana is an academic and political commentator. The opinions contained in this article are entirely his and not necessarily shared by any organizations he may be associated with both in Fiji and abroad. Email appanas@hotmail.com
Sent: 22/8/12

Not Published by the Fiji Media,So published Here


MEDIA RELEASE
 Regime abandons workers again;
Union power is the answer.

The poorest of our workers have once again been denied long awaited and well deserved wage increase by an illegitimate regime.

This regime has done so the third time in four years, says the outgoing Chairman of the Wages Council, Fr Kevin Barr who has reportedly resigned over the Labour Minister's refusal to adopt the recommendations of the wages councils and for acting unilaterally.

The Labour Minister must realize that by bowing to the pressure from the rich and powerful employers he has not only abandoned  around 60% of our workers who live below the poverty line, he has also abandoned the core purpose of his ministry of fairness and justice in the workplace.  

The workers  of Fiji have received nothing but third grade treatment from this regime from the day it usurped power in 2006. 

There is little doubt that this regime it is not only pro rich but blatantly anti poor. It has also attacked unionised workers continuously by issuing several decrees that violate worker and trade union rights on a daily basis. And it continues shamelessly with these anti worker and anti union  policies despite international condemnation.

Let it be known that no country can progress by treating its workers with such contempt. 

The time has come for all workers to join trade unions so that we all can together fight for what is ours- a decent wage for a decent life.

Let us all unite in the pursuit of fairness and justice for the working families and show that we have the ability to fight and take our fair share.

Attar Singh,
General Secretary,
FICTU.

Tuesday 21 August 2012

"Constant Beautiful Statements" Not Enough

CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS FROM READERS
Why I Resigned as Chair of the Wages Council 
Fr Kevin Barr
(Subheadings added by Editor.
Reply from the Minister and my comment added at the end.)

In 2008 I was persuaded to accept the position as independent Chair of the ten Wages Councils under the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations. When we began our work there had been no increases in worker’s wages for three years. 

Our first set of wage proposals was due to come into effect on the 1st Feb. 2009. Without any consultation the PM announced that, under pressure from a strong lobby of employers, he was deferring the Wage Regulation Orders to 1st July 2009. 

The second set of wage proposals was then set to come into effect on the 1st July 2010 but again was deferred for ten months until the 1st May 2011 and was reduced by 5%. All this was done without any consultation with me or the Wages Councils. 

In 2011 there were no meetings of the Wages Councils due to the stubborn determination of the Permanent Secretary  to have a formula which was unacceptable to all parties. The Wages Councils met in early 2012 and approved a set of Wage proposals to come into effect on the 15th August. Then again, without any consultation there was an announcement through the media that these wage increases had been deferred until 31st October and the Wages Councils would be asked to reconsider them because of objections raised by some employers.

When I heard the media announcement, I was outraged and angry and considered the lack of proper consultation most unacceptable. It showed no respect for me as Chair and no respect for the members of the Wages Councils who had worked so hard to reach consensus. Above all it showed no respect and no concern for the workers - the 60% of those in full-time employment who are covered by the Wages Councils.

Third deferment in three years
The recent deferment of the proposed wage increases was the third in three years. In other words every wage proposal made by the Wages Councils had been opposed by a small group of influential employers. What is worse government allowed this greedy and selfish group of employers to get their own way and crush the hopes and dreams of the workers of the country for modest wage increases to assist them cope with the rapidly increasing cost of living. The Ministry of Labour through the Wages Councils is supposed to be protecting the interests of the workers of the country. However others in government who allowed their buddies to influence them chose to obstruct the established process and called for delays and decreases.

The employers usual 'litany of woes'
In his detailed research report Just Wages in Fiji – Keeping Workers Out of Poverty (2006) Prof. Wadan Narsey looked back over 30 years of the operations of the Wages Councils and showed how employers had consistently managed to get their own way:
It was clear that most employer’s representatives resisted all proposals for wage increases, and they were quite successful in their attempts. The long term outcome was the severe deterioration in real wage rates and consequently a growth in poverty in the nation” (p. 77). Employers would cite “the usual litany of industrial woes, warn of redundancies and unemployment that high wage adjustments would cause and give a lower counter-proposal” (p.76). They would plead “inability to pay” or “this is not the right time”.

Nothing has changed and the same old scene gets played out year by year. The root cause of it all is greed and self-interest of a small lobby of employers who want to get their own way and pretend it is in the national interest. Moreover governments have allowed this to happen. 

Present government no better
And our present government is no different and actually is proving to be not only pro-investor but anti-worker. Some beautiful words have been spoken about concern for all citizens including the poor and marginalised and the need for social justice. But these words now seem like a lot of hot air to fool or silence the gullible.

In the recent budgets employers and investors have been given huge reductions in corporate tax and in personal income tax. In fact, as Peter Mazey said publicly on TV to his fellow employers “We got all we wanted in the 2012 Budget”. The ordinary people and the workers of the country got bugger all. Moreover workers unions have been emasculated and some union leaders have been bashed and imprisoned. This anti-worker stance is deplorable and has been criticised internationally.

Increased inequality cause for increased instability and anger
Not only is all this making for greater inequality, it also creates a cause for instability, dissatisfaction and anger. Those in government responsible for these strong pro-business and anti-union policies have themselves to blame.

In the current atmosphere of restrictions, workers and others are not free to protest against the way they are being treated. That is why I have decided to protest in their name by resigning.

My resignation as Chair of the Wages Councils is in protest 
  • (a) against the constant opposition to wage increases by a small lobby of selfish and greed employers and 
  • (b) against those in government who allow these employers to get their own way.
I also resigned as a member of the Poverty Alleviation committee in the Prime Minister’s Office because, if there is no concern for just wages for our workers who make up 60% of the population, there is no real commitment to poverty alleviation because wages are a key issue for the alleviation of poverty. 

Despite some good pro-poor programmes and constant beautiful statements there are no economic policies that touch the root causes of poverty. Rather many policies and constant deferments of wage increases are creating more poverty. All the fine words about poverty alleviation we hear over the radio and TV are nothing more than hot air unless there is positive, effective action.

A step towards justice
But I do not want my resignation to be seen negatively. I hope that it is a positive step to protest against injustice and make a stand for justice. I want those greedy and selfish employers to examine their consciences and act with decency and human concern for the needs of their workers. I also want government to break its attachment to the employer’s lobby and protect the interests of the workers of the country – to put the people first.

Some employers backtracked
I would also like to register my disappointment with a number of actors in the recent pro-employer/anti-union drama:
  • Munro Leys who sent out an alert to their clients encouraging them to protest against wage and meal increases;
  • Nesbitt Hazelman who gave assurances that there would be no opposition to the wage increases from the Fiji Employer’s and Commerce Federation yet goes ahead and registers his complaints;
  • The Garment industry which also gave assurances that they would not oppose the increases because they managed to get a fair hearing. Yet some of their members went ahead and wrote in opposition to the increases. Yet not so long ago in the media Kalpesh Solanki was boasting of huge new developments for the garment industry.
  • The Hotel and Tourist Industry and the Manufacturing Industry who hide their greed and selfishness behind so-called concerns about the “impact of wage increases on Fiji’s international competitiveness and the danger of redundancies for the nation”. Dixon Seeto and Patrick Wong claim that tourism is a billion dollar industry and that the number of tourists are constantly on the increase. If this is so, then why can’t the workers associated with the tourist industry be allowed a greater share of the profits through better wages. The national budget provides the tourism industry with $24m a year. Why do they complain about modest increases in the wages of their workers? Why do they have to run to their Minister to intervene and oppose wage increases like a pack of cry-babies? Wages and Labour issues are under the Minister for Labour. And when their representatives on the Wages Councils agree to increases in wages, why do they then come out in opposition?
A billion dollars transferred from wages to profits
In his research mentioned above Prof. Wadan Narsey says that, over the years “stolen wages” (as he terms the refusal to pay an adequate, just wage) have seriously benefited employers but seriously disadvantaged thousands of workers whose quality of life has deteriorated. Narsey claims that in the 30 years since Independence more than one billion Fijian dollars has been transferred from worker’s wages to employer’s profits mainly because the business lobby was exceedingly influential in the Wages Councils.

There is an unbelievable degree of exploitation of our workers in Fiji – not only in the area of wages but in other areas as well. I have listed all this elsewhere.

The work goes on
So, in resigning as Chair of the Wages Councils I do not wish to give up on the workers of our country. I will continue to speak out on their behalf and I hope that my resignation is seen as a protest against the injustices perpetrated on our workers. It is a stand against greed and selfishness and a lack of concern for needs of workers and their families. It is a stand for justice.

To all of those who say they read their Bibles I would like to remind them of these words in James (5:1-6):

Listen to the wages you kept back. They are calling out. Realize that the cries of the workers have reached the ears of the Lord God”. 

Ed. comment

The Minister's reply (click here) is plausible, but it does not explain why Fr Barr, as Chairman of the Wages Council, was not first informed of the decision to postpone the new awards.  Such a move would not only have been courteous; it would have made common sense.  Fr Barr clearly thinks the "process" complete. Employer representatives  had already been fully consulted, and most agreed with the new awards.  

But I do agree wth the Minister:  I hope Fr Barr will reconsider his decision to resign.  More than ever, the Wage Council needs him to defend worker interests.

Monday 20 August 2012

The 1997 Constitution: Its Opening Prologue

Sunrise Sunset
A  number of people making submissions to the Constitution Commission have said they want to keep the 1997 Constitution and, like sunrise,  I have to agree it starts well. It is only some of its 'sunset' provisions that need to be deleted or amended if Fiji is to become a united nation where each community respects the rights of others.

But what a beautiful prologue!

The Constitution preamble  reads:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE FIJI ISLANDS,
SEEKING the blessing of God who has always watched over these islands

— and, after recalling historical events that have shaped modern Fiji, continues:

RECOGNISING that the descendants of all those who chose to make their homes in these islands form our multicultural society:

AFFIRMING the contributions of all communities to the well-being of that society, and the rich variety of their faiths, traditions, languages and cultures:

TAKING PRIDE in our common citizenship and in the development of our economy and political institutions:

COMMITTING ourselves anew to living in harmony and unity, promoting social justice and the economic and social advancement of all communities, respecting their rights and interests and strengthening our institutions of government:

REAFFIRMING our recognition of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals and groups, safeguarded by adherence to the rule of law, and our respect for human dignity and for the importance of the family.

WITH GOD AS OUR WITNESS, GIVE OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION

If only it had worked out this way!
Later in the week I will  look at the provisions in the 1997 Constitution that protect iTaukei land and rights (these I think will be retained in the new constitution) and at other provisions that I think will be deleted,  amended or referred to the incoming government in 2014, so that the rights of all Fiji citizens will be protected.

Meantime, I urge readers who have not already done so to read my weekend posting that clarifies some issues on indigenous rights.  

Readers  may also wish to click on these hyperlinks (or store them for later reference) to read these documents in full:

1997 Constitution  http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/num_act/ca1997268/

CCF Constitution booklet http://fijiconstitution.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/4/
6/12466522/ccf_ourconstitution_web.pdf

The Role of Constitution Building Processes in a Democracy by Jill Cottrell and Yash Ghai.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103236035/Cottrell-Ghai-2004

This 2004 paper discusses the background to all of Fiji's constitutions from 1970 to 1997, details their processes, and the elections that were held under their provisions.  It looks in detail at the 1997 Constitution, and notes in particular that the failure to educate the people on their rights and obligations under the constitution was a major factor that led to the 2000 Coup.

Readers may be surprised to learn that Prof Ghai, who Bainimarama recently said does not understand Fiji's history, was in Fiji in 1987 and was influential in the foundation of the Citizens' Constitution Commission. He is no johnny-come-lately to Fiji.




Sunday 19 August 2012

Indigenous Rights and the Proposed Constitution

Opinion by Crosbie Walsh
Moses:  "iTaukei rights are not threatened!"

In an earlier article I said that fear and lack of knowledge seemed to be major influences in many of the ethnic Fijian submissions made to the Constitution Commission. The fear I referred to was that of losing their land,  institutions, culture, language and customs.  There seemed to be confusion among many iTaukei on the rights and attributes of their indigenous ethnicity (what others call First Nations) and their rights —and others' rights— to full and equal citizenship.

A recent posting on  Luveiviti, one of the older anti-Bainimarama and pro-ethnic "Fijian rights" blogs, seems likely to add to the confusion.  In a  recent posting they published the opinions of a "Mr Peter Jones" on the current constitution dialogue and what it could mean for ethnic Fijian rights.  I do not know of Peter Jones but the blog  credits him as "One of our much valued Indigenous experts."

What this says for their other experts, I do not know but I do know his opinions warrant close examination because they reflect and confirm the mistaken views of  many extreme nationalists, in Fiji and elsewhere, and because he sees the proposed constitution as likely to undermine indigenous rights.  


The main thrust of his argument is that the constitution currently being considered could destroy indigenous rights (not to be confused with human rights  that belong to all citizens)  and in doing so it would be running counter to important UN and ILO declarations on indigenous peoples.


The UN and indigenous rights
There are three UN decisions that apply to indigenous peoples:
  • The ILO Convention No. 169, 1989,  largely concerned with protecting indigenous rights of land ownership.  that was ratified by 18 countries, mainly in Latin America, Denmark, Norway, Netherland, Spain and Fiji.
  • The United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 2007 that was adopted by the UN General Assembly, but with Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand voting against and a number of other countries abstaining.  
  • United Nations-Indigenous Peoples Partnership (UNIPP) that focuses on "marginalised and excluded groups." Its primary concerns are: exclusion from decision-making; loss of lands, forestry, fishing; children deprived of education; treatment of women evidenced in statistics such as having a higher maternal mortality rate than the majority population.
iTaukei as an  indigenous people?
Peter Jones singled out certain clauses in the  UNDRIP  for special attention.  I will address these later but first it is important to consider the intent of the declaration, and who  UN members  understood to be indigenous people, for while there is no  doubt iTaukei are Fiji's indigeneous people),  iTaukei society today meets few of the UN's assumptions on the consequences of being indigenous.    

The UN saw indigenous people to constitute a minority, and usually a very small minority in a country's population.  They were generally seen as  living in communities located on their traditional land. There were other  indigenous people mixing with the mainstream populations but most of them shared the common socio-economic characteristics of deprivation and exclusion.    

The purposes of the UNDRIP
The Declaration's purposes were (1) to protect these indigenous people against discrimination and injustices by charging member states with the responsibility of ensuring their material welfare. In other words, to guarantee their equal citizenship and, if need be extend special help, to ensure equality; (2) to protect them from enforced assimilation or integration in the mainstream population, and to protect their lands, forests, fisheries; their institutions;  their cultures, histories, oral traditions. and culture. 

Nowhere in the Declaration is the word "indigenous" defined, but Fiji is a party to the Declaration, and many ethnic Fijians see themselves  protected by the Declaration, however inappropriately it defines their  situation in Fiji. For most years since Independence indigenous Fijians have held the political and military control of the State.  They can hardly be considered an oppressed minority. 

iTaukei have no  need for UN protection
It is  important for Peter Jones and indeed for all iTaukei to realize: they do not need the UN to protect them. They are by far the majority population and their  rights  are written into the 1997 Constitution, and will, without doubt, be rewritten into the 2013 Constitution.  If protection other than that extended to the indigenous people was ever needed in Fiji, it was to marginalised groups like the part-iTaukei KaiSolomoni  and other vulagi who some iTaukei leaders, like Adi Asanaca Caucau, called "weeds" to be rooted out and sent back to India.  

Rights, as we are constantly told, come with obligations but there was nothing in the UN Declaration that covered the possibility of when a minority becomes a majority and threatens to attack the human rights of  non-indigenous citizens. No  iTaukei nationalist has shown any concern about  others' rights, or for  matching rights with obligations. 


The Land Bogey - again
The full text of  Peter Jones's letter is republished below. I will  discuss the main claims and leave readers to draw their own conclusion from his letter.  

He starts by assuming "Bainimarama is advocating ... a free market capitalist approach to Fiji, its people and land."  Later, in elaboration, he states that this:
 "will also slowly divest the land from indigenous people, allowing it to be bought by corporations and exploited or developed without any future voice of indigenous people. It is much easier for Commodore Bainimarama to encourage foreign investments (mining, tourism, etc.) if he can say that there are no indigenous Fijians, everyone has had an equal voice, and that the land is for sale (because when you take land out of collective ownership and allow it to be owned by individuals, more often then not you can buy that land from those individuals for a fairly low price - but usually not from the collective group). It is essential that indigenous Fijians keep the land in collective ownership. "
The claim can only be described as scaremongering.  The Bainimarama Government has been trying to increase the amount of land used for  productive purposes and obtain better returns for land owners. Land ownership was never threatened.  Opponents of the Bainimarama Government have pointed a finger at the new Land Banks but joining these banks is voluntary, and government participation ensures a guaranteed return to owners.  The only fair claim is that 99 year leases are too long. I would personally prefer different lengths of tenure to reflect the investment needed.  Thus, a farming or forestry lease could be shorter than a  mining  or commercial property lease, depending on each  situation. No iTaukei land has been sold. In fact, the opposite has occurred with some state leases being returned to iTaukei ownership.

System of voting could deny rights?
Peter Jones's second claim is that by Bainimarama:
"advocating for the elimination of ethnic voting, he is essentially advocating for the end of indigenous  rights. Similarly, proportional representation would deny indigenous voices." 
 Jones seems to think that a system of voting will "deny indigenous people their voice."  It is difficult to see how this will occur when  well over half of those elected by whatever system are likely to be iTaukei.  It also ignores the fact that the use and misuse of indigenous voting has been a major cause of political instability, and that many Fiji citizens, of all ethnicities, have already spoken out in favour of proportional representation and the abolition of the communal seats.  Further, nowhere in the UNDRIP is there any mention of voting, and if there were would be to ensure that indigenous people had the right to vote, which iTaukei have had for over 40 year since Independence!

Common citizenry could threaten rights?

He then proceeds to discuss "a common and equal citizenry" and draws the same conclusion. It will deny iTaukei their rights:
"Likewise, a common and equal citizenry would deny any recognition of indigenous Fijian people. These are very common "goals" or statements put forward in modern capitalist based democracy. If you eliminate any of the indigenous voices, make everyone the exact same in terms of rights, land rights, representation, etc., it will deny indigenous people their voice."

Equality is not sameness
Here he falls into the old trap of confusing equality with sameness. No one is suggesting that all Fiji citizens should be treated the same.  Many groups, such as the disabled, the poor, and of course, the iTaukei have their special needs, and if these needs are not met or strived for, they will not have been treated equally.  Living in a "modern capitalist based democracy" does not change the situation.  This is the democracy Fiji has had since Independence.  It is what governments do with democracy that counts. This Government has shown no interest in eliminating iTaukei voices, or in limiting their "rights, land rights, representation"  Mr Jones has created a straw man and then proceeded to knock it down.

iTaukei sovereignty?

His last paragraph raises the issue of the Great Council of Chiefs (he does not know it was a government-created, and not a traditional,  institution, so it could hardly be covered by the UNDRIP). He then goes on to say iTaukei should:
 "demand that the government work with them on a government to government relationship. Indigenous people are recognized as sovereign people under UNDRIP and ILO 169 (which Fiji ratified), and have a right to decide how they want their land and heritage to develop."
This raises the question of iTaukei sovereignty and their right to exercise their own  sovereignty within the Fiji State.   To some extent, Fiji, with its numerous iTaukei institutions,  already has a parallel system of government but this is a long way from what may be inferred from full blown sovereignty.  

A nation is not a state

I suspect the original confusion lies with the United Nation. They were dealing with indigenous groups with  different types of social organization. Some were referred to as ethnic minorities, others as tribes or tribal confederations.  All were to be treated as First Nations people.  The  word "nation" is often interchangeably  with "state" but there is an important difference.  A state may include people of different nationalities, sometimes with their own geographies and degrees of autonomy, and sometimes  these "nations" may need protection, but nowhere  do any of these "nations"  enjoy  sovereignty. 

No modern State will allow a nation  to contest sovereignty within its own borders, and this is probably why Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand refused to sign the ILO Convention, and why NZ has contested the idea of full Maori sovereignty that some Maori extremists seek.  

Excuse me for these two euphemisms, but it is disingenuous and mischievous for Peter Jones to claim iTaukei have the sort of sovereignty  that enables them to talk with government on a "government to government" basis.

The special place for iTaueki in Fiji
Ethnic Fijians enjoy First Nation status in Fiji.  They have a special place in the life of the country.  But they are not an oppressed indigenous people and they are not  sovereign. 

Fijian citizens who are not iTaukei willingly recognize their special status and I think most iTaukei are happy with this status.  I doubt that many  want sovereignty within the State that would diminish the rights of other  citizens.   I think they would accept  a fair Fiji where all citizens are treated with respect according to their needs.

Those who claim otherwise, such as Luveiviti and Peter Jones, are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary iTaukei and so derail the Constitution process, a process that should result in a much better Fiji than it was in the past.  If they love Fiji, as they claim, they should be helping this process, with fair criticism and thoughtful recommendations —not with misinformation. 

Letting them loose into the public arena, with such mistaken and malicious ideas, would be doing the public a disservice. It is not that each statement is new and worthy of rebuttal. It is that each statement has been  repeated endlessly in different guises; has been endlessly answered; and there is a limit to how many times  they can and should be  answered.   The anti-Bainimararama bloggers and their extremist supporters  knows this.  Hence the repetitions. It's no wonder the PM loses his cool from time to time and lumps the moderate opposition in with the extremists.

The need for  ongoing education on the present dialogue process is obvious. But it would probably be more effective  if a modern Moses would stand up in every pulpit in the land and proclaim:  iTaukei rights are not being threatened!


Peter Jones's text in full in Luveiviti

I am not familiar with all of the documents or reports, but from what is contained here, it sounds like Commodore Bainimarama is advocating for a free market capitalist approach to Fiji, its people and land. By advocating for the elimination of ethnic voting, he is essentially advocating for the end of indigenous rights. 

Similarly, proportional representation would deny indigenous voices. Likewise, a common and equal citizenry would deny any recognition of indigenous Fijian people. These are very common "goals" or statements put forward in modern capitalist based democracy. If you eliminate any of the indigenous voices, make everyone the exact same in terms of rights, land rights, representation, etc., it will deny indigenous people their voice.

It will also slowly divest the land from indigenous people, allowing it to be bought by corporations and exploited or developed without any future voice of indigenous people. It is much easier for Commodore Bainimarama to encourage foreign investments (mining, tourism, etc.) if he can say that there are no indigenous Fijians, everyone has had an equal voice, and that the land is for sale (because when you take land out of collective ownership and allow it to be owned by individuals, more often then not you can buy that land from those individuals for a fairly low price - but usually not from the collective group).

It is essential that indigenous Fijians keep the land in collective ownership, continue to fight for reinstatement of the GCC, and demand that the government work with them on a government to government relationship. Indigenous people are recognized as sovereign people under UNDRIP and ILO 169 (which Fiji ratified), and have a right to decide how they want their land and heritage to develop. Commodore Bainimarama continues his assault on indigenous rights, and if he continues and gets his way, he will simply work the laws until there is no such thing as indigenous Fijian people (as they are trying to do in Bangladesh, by taking the word "indigenous" and substituting "ethnic minority" in government documents and laws), simply Fijians.