Ro Teimumu Kepa’s recent epistolary outburst
simply demonstrates to the wider public about the real state of race
and politics at the very highest levels of itaukei leadership
in Fiji. It further underscores the very short distance that she and her coterie have travelled intellectually and ethically in spite
of all that has happened since that fateful day in May 1987. Some
readers have taken umbrage at Professor Crosbie Walsh’s careful
exegesis of Ro Teimumu's letter on this blog, not over questions of
interpretation but on a false moral equivalency, that somehow
criticizing the Chiefly council is equivalent to endorsing the
current government in toto.
I think that Croz’s
incremental approach to deformalizing the GCC while
understandable is nonetheless too timorous within the context of the
political situation in Fiji. Be that as it may, the issues that Croz
raises in his analysis of Ro Teimumu’s letter as well as those by
Graham Davis are worthy of an extended and robust argument on this
site as well as all others that believe in a better future for Fiji.
Her letter followed
an earlier diatribe in November 2011 concerning civil servants makes
no contribution to policy, law, economics, theology, international
relations, nor does the author exhibit any political knowledge or
cultural understanding. A lack of expertise in any of these areas
does not preclude one from mutual discourse, or none of us would be
here, but for crying out loud, shouldn’t we demand that individuals
who publicly engage in politics like Ro Teimumu have some awareness of
statecraft?
But that is precisely the reason why
there is such a vociferous backlash from the elite itaukei class
she represents. They don’t have to know
anything about statecraft or the tedious work of nation-building, or
how the global economy works, or the long-term effects of labor
mobility, or comparative advantage, or government financing, or
monetary policy, or investing in human capital, or human rights, or
democratic accountability, or religious pluralism, or separation of
powers, or all the minutiae of governance and public administration.
The chiefly class simply through the privilege of birth feel
entitled to rule in perpetuity over the lives of people they have
neither the interest to know or really give a damn about.
This may seem harsh, but let us pause
for a second and consider what has been intimated by Ms. Kepa
in her dissimulated missive. What kind of person who unambiguously
proclaims about the verities of her faith threaten calamity on a
largely poor, fairly defenseless minority group in a letter to the
Prime Minister of the Country? How is it possible that the great
defenders of multiculturalism like Mr. Madraiwiwi have not publicly
repudiated such an appalling declaration by one of their own?
The deafening silence once again
reveals to the embattled minority community that the elite itaukei
leadership will never relinquish the politics of exclusion and
irredentism as long as it serves their goal of maintaining political
and financial control. The Methodist Church by virtue of its charter
could be expected to speak up for the marginalized and the
defenseless, but here in Fiji, it acts as a legitimizing agent for
the racists and the intolerant. The ignominious role that the
Methodist Church has played in Fiji’s political troubles by giving
cover to the worst elements will one day be written along with the
opportunists, enablers and sycophants.
Both Croz and Graham have done a great
public service in highlighting the fundamental struggle that is going
on in Fiji as it moves towards an uncertain future. But the ghosts of
the past will almost certainly cast a long and ominous shadow across
whatever path Fiji takes, the greatest of which is the Council of
Chiefs. Ro Teimumu's dispatch can either be understood as a
final coda of a dying institution and a remembrance of things past,
or for what it really is— a shot across the bow and a harbinger of
things to come. For the sake of all people in Fiji, we should do what
we can to make sure that it is not the latter.
Sudarsan Kant
8 comments:
.@ sundarsan'......They don’t have to know anything about statecraft or the tedious work of nation-building, or how the global economy works, or the long-term effects of labor mobility, or comparative advantage, or government financing, or monetary policy, or investing in human capital, or human rights, or democratic accountability, or religious pluralism, or separation of powers, or all the minutiae of governance and public administration....'
Could you clariify here please - are you talking about the GCC or the present regime? I can't recall any members of the GCC claiming expertise in any of the above - I know, surely a lapse of humility on their part - but you have described the qualities of the regime very well.
Well said but I'm surprised that no-one in public life in Fiji seems to have been prepared to criticise Ro Kepa. Is it because they don't want to give her comments credibility or are they fearful of become targets themselves? Or do they accept that the "calamity" dog whistle is inevitable and not worth addressing? There's no point in Croz or Davies running this stuff from outside the country. The campaign against stirring up racial sentiment has got to come from within. Perhaps it will if Ro Kepa does formally re-enter politics. It will be interesting to see how this can happen. If no-one can stand for one race in the next election, who else is going to support this woman? No non-indigenous person surely.
This blatant racist attack on Fijians and their culture is an indictment on all indo-Fijians. Such attacks by Kant and other junta supporters such as him, will never be forgotten.
Blatant Racist attack? Yes, on Indo Fijians, not on i'taukei or what you call Fijians because you don't accept that anyone has a right to the title. I find the tone of the last posting deeply offensive. When you say something "will never be forgotten" it is an implicit threat. Croz, you should have blocked this. It is not freedom of speech, it is intimidation.
@blatant racist attack
eh? Are wah?! Ro Teimumu is promising that the Indo-Fijians will be visited by a racial calamity if the GCC is not re installed, and Kant is the racist? Wake up and smell the coffee old boy.
@ Blatant racist attack
Your comment is typical of those who do not have the intellectual capacity to enter into a logical argument about the views expressed, so conveniently raise the racial angle.
You forget it is a itaukei prime minister who has disbanded the Council of chiefs.I have not seen any large assembly or demonstration by itaukei protesting at this move. Presumably they are busy celebrating a more equitable distribution of the lease monies!!
To Blatant racist attack:
Did you and I read the same article? You see I'm not a very good reader, so I would appreciate your letting me know where in the article I might find the attack on Fijians and their culture?? Appreciate it also if you would let me know if Mr.Kant represents all indo-Fijians. You see I'm indo-Fijian but I never asked him to speak for me?? Much thanks.
@ Blatant racist attack.....
No one ethnic community is singled out for racist attack in Fiji. All vulnerable, target groups are set up for it at one time or another. That is the nature of instability and it can lead on to acts of terror. That is precisely why our language must be measured and carefully considered at all times. The inculcation of fear through immoderate language to large audiences (the use of pulpits?)is a contributor towards an unstable internal climate. No matter from whence this language may come. It is far too easy for those situated outside Fiji to forget in their comfortable, insulated living-rooms how easily mis-construed their remarks may become in a pressure-cooker situation where innocent people may set-upon without warning. The attacks are politically-motivated, only infrequently opportunistic. So they qualify as acts of terror by any modern definition. They may be summoned up at will and with consummate ease. We all have a duty to be on guard against this at all times less the innocent suffer for our mistaken use of language. If we choose certain words (in English or a vernacular language or dialect) then we have an obligation to define and to explain our use of them, the context in which we make them and the outcomes we expect. There is no room or place for 'Woolly-Headedness' here. In twenty years or more, surely we have learned at least this?
Post a Comment