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

Sunday 31 March 2013

Fiji's Mad Hatter's Tea Party*


  
Alice, the MarchHare, Dormouse and Mad Hatter
     Opinion piece by Crosbie Walsh


I think that sub-consciously each of us weighs what is said or done against what what we assume to be its intended effect. Often we do this without any prompting or assistance but sometimes our friends, colleagues, fellow bloggers and the media give our sub-conscious a nudge towards the "correct" interpretation. 

Thus, in considering recent Fiji events, each of the following linked announcements (and their media coverage) had its own purpose and intended effect: the Ghai draft constitution, the Government's draft, the Citizen's Constitution Forum's analysis of both, the "total rejection" of the Government draft by Attar Singh and the newly-formed United Front for a Democratic Fiji (whose other leaders, Ratu Jone Kubuabola, Mick Beddoes, Mahendra Chaudhry and Ram Pratap Singh, represent the old political parties) and PM Bainimara's reaction that Attar would obey the constitution or risk imprisonment.

The PM's intention was clearly to display strength and intimidate, and he should have known better. Many people are already wary of his strength and Attar is not one to be intimidated. He should either not have replied or said he was sad that Attar had adopted this uncompromising position, before adding some vacuous inclusive: "We are all Fijians and we should be working together to build a fairer Fiji." But this is not the PM's style, nor was it his intention. He has completely written off the possibility of working with the old leaders.

If I am correct in this interpretation, the PM's style and intentions must also have been well known to the old leaders. And knowing this, why then did they make their joint statement of 28 March? And why its tone and wording:

The United Front for a Democratic Fiji (UFDF) rejects the Fiji regime’s new draft constitution and the restricted and limited process for people’s input. This draft cannot be pushed as the people’s document simply because it isn’t so. As expected, the constitution seeks to perpetuate a dictatorship by entrenching the many restrictions and prohibitions imposed on the people since the 2006 coup.
These include the restrictions on group rights such as trade unions and continued limitations on the judiciary. The limited time offered to people to obtain a copy, read it and respond on its various draconian provisions confirms the regime’s intention to simply force its will on the people.

What was the intended effect of this statement? It was not a diplomatically-worded petition intent on persuading the PM to address their concerns. One does not use phrases like "this draft cannot be pushed" and "the constitution seeks to perpetuate a dictatorship" in a petition. Nor is the calling of public meetings (see below), running parallel to Government's meetings with the public, that given their purpose, could well be cancelled by the police. It seems more likely the intention is but the latest phase in efforts to undermine Government and return Fiji to how it essentially was before 2006.

The concerns expressed by the UFDF are real. That is their appeal. There are sound reasons to be concerned about the Bill of Rights restrictions in the Government draft; in the entrenchment of the decrees; the supposed restrictions on an independent judiciary, blanket immunities, and, possibly the absence of a caretaker government prior to elections, though I would read less into the lack of mention of land and tenancy rights, and recognition of women and minority communities, for these are addressed elsewhere, and are easily included in the draft before its final adoption.

There are also sound reasons why Government has included these restrictions, and topping the list of reasons is that they are aimed at people such as those in the old political parties, now represented by the UFDF, who have spent the last six to eight years putting negative connotations on each and every act by government, and opposing its every actions. One wonders what the situation would be now had they acted differently.


UFDF members have their own reasons for opposing Government, some for whatever it does. Chaudhry was Minister of Finance until he fell out with Bainimarama, and the lack of democracy within the FLP led first to Tupeni Baba, then Krishna Datt and finally FTUC unionists breaking away to form their own party. Attar Singh's position seems more principled. He was initially sympathetic to the Bainimarama government but his staunch left-wing trade unionism brought him into inevitable conflict with the Government's approach to labour-employer relations. He heads the other umbrella union grouping, the FICTU, that competes with the FTUC. Ratu Jone Kubuabola's motives are less clear. A long time supporter of the SDL (which included strong elements of the extremist CAMV party of whom his nephew, the Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, was a member), he is also a brother to Bainimarama's Foreign Minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. Some say both brothers are merely protecting their backs. Ram Pratap Singh National Federation Party had no seats in the last Parliament. It was the biggest victim, along with urban iTaukei, of the political system enshrined in the 1997 Constitution. Perhaps for this reason, his submission to the Constitutional Commission was the most reasonable of the political parties, and for this reason also he was omitted from the first "United Front." How long he and Chaudhry could remain united, even in the best and most transparent of causes, is anybody's guess. This leave Mick Beddoes, the leader of the smallest party in previous parliaments, representing Fiji's minorities, the General Voters, and, thanks to the way the 1997 Constitution was used by Chaundhry and Qarase, a Leader of the Opposition with only one other MP, with whom he subsequently fell out. Earlier this year he dissolved the UPP and joined the SDL, revealing where his sympathies lie. His opposition to the Bainimarama government has been constant, and his membership of the UFDF and his Easter Message to the nation leaves no doubt about where he stands. In the Easter Message he calls on all those in or associated with the Bainimarama Government
"search deep into their hearts and try and feel the pain & suffering of our people because of their individual support for the ongoing acts of ‘oppression’, ‘treats’ and denial of basic human rights and liberties of fellow citizens being perpetrated by their paymaster without the mandate of the people."
Charles G Kick in an shared email sums it up: 
"It does not inspire confidence to see political opponents who were once at each others throats suddenly bed fellows because the only thing that has forced them together is primarily opposition to Frank, and not a deeply rooted sense of democratic principles."
This group will be united until they start to compete for power. And then Fiji will be back to the confrontational politics that has torn it apart, and prevented the emergence of a sense of a common Fiji identity, since Independence.

I urge readers to make full use of the opportunities to communicate their opinions on the draft constitution to Government. And to attend the UFDF meetings.

In doing so, I ask them to reflect on the record of those who would influence their opinions.

Make a list of what the Bainimarama Government has done or tried to do with which you agree and disagree? Rank the order of their importance to you. Is this the order you would expect from "ordinary" Fijians?

Make another list, note what the SDL (especially the SDL)  and the FLP did that helped to build a united Fiji, and how their actions have helped, or not helped,  "move Fiji forward" since December 2006. Rank the order of their importance to you,  and to "ordinary" Fijians.

And then think about the worst and the best way you can make a difference.

Meetings called by UFDF.
Wednesday 3 April 2013,5pm, FTA Hall, Knollys St., Suva
Friday 5 April 2013, 5pm, TokaToka Resort, Nadi
Further meetings will be advised in due course.


* Mad Hatter's Tea Party
Alice in Wonderland
Chapter 7 – A Mad Tea-Party: Alice becomes a guest at a "mad" tea party along with the
MarchHare, the Hatter, and a very tired Dormouse who falls asleep frequently, only to be violently woken up moments later by the March Hare and the Hatter. The characters give Alice many riddles and stories, including the famous 'Why is a raven like a writing desk?' to which they had no answer. The Hatter reveals that they have tea all day because Time has punished him by eternally standing still at 6 pm (tea time). Alice becomes insulted and tired of being bombarded with riddles and she leaves claiming that it was the stupidest tea party that she had ever been to. -- Based on Wikipedia.


Saturday 30 March 2013

New Zealand's Foreign Policy

Gerald McGhie with Rev Akuila Yabaki Wellington 2012
New Zealand’s Foreign Policy: New Zealand’s 
Place in the World *
 
By Gerald McGhie 

Gerald McGhie is a former career diplomat who served as ambassador to Moscow and Seoul, High Commissioner to Port Moresby and Commissioner in Hong Kong. Now retired, he is a past director of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs and was chairman of the New Zealand chapter of Transparency International.


The December – January issue of the International Review contains the text of a talk given to the Institute by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and, later, of Defence, Hon Phil Goff. Mr Goff, now Opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs drew on his lengthy experience in both portfolios to discuss New Zealand's place in the world.

As Mr Goff explained, the fundamentals are clear – New Zealand, small and isolated is deeply dependent on overseas markets. Even so we have played an almost disproportionate role as an international citizen particularly in overseas wars. The First and Second World Warsi gave us the credentials for an early seat at the major international organisations – particularly the League of Nations and the United Nations where we have played an active part in discussions on major international issues including the work of the Specialised Agencies. Mr Goff expressed opposition to the United Nations Security Council permanent members’ veto and was critical of the “lack of will and commitment” among member states to reach agreement on solutions and implement them.

The Opposition spokesman wants to see Wellington making its own decisions on what alliances and international commitments New Zealand enters into. In deciding on the key issues a Labour government would be guided by the values and principles that underpin New Zealand society. Those principles fit us well to become involved in international conciliation and mediation issues.

It is not possible to cover in detail the comprehensive range of issues discussed by Mr Goff which included climate change, Doha, disarmament, non-proliferation and conflict prevention. He also refers to his wish to rebuild the Ministry of Foreign Affairsii.

There is a comment that four economists will express five different viewpoints on a given issue. Perhaps foreign policy commentators have a similar disposition. Be that as it may, I offer the following as a supplement to Mr Goff's views.

Walter Lippmann iii considered that to establish a balanced foreign policy a nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium; its purpose within its means; its means equal to its purposes; its commitments relative to its resources; its resources adequate to its commitments. Without these factors in line it would not be possible to undertake an effective foreign policy. Lippmann’s comments provide a valuable foreign policy perspective – for both small countries (New Zealand) and large (the United States, now the world’s largest debtor nation).

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the rise of militant Islam (not Islam as such) and the growing international presence of China are significant factors for change in the current international scene. Many countries are having to rethink both domestic and international policies as a result of mounting debt levels. The end result may not mean radical shifts in foreign policy but, as the United States has shown in relation to the Pacific, a certain on-going process of re-emphasis and de-emphasis is required to adjust to the new realities.

Given Hillary Clinton’s attendance at the most recent Pacific Forum and the statements she has been making it is surprising then that Mr Goff made only the briefest reference to the South Pacific – our Near North. In March 2011 Mrs Clinton made her position quite clear. “Let’s … talk straight Realpolitik”, she told the United States Senate foreign relations committee. "we are in competition with China. We have a lot of support in the region which embraces our values.” iv
n a statement at the 2012 Forum she modified her position to say that the Pacific was big enough for both China and the US to work together in but an early indication of the continued competitive context is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, the terms of which we do not yet know but which promise to have a profound effect on our trading relationships and internal regulatory processes. China is not a party to the TPP and is watching developments closely particularly as New Zealand's military/defence relationship with Washington firms up. United States Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell wants to see New Zealand undertake "strong dialogue" with Chinav but it will require refined diplomatic choreography for New Zealand to maintain an appropriate balance in relations with the two major powers and Australia. The situation is rendered even more complex by the ready embrace of our closest ally, Australia, not with New Zealand but with the United States.

Mr Goff welcomes New Zealand’s bilateral cooperation with these countries but he does not wish to surrender decision-making to the judgement of officials or statesman in Washington and Canberra. Given New Zealand's long-term desire for an “independent” foreign policy Mr Goff's comments are understandable. The difficulties, however, lie in the detail.

China is deeply involved with Fiji; a contact Suva welcomes. Moreover, at their celebration of 50 years of independence in 2012 the Samoan Prime Minister welcomed Chinese aid to his country noting that Beijing could provide development assistance that neither Australia nor New Zealand could. So far, China has made aid commitments of about US$ 600 million for infrastructure, technology and agriculture in the Pacific. According to a report by the ANZ Bank, trade between China and the Pacific Islands has risen from US$180 million in 2001 to US$1.5 billion in 2010.vi Some commentators consider Chinese aid to be “non-transparent", and debt-generating". As Steven Ratuva says, however, "the Pacific Island states realise they need to move on as mature global citizens and look for alternative alliances outside their immediate postcolonial circle controlled by Australia and New Zealand"vii.

There is a further dimension. In spite of some rapprochement the relationship between New Zealand and Fiji remains strained. Let me state again I do not condone coups. But if we are talking about realism in foreign policy (as Hillary Clinton says she is) and we continue to see ourselves as having a special relationship with the Pacific we might also adopt some fa’a pasifika attitudes. Dealing with the Bainimarama government is no easy task. Suva is unhappy with the language and attitudes displayed by Canberra and Wellington since the 2006 coup and remains confused by a sanctions policy which most recently denied a visa to the CEO of the National Provident Fund to hold a series of meetings in Australia with investment advisers. If sanctions are designed to target only those involved in the coup this particular visa refusal would appear to go further and affect every Fijian worker. Perhaps the narrow interpretation given to sanctions by Canberra is more indicative of internal trade union politics in Australia than the overall requirements of relations with an important Pacific partner.

For their part Australia and New Zealand continue to stress the need for elections in Fiji. Surely elections are only part of what a functioning democracy is all about. Governance, the rule of relevant law and working governmental structures are also vital. There have been 10 elections in Fiji since 1972 and five coups. That represents a coup every two elections or every eight years. Elections as such seem not to hold the answer to Fiji's deeply complex socio-political problems. The Hon Murray McCully, New Zealand's current Foreign Minister said, in relation to the latest problems concerning constitutional reform, "these things are often more complex than they appear on the surface" viii. That indeed is the beginning of wisdom. It might also be said that in the Pacific states generally the basic requirements of democracy are not noticeably in evidence. Corruption is endemic.

As other powers become more involved in the Pacific it is time to recognise that Fiji's isolation has worked to exclude the dominant South Pacific state from a leading role in a number of key issues currently exercising all the Forum states – particularly those framing adjustments to regional policies on trade agreements being negotiated with Australia and New Zealand and the European Union. Pacific states’ unease about these negotiations has been expressed by their seeking an independent adviser on the regional trade negotiations - Pacer Plus - as well as for the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union. Fiji may not at present be a full member of the Forum. It is, however, a fully accepted and respected member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group which contains the wealth and power of the Pacific. In 2013 Fiji takes over as chair of the Non-Aligned plus China group.

The Forum and other countries have produced the Cairns Compact, an agreement designed to coordinate aid to the Pacific. China has rejected an invitation to join the Compact. Clearly Beijing wants to run its own development assistance programmes. Pacific countries are well aware of China's position.

Perhaps the developing situation in the Pacific was reflected in the remarks made recently in Sydney by the PNG Prime Minister, Peter O'Neill, where he called for Australia’s aid strategy in Papua New Guinea to be geared towards his government's development priorities and programmes. He emphasised economic infrastructure, education and public service and stated that what he wanted was a "total realignment" of the Australian aid programme.ix Mr O'Neill’s unease will have a sympathetic resonance among PNG's Pacific partners.

It would have been useful to have Mr Goff’s analysis on how he sees a Labour Government dealing with these complex and developing issues in the area in which, internationally, New Zealand is regarded as having some pre-eminence.

Mr Goff mentions Human Rights an issue with which, during his time as Foreign Minister, he was closely identified. His position reflected New Zealand’s long and well documented involvement in human rights issues but when deciding current priorities it is pertinent to recall President Obama's salutary remarks on accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize when he said "the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door."

In 1973 Norman Kirk, then Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs said, " … To base our foreign policy on moral principles is the most enlightened form of self-interest. What is morally right is likely to be politically right. What appears in the short term to be a part of expediency is all too likely to lead into a blind alley".x Like Mr Goff, Norman Kirk saw New Zealand pursuing a more independent foreign policy. He wanted frankness and openness in the government's public discussions of foreign policy and a more magnanimous approach to the distribution of development assistance. It is 40 years since Mr Kirk's comments but President Obama has underlined the problems in our new world of an overemphasis on morality in foreign policy.

Mr Goff is critical of the Security Council veto to block a collective response to assist opponents of the Assad regime in Syria. Perhaps New Zealand can best support multilateralism through promoting what Mr Goff describes as a "values and evidence-based approach" to the problems the world confronts. This may be so and if New Zealand is elected to the Security Council next year we could usefully work for reform at the UN including work on the veto. There is no denying the terrible crimes committed by the Assad regime (and other similarly disposed authorities elsewhere). The question is if New Zealand, through the UN, intervenes in Syria then what? Collective will and a sense of purpose are not sufficient. Nor should we imagine that the global rule of law is an inevitability. The real question is whether powerful states will live up to their responsibilities. On the evidence to date the reply would seem to be not really.

Mr Goff refers to the problems of countries "acting in their self-interest and not the interests of the wider international community". Has it ever been different? Thucydides records an early example of ruthless self interest in the Athenian dialogue with the hapless Melians during the Peloponnesian War.xi This may be a extreme example of so-called realism in foreign policy but international relations cannot be divorced from the realities and complexities – even perversities - of human nature.

Syria may be a headline issue which, with some justice, produces a sense of outrage within the international community. But a well founded foreign policy assumes a strong domestic policy. With debt levels at an historic high and some of our traditional markets showing signs of weakness New Zealand needs to be cautious about spreading itself too widely internationally. Many Western Governments struggle to present an appearance of business as usual but, after four years of the Great Recession, there is little realistic prospect of a return to the “old normal”. As Colin James says in “Making Big Decisions for the Future” (3 December 2012) after the GFC, which he characterises as a disjunctive event, "… the social, economic and political landscape, the context for fiscal decisions, will be qualitatively different." James looks to fiscal policy to be resilient. As with fiscal policy so with foreign policy.

New Zealand's problems are varied and solutions will inevitably need to be eclectic. This in no way ignores the need for a wide ranging, hard-headed and realistic assessment of the options but it does mean introducing not only a great deal more pragmatism (until recently a strength in New Zealand) but also an understanding of the processes of human motivation, psychology, anthropology (particularly in the South Pacific) and organisational behaviour. The economist, John Kay, emphasises the need for meticulous observation of what people, businesses and governments actually do.

We cannot foresee the full range of outcomes or the options available but, as noted in a previous article,xii leadership must ensure that policies reflect the basic principles that nurtured our own economy and society. But no policy or society remains static. With some 30.7% of New Zealand's population now categorised as non-European, New Zealand's traditional values may be subject to a rather different emphasis in the 21st century. In projecting New Zealand's values and interests overseas, a new government could greatly assist in rethinking, if not the traditional values of our society, then at least the shift of emphases emerging from our increasingly multicultural society. New Zealand must take into account the implications for our foreign policy not only of multiculturalism, but also of the adjustments to our internal structures that have occurred in the light of the ongoing financial crisis and the emergence of new markets.

The implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership could well play a central role in such a debate. Free trade agreements as such have been used by New Zealand for opening up markets for years (the Australian apple market, for example), so we should not be surprised if FTAs are used by other countries as vehicles for their own agendas. It is well to remember, however, that aspects of the TPP do not sit easily with the view expressed in some quarters that it is a "model free-trade agreement". xiii International trade agreements aren't just to do with trade. They may influence, shape, limit and even on occasion pre-empt domestic social policy. For this reason, the proposed TPP should be open and subject to challenge.

In the previous article mentioned above I have referred to the contribution made by David Skilling to the foreign policy debate. The current Secretary to the Treasury has also outlined some issues relevant to New Zealand's foreign policy – New Zealand's dependence on foreign capital and the need for foreign direct investment as providing a direct line to international expertise, technology and ideas. The Government 's science advisor Sir Paul Callaghan, has emphasised the need for technical and entrepreneurial innovation if our society is to meet our expectations in a changing world of the 21st century. There is no question that these aspects are important as we consider inputs to foreign policy.

This all adds up to the need for a coherent national debate on foreign policy settings. A new government could greatly assist by establishing the structure and key issues for that national debate. Globalisation has deeply affected New Zealand as a country, the way in which we approach international issues and particularly our way of life. People now expect to become more involved in decision-making processes at all levels of society as, increasingly, foreign policy decisions are included.

Foreign policy is an area where not only the Opposition but also the Government could now demonstrate a willingness to undertake collaborative governance in relation to issues such as those commented on above particularly by providing full disclosure of terms of any proposed agreements (the TPP for instance) well before any commitment is made.

i1 Our first overseas intervention was of course the South African War 1899 to 1902 where New Zealand was quick to offer troops to support the British cause.
ii2 The process of “restructuring” MFAT may by now have advanced to the point where a “rebuild” would amount to a total reconstruction.
iii3 Walter Lippmann 1899 – 1974 journalist, media critic, philosopher..
iv4 Financial Times 4 March 2011
v5 Kurt Campbell Dominion Post 17 December 2013
vi6 quoted in Steven Ratuva, New Zealand Listener, 7 May 2011.
vii7 ibid
viii8 Hon Murray McCully, interview, Radio New Zealand 3 January 2013.
ix9 Papua New Guinea Post-Courier 29 November 2012
x10 Norman Kirk, Introduction to the Annual Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the year ended March 1973
xi11 Thucydides 431 BC The Peloponnesian War Chapter XVII “The Fate of Melos
xii12 Gerald McGhie, International Review September October 2012
xiii13 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2011 volume 35 No. 6


*  Published in  International Review Feb/Mar 2013.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

              Global Warming

We now complain about the rising sea level and the unusual heat, and blame global warming. I am told that global warming is debatable, I don’t know if its true or not because I’m not an expert, but I am concerned.

The earth has probably existed for billions of years, I wonder if there was global warming any time back then and what caused it.

All this heat may have been the effects of industrialisation. Many industrialized cities have constant fog over their countries and they are presumed developed. We export scrap metal to China to be made in to steel and exported all over the world. But there are so many other things that can cause the depletion of the ozone layer, how many more years will the earth exist before we, modern man blow in into oblivion.

In maybe just two to three hundred years of modern mans existence we have caused  so much damage and we are rushing to try and reverse it. We have spent billions of dollars going to the moon and mars. Space exploration has depleted so much of our hard earned money. “Our” – meaning mankind.

Every day we read and see on TV that there has been a meeting to try and contain the growing problem. People from all over the world fly by plane to meeting sites every year and use a look of electricity thus contributing to the problem.  And all the talk may be a factor!

And meanwhile Pacific islands slowly go under water. 

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.

Looking Beyond the Headlines

NZ Truth

Looking beyond the headlines and blogs about Fiji

January 30, 2013

David Farrar recently wrote a post on his Kiwiblog and linked to a story by Michael Field about the alleged burning of the new constitution by Fiji Police, then he linked to another story, again by Michael Field about a troublesome priest being asked to leave Fiji.
Michael Field is banned from traveling to Fiji. It is likely that he sourced both of his stories from the anti-government blog Coup 4.5, who are almost all exclusively Auckland based.
What is particularly galling is that the major media and gullible bloggers simply repeat what Michael Field and the anonymous bloggers at Coup 4.5 have to say. They invariably do not read more widely and find out the exact details of what precisely happened and when in Fiji.
With regards to the alleged burning of the new constitution you can’t really go past getting the true story from Graham Davis and some additional facts about the Ghai document. Compare and contrast the reporting from Michael Field and wonder how he manages to keep his job.
Now to the meddlesome priest article. Again this appears to have been a manufactured story by Michael Field, one that Farrar unfortunately gave more oxygen.
Regular readers will know that I recently visited Fiji, and also that I maintain good connections in business in Fiji. The story concerned me and so I made a few calls. What I found out about the situation is in stark contrast with what was reported by Michael Field.
My government contacts refused to comment on the record and their off the record comments were that this was a storm in a tea cup unhelpfully stirred up by journalists with agendas. There won’t be an official statement from the government.
As I stated previously this story appears to originated from the anonymous bloggers at Coup 4.5. If you read Graham Davis’ story about the Ghai documents then you get some understanding of the dishonesty of those who write for Coup 4.5.
Notwithstanding that my sources in Fiji say that although it is probably true that Father Barr was spoken to harshly by the Prime Minister, this was not the reason for cancelling his permit. Father Barr is an Australian in Fiji on a religious permit which allows him to work for the church and in certain other activities. It does not however allow him to engage in politics, something he appears to have forgotten recently with political statements concerning the minimum wage and certain decrees such as the Essential Industries Decree.
The final straw appears to have been met when Father Barr appeared in a photo supposedly supporting the formation of a trade union political party. These actions clearly breached the terms of his permit and the government is felt it was entitled to cancel his permit. He is not a permanent resident of Fiji and nor is he a citizen of Fiji.
After 32 years in country he still maintained his Australian citizenship and passport. Accordingly he is a foreign resident who was engaging in and participating in local political process. We wouldn’t tolerate this in New Zealand and we certainly do not appreciate churches, with their tax free status meddling in politics in the first place.
Accordingly Father Barr was informed his permit was being cancelled, due to repeated breaches of terms and conditions, and he should leave the country of his own accord. This is hardly deportation, which in New Zealand at least involves the Police and immigration officials, handcuffs and an escort tot he plane.
The Fijian government has now reversed its decision and Father Barr is free to remain in Fiji for the duration of his permit on the understanding he will abide strictly by the terms and not engage in political activity. He isn’t a citizen after all and further he is a clergyman. Most countries around the world eschew the involvement in politics of the church. Father Barr apparently agreed to abide by the conditions of his work permit and will now stay.
Which brings me to the hypocrisy of our major media outlets. The removal of non-citizens from countries for political reasons is not unheard of in New Zealand or Australia. Interestingly, the case of Maciu Navakasuasua and others like him are rarely reported in the media in NZ. Maciu Navakasuasua was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his role in the 2000 civilian coup. After release from prison he went to Australia where since 2004 he has lived and worked with his family. He had a change of heart concerning his role in the 2000 coup and even apologised to Mahendra Chaudhry. He was living contentedly in Australia until he recently came out in support of the Bainimarama-led government. He has now been informed that his application for residency has been declined and he will need to leave Australia. A situation not too dissimilar to that faced by Father Barr.
There are other examples where people that have spoken out in support of the Fijian government have received arbitrary responses such as cancellation of their work permits. I am not saying this should not happen. After all, it is a privilege not a right for a non citizen to live in another’s country. But these things work both ways. Should Maciu Navakasuasua be suddenly denied a residence permit for publicly expressing his political views? In fact, anyone in Fiji who publicly expresses support for the Fijian government is liable to go on a travel ban to Australia. This is Australian government policy, the consequence of expressing your opinion because it does not accord with the official Australian government line.
Interestingly, all the judges and Magistrates in Fiji are banned from Australia. No judge or magistrate in any other country in the world, even from Syria, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe or Burma, is on a ban to Australia. In fact the Australian sanctions go so far as to apply to Fijians in Fiji who even speak out in favour of the Bainimarama government. The Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 apply to, amongst others, “a person who the Minister is satisfied is a supporter of the coup which Commodore Bainimarama is associated, based on any combination of the person’s position, actions and statements”.
Anyone who supports freedom of speech should be appalled at this Australian government policy. But we say nothing in New Zealand about it, instead our government insists on maintaining ‘smart sanctions’ against Fiji while ignoring the excesses of our other neighbours.
So essentially Fiji cancelled the work permit of an Australian for breaching the terms of his permit to reside in Fiji and it is major news but the Australian policy of banning people for expressing a contrary opinion from the Australian government is never mentioned.
I do not know what the NZ position is in terms of banning or expelling Fijians who disagree with the government line but I suspect it would be similar. We certainly do not allow anyone remotely connected with the government of Fiji to even transit, much less come here for medical treatment or schooling.
Finally, why is Fiji, particularly at the hands of Michael Field, continually subjected to the minuteness of scrutiny when other countries are not held to the same standard? For example, I do not recall anything in the NZ media concerning the illegal activities of the Australian government in relation to another Fijian, Julian Moti, the former AG of the Solomons, who was kidnapped by the Australian Federal Police and deported to Australia to face spurious charges in order to remove any obstacle to the RAMSI mission. The evidence against him was finally thrown out by an Australian court and he was released from prison. This however represented a significant abuse of authority by the Australian government. Any article on this by Michael Field? Thought not.
Instead of New Zealand always acting and talking from the bully pulpit it would useful to provide some meaningful assistance to the government in order to assist them in a return to democracy. Unfortunately the policy in New Zealand and Australia toward Fiji has not changed despite changes in our respective governments. It is abundantly clear that the present policy position hasn’t moved the Fijian government one iota on setting their own path toward democracy.
It is high time that New Zealand at least engaged in meaningful dialogue with Fiji.

Thursday 28 March 2013

Draft Constitutions: 1.Where Are The Drafters Coming From?


By Crosbie Walsh

In this article, the first of two on the Government's draft constitution,  I comment on the processes and  fundamentally different positions adopted in the Government and Ghai drafts. In the concluding article, I use the recently published analysis of the the Government draft by the Citizen's Constitutional Forum to address key issues, compare the two drafts,  and offer some opinions of my own.

The processes

The process originally proposed by Government involved a widely-representative Constituent Assembly to debate and submit its recommendations to the President for adoption. The Ghai draft, however, was unacceptable to Government and the Assembly was abandoned. Government has now draft has now released its own draft and a new process for public participation.
 
The public has until April 5th to let Government know what they think of its provisions by text messaging, phone calls, and through public meetings and radio talkback programmes. This consultancy falls far short of the now abandoned Constituent Assembly and is far too rushed. More seriously, there will be limited opportunities for dialogue or talanoa and little opportunity to consider the merits and possible demerits of the drafts many clauses. The process is likely to be limited to one directional question and answer sessions.

Ideally (and it is still not too late), Government should reverse its decision on the Constituent Assembly, even if the Assembly were to meet for as short a time as only seven working days. There are three very good reasons for this:
  • First, the number of inconsistencies and omissions in the Government draft show that its preparation was rushed. These shortcomings should be corrected before the document becomes almost irreversible.
  • Secondly, the draft would be improved by further discussion on those clauses about which its critics are most concerned. In some cases only fine turning is needed; in others, changes could be negotiated  that address the contentious issues without jeopardising Government concerns.
  • Thirdly —and far more importantly— discussion and endorsement by the Constituent Assembly would give the Government draft a legitimacy that will not be obtained from the limited public inputs between now and April 5th.
Unfortunately, the situation is not ideal and as much as Government would be well advised to heed the advice of its well-intended critics, its record to date indicates that it is unlikely to do so. In these circumstances, everyone and every group that would like to see some changes to the draft should use every opportunity to promote their suggestions. Writing for this or that blog will have no effect. Tell the Prime Minister. The confrontational posturing of the so-called United Front for a Democratic Fiji made up of the old political parties will also prove fruitless, even though most of their concerns need addressing. They are discredited by their constant opposition to all Government initiatives, and obvious self-interest.  Anyone wishing Government to heed their concerns will need to demonstrate goodwill and diplomacy.

Government has said the process is rushed because it is running out of time to meet announced deadlines.

But these deadlines should not preclude later inputs.

 Some discussion, for example,  could continue beyond the 5th with some members of the public being invited to sit in on the "final" drafting, and the Constitution announced on 12th April could be the Provisional Constitution, finalised in its major provisions but still open to some change for another two-three months, well over a year before the 2014 Election. I suggest this more fluid period of adoption because it permits more citizen participation and because once the draft becomes law it is going to be extremely difficult to change. It is important to get it right the first time.

The Government Draft and its critics
The reaction to the Government draft  by Government's long-standing critics was predictable. Most wanted a return to the 1997 Constitution or the adoption of the Yash Ghai draft.

A more responsible and useful response came from the Citizen's Constitutional Forum which had previously endorsed the Ghai draft, and this week published its analysis of the Government draft, comparing its provisions with those of the Ghai draft and the 1997 Constitution. Its 23-page report acknowledged similarities with these earlier documents and for the most part does not disagree with much in the Government draft. It did, however, point to a number of what it considered to be serious shortcomings in the Government draft, and suggested specific changes.

I spent two days last week digesting and comparing the 199 pages in the Ghai draft  with the 91 pages in the Government draft but I did not publish anything on my conclusions because I wanted first to see what others thought and, frankly, I was totally drained by the concentration required. The CCF analysis, therefore, has arrived at a most opportune time. I shall use it, in the second article, as the framework against which to add my own observations and comments.

Very different premises
But first, to establish my position, I must state that the two documents proceed from very different premises.

The Ghai Commission saw its primary task was to forge some sort of consensus across widely different positions. Thus, it agreed to the continuation of a "large" 71-seat parliament and allowed some role for the Great Council of Chiefs. It "went along" with the Government's "non-renouncable principles", conceded the need for immunity, and allowed some Government participation in the lead up to the 2014 elections.  But its primary thrust , in provision after provision, was to oversee the authority of parliament and the power of the Prime Minister, and limit the influence of the RFMF. It did this through a raft of "independent" commissions, few appointed on the recommendation of the PM, and the appointment of a National People's Assembly to annually oversee government's actions. In essence, non-elected civilians, nominated and chosen to represent the "people", were set above the primacy of the elected parliament.

In contrast, the Government draft asserts the primary of Parliament, seeks to enforce a strong government elected by the people at four-yearly elections, with a strong PM, and the continuing influence of the military, but under the PM as its Commander-in-Chief. Many of the commissions and human rights recommended by Ghai remain, but with the sorts of limitations that we have seen for the past six years.

Ghai recommended people-participation; Government had doubts about who these "people" might be, and whether the result would be strong enough to resist the forces that would return Fiji to the status quo ante. The former position springs from the liberal traditions in a Western democracy and is supported by most of Fiji's Western-educated leaders; the latter position springs from a suspicion that this half-digested tradition contributed to the power structures of old Fiji that paid lip-service to democracy and resulted in destructive contests for power between sections of an urban middle-class elite, racism as a political tool, corruption, instability, and coups, and Fiji's energies directed away from improving the lot of ordinary people.

Easter



A Safe, Happy and Reflective Easter to Everybody























































































































_______________________________________________________________________





















Sunday 24 March 2013

PM Will Run/Where to Comment on Draft Constition

BREAKING NEWS.  PM to stand for election.
FijiVillage story.
Fiji Times story by Nasik Swami
Saturday, March 23, 2013

PRIME Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama will stand for the 2014 general elections.
Commodore Bainimarama announced this yesterday.

"I am on track for elections in September 2014 and I am confident of standing," he said in a Ministry of Information statement.

Commodore Bainimarama also said there was still ample time to form a political party with elections more than a year away. Highlighting the changes in parliamentary seats, he said the proposed 45-member single house parliament would cut costs.

Commodore Bainimarama said this would attract the right people for Parliament and Cabinet.
In a national address on Thursday, he announced that Fiji needed at least 15 months to prepare for a democratic parliamentary system.

"My fellow Fijians, adherence to the timeline we have set is critical if we are to have elections by September 2014," Commodore Bainimarama said.

MEDIA RELEASE: HOW TO SEND IN FEEDBACK ON FIJI’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION

How to send in feedback on Fiji’s draft constitution:

By Mail:

Send your feedback to the Office of the Solicitor General

Level 7 Suvavou House, Victoria Parade, Suva

P O Box 2213 Government Buildings Suva

Fax: +679 3305421

By Email:

Email your feedback to feedback.fiji.cons@gmail.com

By SMS:

Text your feedback to 02. This service is available to both Digicel and Vodafone customers at 5 cents a text.

On Facebook:

Post your feedback on Facebook. Look for the “Constitution” tab on the Ministry of Information’s Facebook page.

Public Forums

Details of the public forums will be announced early next week.

Saturday 23 March 2013

Sincere Suggestions to the PM and Government

Given the published reactions to the Government’s draft Constitution 2013, it would be sensible to hold the promised Constituent Assembly in the terms that were decreed by your Government initially.
While it may be correct that not all political parties have been registered, for various reasons as you pointed out in your address to the nation on March 21, the Constituent Assembly does not have to include individuals who represent only political parties; it could instead include their opinion-shapers and policy makers, and others in the body politic in Fiji, for example religious leaders. Everyone should be part of a publicized discussion on what the next Constitution of Fiji should look like, including people whose views we do not like or who have, in the past, expressed objectionable opinions based on race, gender or any other kind of prejudice.

For the Constituent Assembly, the Government’s 2013 Constitution can be the main document on the table for discussion but people should not be prevented from debating aspects of Fiji’s previous constitutions if they are relevant to the Government’s draft Constitution.

Such a Constituent Assembly should comprise individuals and representatives who sent their names to your Permanent Secretary on or before the deadline of 30th December 2012, as stipulated. 

This process would allow members of the Assembly to (i) fix up the weaknesses in the drafting of your Constitution 2013 and (ii) debate issues intelligently with each other, with a view to the national interest, and make recommendations to the Government on what the new Fijian Constitution should be, in light of the Preamble of the current draft which states…”We the People of Fiji…hereby establish this Constitution for the Republic of Fiji”. How can people respect the next constitution of Fiji if they feel they have not actually been given the opportunity to ‘establish this Constitution of Fiji’ as the Preamble says?

In order to make it inclusive for everyone, the Assembly’s proceedings should be transmitted live to the public via the media. 

Whether or not any political parties have been correctly or legitimately registered should not detract the Government from the very important fact that the 2013 Constitution will represent the ‘social contract’ between the people and the Republic of Fiji. As in any legal contract the two parties to it should have an equal say in the clauses that are to be included in this very important basic law document so that it can be sustainable for generations to come.

Dr Shaista Shameem

Ministry of Information "Fact Sheet" on Draft Constitution

FACT SHEET: FIJI’S NEW CONSTITUTION

People should judge the new draft constitution on its merits. People who believe in efficient, transparent and honest government, equality under the law, individual liberty, and guarantees against state power will find much to admire in it.

The draft contains many of the positive elements of the draft developed by the commission chaired by Yash Ghai, but it is more succinct and leaves decisions to the discretion of an elected Parliament.

The new draft was required to ensure that Fiji had a forward-looking constitution that advanced the fundamental principles of parliamentary representation and efficient and transparent government.

The provision allowing change by popular referendum will enable the constitution to stand the test of time.

It also contains provisions to guarantee transparency, promote prosperity, inhibit corruption in Government and protect human, civil, political and socio-economic rights. It will be the centrepiece of a cleaner, fairer political system.

Specifically:

·       It gives sovereign control to a single house in a 45-member Parliament directly elected by the people for four-year terms. With a smaller Parliament, Members will be better compensated, which should reduce temptations for corruption and entice highly qualified individuals to stand.

·       It establishes a multi-member open list system of proportional representation for the election of Members of Parliament. This will give women and the youth more opportunities to be elected.

·       It divides the total number of members in Parliament between 4 electoral divisions.

·       It is the first Fijian constitution to provide for a wide range of socio-economic rights, including rights to housing and sanitation, reasonable access to transportation, adequate food and water and social security schemes. It is also the first Fijian constitution to give specific rights to persons with disabilities and to children.

·       It provides for civil and political rights.

·       It creates a secular state that will allow all Fijians to practice their own faiths without fear of persecution.

·       It strengthens the independence of the Judiciary,  allowing the judiciary to control its own budget and finances as approved by Parliament.

·       It gives Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions control of their own affairs.

·       It creates a Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to give protection to all citizens, irrespective of their backgrounds or socio-economic status.

·       It creates a truly independent Electoral Commission with appropriate powers.

·       For the first time in Fiji’s  history, it gives the people the right to change the constitution via a referendum.

Why the Constituent Assembly Was Scrapped

An Opinion piece by Crosbie Walsh

On Thursday evening the PM announced the scrapping of the Constituent Assembly that was to meet to discuss and adopt the draft constitution. I published the announcement, having laboriously transcribed it from its unpublishable pdf format, within a few hours of its release but was then accused by one reader of not commenting. 

"So Croz, No comment on the latest debacle in the constitution sham? How much longer can people like you deceitfully pretend this illegal junta is taking Fiji forward?" 

Well, anonymous "Another Giant Step Backwards", I rarely comment immediately on any major event. I prefer to wait awhile until the dust settles and visibility improves. I commend this practice to some other blogs that invariably go off half-cock before fully reading and reflecting on news from Fiji with which they disagree. .

I would, however, agree with other readers that the PM's explanation was not very convincing. Keeping promises on the deadlines for the adoption of the new constitution and date of elections seems far less important than keeping the promise on proper consultation. 

And the delays caused by Government's rejection of the Ghai draft constitution and the non-cooperation of the old political parties were delays caused, at least in part, by Government. The former resulted in only a small delay. There was ample time for the Assembly to meet. And, given their ongoing obstructions at every stage of the constitution dialogue process, the latter should have been anticipated.

I must, however, commend Government for being unusually clever and only the teeniest bit devious. By scrapping the Assembly, they have well and truly sidelined the old political parties and their supporters who, without doubt, would have tried to disrupt its proceedings, and left their opponents with no stage upon which to act. And, even more cleverly, they have set themselves up as the true advocates of people-power by appearing to pass power to the people, as the PM explains:
"Instead of presenting the draft to the Constituent Assembly ... we will be presenting it directly to you. My fellow Fijians, you will be the new Constituent Assembly."
It is true that earlier, he said the new draft would do directly to the Assembly, cutting out the public debate intended by the Ghai Commission; while now he's cut out the Assembly and is going directly to the public. 

But, on the face of it, there are many avenues by which the people will be able to make their opinions known.  Today they will be able to read the draft constitution amended by Government in the Fiji Sun or on the Government website. They can email their views to Government or send text messages to the PM on phone 02, or share views on the Ministry of Information's Facebook page. And next week there will be community forums and talkback programmes in the three languages, English, Fijian and Hindi, on Fiji Broadcasting, in which the PM and other Government spokespeople will "answer your questions and listen to you."

All this sounds too good to be true, but it should be noted that Government will control communication, and it is unlikely to be evenly two-way. Depending on your standpoint, this is either a finely designed charade or a genuine effort to include the people in decision-making, or something in between. I'll opt for the inbetween. Government genuinely wants the people to be fully informed about their draft constitution. They will listen, explain and answer questions, but they will not accept any major changes to the draft.

Thinking back, draft constitutions have been the crux of the matter since late last year, and constitutional issues have been a major Government concern from much earlier. Had the Ghai Commission produced a draft that incorporated most of Government's requirements, Government would have allowed the Constituent Assembly to go ahead. Instead, the Commission produced a draft that had the potential of undermining all that Government has done, or attempted to do, since it seized power in December 2006. This was not the intention of the Commissioners but I have little doubt this would have been the result had Government not nullified their efforts and produced a draft of their own. What else would anyone reasonably expect Government to do?

Why was the Constituent Assembly scrapped? Because Government did not want the unacceptable elements of the Ghai Constitution resurrected; because it thought discussion in and outside the Assembly would be disruptive; and because it could not be sure the Assembly, dominated by Fiji's urban middle class, would accept its draft constitution.

My anonymous reader "Another Giant Step Backwards" tells us, through his pseudonym, what he thinks of the scrapping of the Constituent Assembly.  I think he's wrong.  Government had little choice. It was one of those catch 22 situations in which it was damned if it did and damned if it didn't. To have acted otherwise would have risked all it has done since December 2006, and risked handed Fiji back to the old political order.

I have spent most of today, Friday, studying the Ghai and Government drafts. I now need time-out to reflect before writing an article or two on my findings.

Crisis of Leadership

By Padre James Bhagwan* 

Padre Bhagwan reports on the findings of the research book "Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji", published by the Pacific Theological College's Institute for Research and Social Analysis, that I briefly mentioned on Thursday with "off the mark" reports in both the Fiji Sun (that extracted findings favourable to Government) and ABC's Bruce Hill (who focused on  one issue deemed unfavourable to Government. I hope by next weekend to have a reliable summary of the report written by one of its authors, Manfred Ernst. Meanwhile, Padre Bhagwan provides much food for thought.

Last week I shared the findings of the research project on what the focus group discussion participants and interviewees thought of decision-making in Fiji. Now we now explore the state of leadership at different levels and in different spheres of society, from the family and the village to the national level, in churches, politics, business, and civil society etc

A political understanding of leadership sees leadership as a social relationship and a political process that is both socially and culturally embedded. Applying the concept of hybridity (as introduced last week in this column), the authors described and analysed different types of leadership, and the ongoing fusion of these leadership types in Fijian society today.

The report's findings suggest that Fijian society and politics today are characterised by the co-existence and interaction of different types of leadership, in particular, traditional leadership in the form of the iTaukei chiefly system, and modern leadership in the spheres of state and civil society.

This has led to some confusion and inconsistencies in leadership, to such an extent that it is possible to speak of a leadership crisis in Fiji today; on the other hand, however, people are actively addressing the challenges posed by this leadership crisis in their everyday lives, and are engaging in processes of change.

Leadership structures in Fiji are complex and in constant change; as a result, people are confronted with the challenge of dealing with and negotiating different types of leadership, and the changes they are undergoing. The research team's findings suggest there is a leadership crisis in Fiji today, with some interviewees identifying this crisis as one of the main obstacles to democratic development in the country. On the other hand, the findings also led researchers to a (qualified) positive outlook with regard to the prospects for overcoming this leadership crisis, and hence the prospects for democratic development.

The study found people are fully aware of the existence of different types of leadership, and of leaders with different sources of legitimacy, e.g., chiefs as hereditary traditional leaders, and politicians laying claim to rational-legal legitimacy on the basis of elections and other democratic procedures.

It also found people in general do not have problems with the co-existence of different types of leadership, despite the acknowledgement of tensions between these types. There is some confusion because of inconsistencies in and the overlap between different leadership types because of ongoing changes; nevertheless, people find ways of making sense of what is going on, and actively engaging in processes of change.

This is not to say, of course, that everything is running smoothly, and without causing considerable stress. However, change is taking place (albeit incremental and slow), which is bringing about a fundamental transformation of leadership structures, and, flowing from that, society as a whole.

Participants and interviewees alike are in agreement that leadership in Fiji today is still predominantly male and hierarchical. However, hierarchical leadership styles are challenged, particularly by young people, be it at village level (chiefly leadership no longer remains unquestioned), or national level (all governments come in for criticism). Views regarding the pace and extent of change differ; change is slower and less visible in rural areas than in semi-urban and urban areas.

Outlooks on the desirability of change differ too, with rural people in general being more patient, and the urban elite being more impatient. However, hardly anyone totally opposes changes to Fiji's leadership structures; even traditional leaders and elders in rural communities of Fijians of Indian descent agree on the necessity for change.

On the other hand, hardly anyone advocates a complete and revolutionary overthrow of current leadership structures; even progressives from the urban elite do not advocate a complete abolition of traditional iTaukei leadership. It seems that both "ordinary" people and the elite are in agreement on their preference for gradual transformation.

Everyone agrees that the traditional iTaukei system of leadership is undergoing serious change. There is disagreement, however, as to whether this system needs explicit and direct reform, that is, political and perhaps also legal/juridical, intervention.

Some are confident that, in the course of change, the current problems will be overcome almost naturally, and a new structure will emerge. Others support active interference to implement reforms e.g., the election of chiefs; the development of criteria for chiefly leadership; a code of conduct for traditional leaders; training for chiefs in good governance; and/or formal clarification of the relationship between the traditional sphere of leadership and the modern political sphere (such as a prohibition on chiefs engaging in the formal political system).

A critical aspect of the debate about the reform of the traditional system is whether the GCC should be reinstated, substantially reformed, or abolished altogether. Substantial reform could include: reform of membership; reform of its rights and responsibilities (such as removing some of its formal political powers eg the right to elect the President); and/or shifting its focus to the preservation of iTaukei culture.

Given the centrality of the traditional leadership system in Fijian society and politics, any reforms in this sphere will inevitably have an impact on other societal spheres — civil society, relations between different races and religions, and not least, the political sphere in the narrow sense, including leadership structures of political parties, and accountability mechanisms for political leaders. The study found widespread agreement with regard to the deficiencies of the leaderships of previous democratically elected governments, and the need for improvements here. In other words, in general, people do not just want a return to the pre-2006 state of affairs, but long for substantial reform, which also includes reform of democratic political leadership.

The findings confirm that Fijians have an interest in organised, well-planned and comprehensive debates about what kind of leadership Fiji needs, not only at the national level in the political arena, but at all levels and in all societal spheres. The current public discussions about the need for constitutional reform could provide a good starting point, but these debates should not be confined to constitutional issues. Rather, they should be thought of as long-term endeavours. Effective and legitimate leadership cannot be installed overnight; in fact, it cannot be installed at all — it must emerge of its own accord in the context of societal and political debates, and this takes time.

If this leadership crisis is to be successfully addressed, it must be done in a comprehensive and incremental way. Based on their findings, the researchers propose the following points if this route is taken: firstly, to undertake leadership education — both in the sense of educating the leaders, and educating the public about what constitutes good leadership; secondly, to draft a code of conduct and a code of ethics for leaders; thirdly, to conduct targeted programmes for female and youth leaders; and finally, to reform party political leadership.

One should be aware, however, that both these and similar practical measures can only achieve so much. They have to be embedded in a more general and comprehensive transformation of leadership culture in all sectors of society — in churches and other religious institutions, academia, schools and families, as well as professional and civil society organisations, and political parties.

"Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji", is co-authored by Volker Boege, Aisake Casimira, Manfred Ernst and Felicity Szesnat.

A full copy of the report, "Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji" is available from the Pacific Theological College's Institute for Research and Social Analysis.

"Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity"


* Reverend James Bhagwan is an ordained minister of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma, currently a Masters of Theology student in Seoul, South Korea. The views expressed are his and not of this newspaper.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

                                Third Party Insurance

A report says that a women has been granted more compensation will receive $1000,000. She was hit by a bus in 2006 and six years later she is getting compensation. I suppose this could be the third party insurance. What about the six years the woman suffered having to leave school and maybe unable to get employment? Isn’t it funny that when one registers a vehicle one of the most important things is the third party insurance and it must be up to date. Yet when a person is bumped it takes so long to settle the case. How much money have the third party insurance people made over all the years when there are no accidents. I bet they make millions, but they challenge causes of accidents and victims when its time to pay out.

 Its time to regulate the third party insurance companies.

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.

Thursday 21 March 2013

Breaking News. PM's Address to the Nation

Listen to the Address on this link  http://goo.gl/Fwpkd 
Read the Draft Constitution on this link http://goo.gl/wH8Nt  

 Commodore J. V. Bainimarama, CF (Mil), OSt.J, MSD, jssc, psc
Prime Minister of Fiji and Minister for Finance, Strategic Planning, National
Development and Statistics, the Public Service, People’s Charter and Change and Progress, Information, iTaukei Affairs, Sugar Industry and Lands and Mineral Resources

 ADDRESS TO THE NATION ON FIJI’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION
 Suva, Fiji Thursday 21st March, 2013


My fellow Fijians. Bula vinaka and good evening to you all.

In July2009,when launching the Strategic Framework for Change, I announced that
we must have elections under a truly democratic system by no later than September 2014.

That promise my government has been committed to and will fulfil.

We had also announced,when putting in place the Constitutional process, that the new Constitution must be in place by April of this year.That promise also my government will adhere to and facilitate.

You are also aware that the Constitutional process that we commenced with the Ghai Commission was modified.This was done to ensure that the fundamental principles of parliamentary representation and efficient and transparent  government was implemented through forward looking Constitution.

Today,we further modify the process to ensure that the key objective of holding elections by September 2014 under a truly democratic parliamentary system is met.Unfortunately,this modification has been forced upon us because of the lack of commitment by the political parties to register under the requirements of the law.There are allegations of fraud and impersonation.This does not provide a conducive climate to hold the Constituent Assembly. We cannot be delayed by such circumstances.

This , for me, is very disappointing because it would appear some politicians are still beholdent of the politics of old. Racism and corruption cannot form the basis of a new beginning for our beloved country.

My fellow Fijians, adherence to the timelines we have set is critical if we are to have elections by September 2014. A key aspect of holding the elections is to ensure that we have an electoral system that does not allow fraud and that we have public awareness and education about the new electoral system.We need at least 15 months to prepare for such elections.

In line with these undertakings, we announce this evening that the draft Constitution is ready.

Instead of presenting the draft to the Constituent Assembly under the previous arrangement, we will be presenting it directly to you.

My fellow Fijians, you will be the new Constituent Assembly.

The draft Constitution is available as I speakt hrough the Government website. It will be printed in full in tomorrow's Fiji Sun and in the days to come,and hard copieswill also be available from various Government outlets.

You will have until the 5th of April to give your feedback.You can give your feedback via email to a designated address,which will be announced in the next few days.You can write in your comments to the Solicitor General's office or drop them off there.You can even text your comments on the number 02 from midnight tonight.You can also post your comments via the Ministry of Information's Facebook page.

In the next few days, we will also publish explanatory notes to help you understand each and every single section of the draft Constitution.

Next week,we will also hold a number of community forums at which members of the public and representatives of organisations can attend to ask Government's legal team questions on any aspect
of the draft Constitution. Notices of these meetings will be published over this weekend.

I will also be holding talkback sessions on FBC radio stations in all three languages next
Tuesday,Wednesday and Thursday to answer any of your questions and listen to you.

Following these consultations and your feedback,we will finalise the Constitution to have it
ready for implementation no later than the 12th of April this year.

Let me now highlight some of the key components of the draft Constitution:

• It gives sovereign control to a single house in Parliament,which is represented by members
elected by you;
• The size of parliament shall be 45 with a four year term.The idea is to attract good quality and honest parliamentarians who will be paid accordingly and who won't be corrupt;
• It provides for not only civil and political rights,but also,for the first time in our constitutional history, it provides for a wide range of socio-­economic rights.As seen through the constitutional submissions, many Fijians are concerned about their day to day living and access to better facilities and utilities.The draft Constitution has rights to housing and sanitation,reasonable access to transportation,adequate food and water and social security schemes. It also for the first time gives specific rights to persons with disabilities and to children;
• It creates a secular state which will allow all Fijians to practice their own faiths;
• It has proportional representation through a multi member constituency which will give
enhanced opportunities for women and the youth to be in Parliament;
• It gives more independence to the Judiciary, to control their own budget
and finances as approved by Parliament. FICAC and the DPP's office shall control their own affairs;
• It creates a Human Rights and Anti-­-Discrimination Commission to give protection to all citizens irrespective of their backgrounds or socio-­economic status;
• It creates a truly independent electoral commission with appropriate powers;and
• For the first time in our history, it gives you the right to change the constitution once implemented via referendum;

My fellow Fijians I have just highlighted to you some of the key components of the draft
Constitution.urge you to read it in detail and provide your feedback.

In assessing the draft, please understand that it has been put together by incorporating the positive aspects of the Ghai draft,and with the view to withstand the test of time.

Constitutional, political and economic stability is critical to create a prosperous Fiji.A Fiji without
systemic corruption and a transparent
governmental system with true parliamentary representation will ensure that
the potential of all Fijians and Fiji is realised.

We look forward to our national discussions and your feedback over the next
two weeks.

Vinaka Vakalevu and good evening.