A Letter to Sugasini Kandiah from Guy Threllfell

POSTSCPIPT. More thoughts from Guy, too long to publish as a comment, are  added at the end of this article.  Croz 21/11/11 2pm.
This is a follow up by "Guy Threllfell" on a letter I wrote to Suga, a student studying in America who had enquired about Fiji. Click here for the earlier letter,   Guy expresses a generally contrary opinion. I agree with most of his facts but do not accept many of this interpretations. We beg to differ while sharing similar concerns. -- Croz

Dear Suga,

I am an avid reader of the blogs on Fiji both pro regime ones like Croz’s and anti regime ones like coup 4.5. I occasionally comment on this blog and depending upon Croz’s mood he allows my comments or not.

I got your email address from his blog where he published it on his front page.

Let me tell you a bit about myself so you can see where my comments are coming from. I am a Kai Loma part Fijian Part European. I was born in Fiji more years ago than I wish to remember. I was an adult in 1987 and have lived through all the coups in Fiji. I have a degree from USP the university in Fiji and a Masters from an overseas uni. I will not go into too many details because I wish to remain anonymous. If you had not realized Guy is a pen name.

In the early stages of the coup I was keen to give Bainimarama the support he needed to turn the country round. I did not agree with the actual coup but we had a leader who was saying the right things. His intentions were clear. He was going to remove corruption, political and business. He was going to investigate the vote rigging of the 2006 elections and prove Qarase was not the true leader of Fiji. He was going to return the country to democracy within 3-5 years. He was going to continue to rule using the constitution.

After the coup we continued to have media freedom, there was a working judiciary untainted with regime interference. There was going to be a brave new world with no one person being allowed to sit on more than one Government enterprise board. No one involved in the coup was going to gain financially from their involvement. All those in the interim cabinet would not be allowed to stand for election in future polls.

All has changed and we find ourselves living in a dictatorship with no checks and balances. There is no media freedom. The judiciary is viewed by most as compromised under the influence of the regime and the Attorney General in particular. It is apparent to all that if we have elections in 2014, and that is a big if, the AG will be standing. We read daily that the PM and the AG are on massive salaries and receiving lots of backhanders. The former could be stopped immediately, if it is untrue, by the regime allowing the Auditor General to do his job and publish his reports one of which would be Government salaries.

Before I give you my views on the legitimacy of the regime I would like to correct some of the assumptions and inaccuracies of Croz.

1-      He questions the legitimacy of the Qarase Government.

Firstly, even if the Qarase government was questionable, it does not give the current regime legitimacy. And again even if Croz was right that the only way to stop the Qarase government was by the military, they could have returned to barracks within the 2-5 years they initially promised and not hang on until 2014.

The conflict between Bainimarama and Qarase was ongoing from about 2003. A number of senior Colonels resigned or were pushed from the military from 2003 onwards because they would not plan for the overthrow of the Qarase Government. In 2006, prior to the election, Bainimarama sent military teams into every village in Fiji. They were there to talk to the Fijian community about the dangers of Qarase and the risks he was taking with Fiji with the legislation he was proposing. In almost every case the villagers said they understood and they would not vote for Qarase in the election. As we all know Qarase won 85% of the indigenous Fijian vote. I think that puts into perspective the legitimacy of Bainimarama versus Qarase with the indigenous population. It also put into perspective Croz’s claim that Bainimarama was the most popular man in Fiji in 2006.

In addition to this the government he actually removed was a coalition government as ordered under the 1997 constitution. He had 11-12 members of the Fiji Labour Party as part of his cabinet. This was a multiracial government. This aspect is all too quickly forgotten by Croz and the coup apologists.

2-      The people who are now protesting the lack of civil rights and democracy in Fiji are the people who did not protest these coups because they benefited from them.

I am not sure I understand why this gives Bainimarama legitimacy. Nor is it true. I can list many people who oppose this Government who opposed the 2000 coup for example.

Mahendra Chaudhry is now vehemently opposed to the direction that Bainimarama is taking this country. He was obviously opposed to the 2000 coup.

Ratu Tevita Mara was actually the soldier who arrested George Speight. His father was ousted as President by Bainimarama and his sister Adi Koila Nailatikau was held hostage by Speight. He was obviously no supporter of 2000 and as you have seen he is no supporter of Bainimarama.

Pita Driti the same as Ratu Tevita.

Richard Naidu, a prominent Lawyer has opposed every coup. He was locked up in 1987 and he has been locked up and beaten up by the current regime.

Imrana Jalal has opposed every coup and has been harassed into exile by the current regime.

There are many others like myself, who are not brave enough to publicly make our opposition known but who oppose this regime as much as we were opposed Rabuka and Speight.

3-      Legitimacy Post Abrogation

Croz talks about the fact that Bainimarama had no choice but to abrogate following the ruling of the appeal court. That is not strictly true. He could have obeyed the law of the constitution which he swore he would uphold and have returned to barracks. I believe Bainimarama had different motives to the ones espoused by Croz. If he handed back the rule of the country, he would have been liable for prosecution not only for the coup but also the CRW murders in 2000. I do agree with Croz that logically Bainimarama would not give up power willingly. But giving up power was the only legitimate course of action.

To answer your question of what legitimacy does Bainimarama have. In legal terms he has none. However in practical terms he can create legitimacy. Whether he can create enough legitimacy only time will tell.

Not even Bainimarama and the AG believe they have legitimacy. They threw any hope of that out of the window when they abrogated the constitution. But you can see in their actions following the abrogation that they do not believe they have legitimacy.

The very first decree they passed was say no decree could be challenged in the courts. One of the primary ways of gaining legitimacy is for the courts to find in your favour. The regime has so little faith that the decrees they are passing would stand the scrutiny of a court they stop it from happening. For example the new Essential Industries decree breaks so many International Agreements which Fiji has ratified, that if it was ever challenged in court it would be thrown out straight away.

The same argument goes for PER and the Media Decree. If the regime really believed in its own legitimacy and its support it would allow open debate. However, it will not allow any opposing view or opinion to be expressed in public. It also clamps down on people who oppose it on a regular basis in private.

On a regular basis the regime undermines it own legitimacy by breaking promises and telling lies. If we go back to the first day of the coup Frank made a number of promises that blatantly have been broken.

1-      No one involved in the coup will profit financially. Irrespective of Bainimarama’s salary etc. He was the recipient of about $200k back pay. No one else in the military got such an amount even those that have been longer serving.

2-      We was going to uphold the constitution

3-      He was going to clean up corruption. FICAC has not proved any of the big cases of corruption in Government that Bainimarama was talking about.

4-      No single person would be allowed to sit on more than one board.

5-      Qarase was bankrupting the nation by his borrowing. He was borrowing at the rate of $250m per year Bainimarama is borrowing at over $500m

The list could go on.

But the broken promises have continued. Whether it is promises about election dates to the regional leaders and the EU or promising to remove PER when the media decree was promulgated. The list of outright lies continues.

In terms of the propaganda the regime put out it sails very close to the wind in terms of truth. Recently the World Bank published a report on the ease of doing business in every country in the world. The Min of Info ran a headline on a story saying Fiji was one of the top countries. Technically not a lie because Fiji was placed in the top half, barely. In truth Fiji had fallen a number of places. In 2006 it was the top Pacific Island country but it has now slipped to about 5^th.

The need to control the message, the courts and media shows the regime does not believe in its own legitimacy.

One of the way the regime claims legitimacy is because of its support in the provincial councils and they all support the regime. But we have seen twice now in the past 2 months how this support has been achieved. At the Lau provincial Council Adi Ateca Ganilau was picked as chairman, but she resigned the next day after Leweni threatened to close the meeting and remove over $8m of Government development money. This week Adi Temumu the Chairman of the Rewa provincial council revealed that Rewa was threatened with the removal of over $3m and their dividend payments from shareholdings owned by Rewa would be stopped. She held firm and the meeting was closed and as I write she is expecting to be arrested. The way the Government has been exposed as a blackmailer of provincial councils removes any legitimacy they can claim from the support of the provinces.

Similarly the overwhelming support for the People’s Charter is another claim for legitimacy they make. However, we have recently seen in Wiki Leaks that John Sami the architect of the People’s Charter believes that coercion was used in getting the positive response. We have also learnt this week when Bainimarama visited a village they complained because no one had built the community hall they believed had been promised to them for their support of the charter.

Can it get legitimacy?

In its current form it can never have legitimacy. It is a dictatorship and it controls the people through PER, threats, blackmail and bribery.

How can it gain legitimacy for the 2014 elections if they happen. It can gain a degree.

To do so it needs to the following:

1-      It must end PER so we can have free speech, free press and the right to assemble etc. This needs to be done soon.

2-      It also needs to make clear what it means by National Interest in the Media Decree. Until that is clear there will always be an element of self censorship which will help the government and not their opponents.

3-      No one in the Interim Cabinet can stand for election. This was a promise made by Bainimarama in 2006. He knows how easy it is for the incumbent Government to win the election. He witnessed the way the Qarase Government won with a landslide in 2001 after some fairly dubious election practices.

4-      There must be a free debate on the economy that allows the mistakes of the regime to highlighted.

5-      The Constitution discussions must be free and anyone is allowed to contribute.

6-      Political Parties can develop their own manifestoes and not just pick and choose from the People’s Charter

7-      The army cannot take part in the campaigning

8-      The ballot boxes cannot be looked after by the army. If it is electronic voting then it needs to be audited by foreign experts appointed by the UN or some such body.

9-      Anyone is allowed to stand for election

10-  The decrees passed by the regime can be challenged in the courts

If they agree to all of the above then the government that comes next might have some legitimacy and by default the regime that created it will have some legitimacy. But if the constitutional debate and the elections are very tightly controlled then there will be no legitimacy.

I hope this helps. If you wish to email please feel free to do so. Good luck with your thesis and I would be interested in reading it when it is finished.


ADDED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 21/11/11

Croz,

I tried to post the response below to a post made by anonymous. However it was too big to post.

Please could you put it up for me.Thanks again for publishing me. Guy

Croz,

 

I want to thank you for publishing my letter. I think we both agree on the facts but our interpretation of them is wildly different.

 

I would also like to thank you for your support with phantom and I agree 100% with what you said about responsible media covering both sides of a story.

 

I want to respond to anonymous point by point.

 

1-      Legitimacy of sovereigns

In terms of Queen Elizabeth her ancestors gave up her right to govern Britain centuries ago. She is the head of State of Britain but she has no powers to actually govern. All the powers to govern are given to the Prime Minister, his government and Parliament. She would be the first one to state she has no legitimate right to govern Britain.

 

The King of Tonga obviously felt the same and he willing gave up his right to govern Tonga last year when they had truly democratic elections for the first time. Again like Britain he is the Head of State but it is his Prime Minister and the Government that run Tonga.

 

Neither have the legitimacy to govern their countries. The people have the right through elections.

 

Time and constancy has given the current monarch the legitimacy to be the head of State of Britain. Frank will have 8 years by 2014. That I hope does not give him the traditional legitimacy to govern Fiji forever.

 

2-      Massive Salaries

It is hearsay but it is very easy for Bainimarama and the AG to show what they are truly being paid. Most governments, especially ones which preach transparency like this government, publish the salaries of the PM and his ministers. It is not as if Frank does not have the information readily at hand. If they wish to stop this “Hearsay “, they could do so this minute.

 

We have also not had any denial that they are paid by Aunty Nur. Again they could disprove that in a second but they choose not to do so.

 

When it is expedient to them they are quick to publish salaries. Just look at how quickly we all learnt what Felix Anthony and Daniel Urai were paid.

 

If Bainimarama wants legitimacy he has to treat everyone equally and that means exposing himself and his cabinet to the same scrutiny that opponents of the regime suffer.

 

3-      Ease of Doing Business

You miss the point. Fiji is getting worse but the regime does not report it, they imply that we doing well. How can you have legitimacy when you are dishonest with the people?

More importantly Fiji, since 2006 has consistently had its lowest investment levels of all time. We should be looking at ways of making it easier for investors and not harder. If we are to stop our economic decline we need to attract investors and not make it harder for them to do business.

 

4-      Lau Provincial Meeting

I was not there but I have seen the speech Adi Ateca made. She never said she would not work with the Government. In essence she accused the Government of using “dirty politics” a phrase coined by Bainimarama. In her speech she said all governments had to look after all of the people of the country irrespective for their support of the government. She went on to say it was “dirty politics” to only offer development money to Lau in return for Lau’s support of the People’s Charter.

 

She was happy to work with Government. She was not happy to be blackmailed into publicly supporting Bainimarama’s Government.

 

We are seeing a consistent approach by Bainimarama into threatening, bribing and blackmailing provinces into supporting his regime.

 

That approach does not give him legitimacy.

 

5-      Free Press

The Fiji Times may or may not have contributed to the coup in 2000. That is not the issue under discussion here. But one of the things that annoys me about Frank supporters is the way they bring up old wrongs as if that gives them a valid reason to behave even worse.

 

Currently Fiji media only gives one side of the story. The Government’s version of events. That is unreliable and as I have demonstrated many times it is often inaccurate.

 

If you will not allow public debate of your policies, your successes and your failure how can you have legitimacy? The fact Bainimarama does not allow this public debate demonstrates he is not confident in his own legitimacy.

 

For example there has been no real debate on the Commerce Commission and its price fixing. In my opinion and it is shared by many it is one of the primary causes for the lack of investment in Fiji. It is a subject in the National Interest and is worthy of debate. To have this debate in the media and to allow the business community to point out the dangers of Price fixing would be helpful to all.

 

6-      Standing in elections

Don’t ask me why no one in the current government can stand in elections in 2014. Ask Frank. He clearly stated when he took over the country that no minister in his interim government would be able to stand for election. I assume he had some very good reasons for making this statement.

 

7-      Criminal Standing for elections

I should have worded that more carefully and no as a general rule I do not think that criminals should be allowed in parliament.

 

However, I do think exceptions should be made if those criminal convictions were given on trumped up charges in courts controlled by a dictator. I am not saying that is the case but under those circumstances I would allow “criminals” to stand for election.

 

Thanks again to you Croz for allowing me to clarify my points.

 

Guy Threllfell

===
If you will not allow public debate of your policies, your successes and your failure how can you have legitimacy? The fact Bainimarama does not allow this public debate demonstrates he is not confident in his own legitimacy.

For example there has been no real debate on the Commerce Commission and its price fixing. In my opinion and it is shared by many it is one of the primary causes for the lack of investment in Fiji. It is a subject in the National Interest and is worthy of debate. To have this debate in the media and to allow the business community to point out the dangers of Price fixing would be helpful to all.

6-      Standing in elections
Don’t ask me why no one in the current government can stand in elections in 2014. Ask Frank. He clearly stated when he took over the country that no minister in his interim government would be able to stand for election. I assume he had some very good reasons for making this statement.

7-      Criminal Standing for elections
I should have worded that more carefully and no as a general rule I do not think that criminals should be allowed in parliament.

However, I do think exceptions should be made if those criminal convictions were given on trumped up charges in courts controlled by a dictator. I am not saying that is the case but under those circumstances I would allow “criminals” to stand for election.

Thanks again to you Croz for allowing me to clarify my points.

Guy Threllfell
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1872 / Virus Database: 2092/4628 - Release Date: 11/20/11