Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Count Down 14 Days to Go

FIJI IS UNITED IN ITS THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS FOR THE SOLDIERS TAKEN HOSTAGE IN SYRIA BUT whoever posted the "surrendering meekly" comment on the blog FijiToday is not only insensitive and ignorant  but downright insulting.  It shows where their patriotism lies. This is their comment:
 "Not surrendering meekly results in rescue by the Irish UN peacekeepers. Philippine Peacekeepers Safe After ‘Greatest Escape."

Another comment was equally distasteful, inferring that the RFMF was sending replacement for money, not because of its obligations to the UN. The comment read:

"When MONEY becomes more important than safety….. Replacing those captured while all other countries are recalling their peacekeepers as the situation is out of control."
And yet another:

Fijian troops who surrendered to terrorists have made us the butt of international jokes.

With 14 Days to the Elections Misinformation Spreads

With only fourteen days left before the elections, one might have thought the political parties would be in top gear promoting their policies and berating the policies of their opponents. Some have, and some haven't and some are still berating the system, a useful fallback strategy if their electoral dreams go pear-shaped. 

One serious electoral concern is the possible abuse of postal voting The military will deliver voting papers to the personnel overseas while other postal voters will receive their mail individually.  One inspired person on FijiToday describes whats he calls the Zimbabwe Electoral Fraud Method in which a large number of voters are created, and voting papers are forged, all ticking FijiFirst,  for those who did not vote on time.  I see nothing wrong with the bulk delivery of military voting papers and, from what I've read, postal votes received are overseen by the police and observers will see them put in the ballot box. There's always a possibility of fraud (think back to the extra ballot papers used, a whole box of votes missing and more Lau votes received than voters at the last election) but the checks in place this election should minimise the risk.

A more serious issue is the confusion over pre-polling which opens tomorrow.  Pre-polling is for those otherwise engaged on election day and for voters living in remote areas such as the outer islands and the interior highlands of the two main islands. Between 50-60,000 of the 591,083 people registered to vote are expected to pre-poll in one of 547 special pre-poll venues.  The trouble is that with the late publication of polling venues political parties will have only limited time to canvass, and with some pre-poll centres open for only one day as, for example, the ship with election officers pass from island to island,  some voters may not be aware that it is their day to vote. The Electoral Office says there should be no concern on this count because turaga ni koro and other officials in the remote areas have been adequately forewarned. I shall have more to say on pre-polling later in the week.

What is obvious now, though, is that a lot of misinformation is being spread, directly by rumour and some politicians, and in the internet.

Some of the petty objections spread by Mike Beddoes are cases in point, and later in the week I'll comment on the recent one hour interview he gave with FBCL but for now he's criticizing voters being  given two ballot papers in case they spoil one, saying  "the commission is introducing the prospect of some people slipping in two votes if officials are not vigilant. Postal Ballot voters are given just one ballot paper, which means this is another unfair treatment of voters".

Mike, voters will be able to ask for a second paper if they make an error.  They are not given two papers. And online voters have been informed they can correct their entry as long as their intention is clear.  Mick, you also forget to mention that a tick, cross or circle is acceptable in this election.  The singular tick option in the last election contributed to nearly ten percent of the papers being declared invalid.

Mick also says the Electoral Commission is breaking the law by including candidate photos in the instruction booklet that accompanies the online ballot paper whereas those voting directly on September 127  can't have photos in their booth as they are voting,   Come on, Mick. They don't need it.  The photos will have been in the media for weeks, individual candidates are pushing their numbers, political parties as they canvass are telling their supporters who to vote for, and at the polling station voters can  if they are in any doubt. The photos are also shown at the polling stations. (See this Electoral Office video.)  Online voters do not have these advantages.

MISINFORMATION, IGNORANCE OR DELIBERATE?  Another example, is a posting by Dr Wadan Narsey on his blog (and copied by several anti-Bainimarama blogs) that Bainimrama will
"hand out places on the FF party list which will determine who on his list will actually get a seat in parliament  ... So he has to give a number of higher places to Indo-Fijians or his government will look like his officer’s mess at QEB, a mono-ethnic sham ... The candidates will understand that their chances of winning will depend on when they get their invite and where they are on Frank’s (well we all know it will be Khaiyum’s) list." 

Wadan must know this accusation is not true.  The Open List system, as spelt out in the 2013 Constitution,  leaves voters to decide the order in which parties select their MPs. The more people who vote for them, the better their chance of selection.  It has nothing  to do with Bainimarama or Khaikyum. The parties have to accept the order voted for by the people.


Two PDP candidates have said they are ignoring the polls, and so they might with Bainimarama and FijiFirst so far in front. 

NFP president Tupou Draunidalo says they are not taking the polls seriously. Having campaigned well around the country she knows firsthand the views of the people on NFP. "Those polls I am told are conducted at bus stops – so I don’t know whether it is the polls conducted by the driver of the bus that is driving the FijiFirst bus ...If it stopped in front of me and asked me and I felt intimidated – I would say ‘yeah I will vote for your party ... In this climate no one is going to say freely whom they will vote for."  FLP's Dr Rohit Kishore said polls conducted overseas have not always been right ... so I don’t think we put much thought on these polls."

The  latest FijiSun Razor poll for the week ending 23 August put FijiFirst support at 70%, down from 74% the previous week, and SODELPA support at 21%, up from 14%. FLP was up 1% to 2%,  and NFP down to 6% from 8%.

The margin of error for a poll of this size is 4%, so weekly variations do not necessarily indicate trends, and the smaller parties may be lucky to pass the 5% threshold needed by parties to put members in parliament. 

PARTY POLICIES ON KEEPING FIJIAN CULTURE ALIVE. Click on this link to the FijiSun article.

Steve Ratuva and I contributed to this article in Pacific Scoop. It is a credible effort by the student journalist dealing with a complex situation though he did not use my comparisons with earlier elections, when one person most certainly did not equal one value, but perhaps he will use this information in his future articles on the election.  A good effort, Thom.
Ten things you need to know about the electoral system


  1. As ever you blithely ignore or worse - countenance, breaches of the law when it suits you.

    If postal voters are allowed to view photos, why is it necessary that those entering voting booths shouldn't be allowed to? You comment 'They don't need it'? What are you - some all knowing oracle that can determine without a shadow of a doubt that the elderly or the chronically forgetful are going to remember the number of the candidate they would like to vote for?

    It's true that the voting lines will be fairly short, for which I commend the organisers, but mental retention can be a difficult matter for some, especially the very aged. So the full list of candidates and numbers should be in every polling booth, or everyone should be allowed to carry in their own booklet.

    Furthermore, you write of a blogger's comment that is 'insensitive and ignorant [and] downright insulting. It shows where their patriotism lies..." Where is your proof of the writer's nationality? If you're assuming that the writer is Fijian, how does their comment display a lack of patriotism - as you imply?

    I'm unable to fathom why you should have commented in such an emotional manner - unless you know one of the captured soldiers. In which case I sympathise.

    1. 1. The photos are available at polling stations. 2. I know the identify of one of the people making one of the comments about the hostages. It's on his Facebook page and he very definitely is a a Fiji citizen.

  2. Comments on FijiToday and other blogsites having a "dig" at members of the RFMF who are currently detained in Syria is down-right insulting. I find that most of these people making such comments have absolutely no idea what they are talking about let alone have any understanding of different forms of military operations and how difficult it is to operate under various Rules of Engagements stipulated by UN or any other governing bodies in different parts of the world.
    Yes, people are entitled to have a view and comment (even degrade RFMF) for its part in the 2006 coup but by-jolly refrain from such atrocious comments especially at a time like this when those soldiers (and especially their families) need Fiji behind them. Fijian soldiers who serve overseas are an excellent ambassador for Fiji even after the illegal events of 2006. The leverage that Fiji gets in various corners of the world through Fijian participation is "gold" in terms of foreign affairs etc. ABCA, NATO and Commonwealth countries forces have a lot of respect for Fijian soldiers.
    I would prefer we don't take political mileage out this except pray for them and their families.
    And yes, I am emotional because I had the honor of working alongside some of those soldiers (3 in fact) overseas when they were attached to my battalion in another mission. They were exemplary in their conduct and I would fight alongside them any day.

  3. Anon @ 3:50PM. Dont allow your emotions to cloud your judgement. People are simply asking why 45 well-trained men with two Captains in charge surrendered their weapons to a 100 man rebel force without even putting up a fight? And we had the Commander go public supporting the decision of his men to surrender?

    I would have thought the Commander would have reserved his judgement until after he has received a full report of the incident. I understand that the UN are entitled to use lethal force to defend themselves and the UN mandate within their mission area. Why didn't the Fijian boys do so?

    I recall reading an article by Margaret Wise in the Fiji Times a few years back about the 'Battle of Charlie Checkpoint' in August 1979 when the Fijian Battalion in Lebanon were up against a similar force of about 100 fighters of the 'Lebanese Front' (I still have the article with me). The Fijian boys stoutly defended their positions and caused a lot of casualties that ultimately caused the rebels to break off their attack and change their tactics (the ambush at Wadi Jilu being the case in point).

    Why couldn't those in Syria adopted a similar robust approach in defending their mandate in the Golan? Was it a failure of leadership? Didn't they have the stomach for a fight? Why are there so many old men in that photograph of the captured soldiers? have these old men hogged the positions for themselves at the expense of younger and fitter soldiers who have the energy to carry out their mission more professionally? Do the soldiers in the Golan really understand their rule of engagement and what they are up against in Syria?

    These are the sorts of questions people are asking. Its not a case of being unpatriotic. These are genuine questions the we the taxpayer want answers for.

    My own view is that there was clearly a failure of leadership c.f. the Lebanon battle referred to above where we had well-trained officers and NCO's led by a top-class battalion commander (I am sure you will have read this article in question). The other issue that should be examined is the quality of training given to our men. I suppose being denied opportunities to train with the Ozzies and the Kiwis etc since 2006 has contributed to a decline in training standards. I shared this view with an ex Fiji soldier and he agrees with me. He also pointed out that the current training is designed to produce good 'parade ground soldiers' but Not good soldiers in the field, as exemplified by what happened in the Golan eg wonderful Medals Parades etc but at the first sniff of trouble they surrender their weapons. What can one say?

    The other issue is that Filipino Battalion in the Golan is a Ranger battalion that has served in Mindanao against Islamic insurgents there. There are better trained and briefed and they were prepared to defend their mandate. Unlike the Fijian platoon, the Filipinos did not roll over. They deserve our respect.

    Vinaka for the opportunity to comment

    1. Vinaka kemuni for taking the time to reply or comment in regards to my contribution. Firstly, let me assure you that my emotion has not contributed in any way or form to my judgement. My disappointment is aimed at nonsensical comments and judgement been passed on by people who have no idea of military operations. In I'Taukei language known as, "Vosa vakalialia, se vosa vakavuku". Now, I certainly would not put you in that category as you do raise some very valid points which could lead to useful and educated discussion. Let me reply (or try) to each of your points.
      1) The 45 soldiers were up against 200-250 Nusra Front soldiers (Source: UN News) whilst the 75 Filipino Ranger faced 100 Nusra Front. This is in no way an attempt to belittle what the Filipino soldiers did but highlights the tactical situational differences apart from numbers. In almost all conventional warfare doctrine, any troop size when conducting a phase of war (apart from the withdrawal phase) has to ensure that they havean advantage in numbers hence the teaching of 1:3 proportion.In other words when attacking a Section sized enemy (8-12 pers) you require 3 Sections minimum to do so. The 45 soldiers were hugely outnumbered. Secondly, considering the inability of the reinforcement troops (Irish Response Troops) to get through to their location, it would be tactically foolish to sustain a defensive posture given they would probably have up to maximum of 3rd line of ammunition if they are lucky. A reliable source who is currently serving with UNDOF (not a member of RFMF) told me that the Fijian boys did resist the attack initially i.e there was an exchange of fire.
      This brings me to the point where you have questioned the Location Commanders leadership ability. I am confident that he would have conducted a quick military appreciation of what was infront of him taking into account of all the factors such as Ground, Enemy, Friendly Support, Reinforcement and most importantly Indirect Fire Support. Given the nature of UN mandate controlled tightly by the always questionable Rules of Engagement, what the young officer needed to conduct a good defensive operation would have been missing. The Filipinos on the other were very lucky that the Syrian Army provided them with Indirect Fire Support through their Artillery capability. And then the Irish Response troops were able to assist them withdraw to the safe location.
      Whilst I am not trying to justify his decision, what I am saying is that lets not be too hasty in judging his leadership ability in comparison with the Filipinos as tactically, the two situations and resources available at that point in time were hugely different. Hopefully the investigation later on once the hostage situation concludes (fingers crossed) would clarify things.
      I see that you have used the "Battle of Checkpoint Charlie" in Liban to add weight to your argument and I appreciate that. But then again as I have raised earlier, in military tactical terms, you cannot equate it to the situation in question for a variety of factors.
      Your comment reference current training designed to produce good "parade ground soldiers" is far-fetched. I can assure you that unless you belong to the military band or selected group of soldiers in any army whose sole purpose is to perform in military displays or tatoos, as an organisation no military in the world has good "parade ground soldiers" as its strategic objective in its training system including RFMF. Yes, members of infantry or other combat component maybe required for a parade task etc; that is secondary to their core role.

    2. Continued from above:

      I have to agree with you that in some aspects of training, maybe the standard has slipped due to RFMF not being allowed to train with Aussie and NZ Defence since 2006 and mostly this is to do with lack of exposure to weapon systems that bigger armies have. But they have been training or sent overseas to Malaysia, Indonesia, India etc.
      To conclude, yes the Filipinos deserve our respect but lets not be too harsh on the Fijian boys due to reasons explained above.
      For now lets join hands and pray for their safe return.
      Sa dri yani.

    3. Vinaka for your explanation. By the way, that comment on 'parade ground' soldiers was said by an ex RFMF warrant officer (ex Liban, Timor, Sinai and Iraq) who recently retired and whose views I find very informative. I am intrigued by your statement that the Battle of Charlie Checkpoint in Lebanon cannot be equated 'in military tactical terms' to that in the Golan. How so? In both cases the Fijians were faced by a superior rebel force, they both were authorized by UN rules of engagement to defend themselves and their mandate in the mission area etc. You talk about the ratio of 1:3 but that applies only to the attack, not the defence. My advice from my military advisor, is that in the defence, and in a properly defended position, such a ratio is irrelevant. Any position defended 'in depth' (thats the word my advisor uses) should be able to absorb and repel an attacking force.

      My advisor also clarifies your statement that we have gone to Malaysia and India etc and points out that it involves only to senior officer staff college type training, and not to commanders at the platoon and section level which is where the real battle are fought - as it eventually did in the Golan.

      The tactical situation may be different but what is the telling factor is the capability and tactical competence of the commanders. The history of warfare is full of examples where vastly outnumbered defenders have held their ground and repelled a larger force. We saw that in Lebanon where the soldiers there did just that and emerged with international accolades.

      I know that you a desperately trying to defend and apologize for the incompetence of what happened. But we members of the public need deeper answers, not the glib 'apples and oranges' statement (different' tactical situations' etc) as if we members of the tax paying public are not entitled to know. That smacks of arrogance. Another example, the Commander used the 'apples and ornages' analogy today to put down (I understand the word is 'pulling rank') Taniela Senikuta of the Fiji Peacekeepers Association who asked the sorts of question we, and others on this site and elsewhere are asking. It smells like a cover-up being cooked up i.e. to obfuscate the issue with military technical terms and jargon. People are responding so negatively because they are receiving the 'mushroom treatment'. The challenge is for the RFMF to explain in layman's terms what happened and why the surrender, when previous history the Fijians have always been prepared to defend their mandate with their lives.

      Sa dri yani

    4. To both gentlemen above, vinaka vaka levu for your points. Despite the evident differences of opinion it was pleasure to read a well argued, informative debate rather than the hysterical diatribes that pollute both the pro and anti blogs.

    5. Agree. Thank you sharing your enlightening views on a very delicate subject. Keep sharing as well all gain from your insights. Vakanuinui vinaka mai Rockhampton, Queensland. Bill Wadely (Naitasiri Kid)

    6. @ AnonymousThursday, September 4, 2014 at 12:38:00 PM GMT+12

      Vinaka for the reply Kemuni. I appreciate the ex-warrant officer's comment ref "parade ground" soldiers. Like you and I, he (or she) has every right to have an opinion and certainly express them. Rather than dwell on tactical differences again in terms of UNIFIL and UNDOF as I have tried to do in my earlier post, one of the glaring differences in the "big scheme of things" is the fact that UNDOF operates under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which strictly prohibits contributing nations to supervisory role without any enforcing authority. On the other hand, UNIFIL whilst not explicity under the Chapter VII which gives the enforcement authority the ability to use force beyond self-defence, has bits of both. The UNIFIL mandate underwent three changes i.e 1978, 1982 and 2006. This difference is significant because they then govern the type of Rules of Engagement (ROE) that soldiers even to the lowest level have to operate under. I suspect this is the reason why the Irish want the ROE changed in Syria to give contributing countries more "teeth" just like with UNIFIL.

      Your "military advisor" is right that the 1:3 rule does not really apply to Defence and if the principle of Defence is utilised, a position could be defended for a given time. But what the military advisor needed to add is that the principle of Defence is not only to do with disposition on the ground with soldiers but rather planned layering of your firepower so you could engage the enemy from as far out as possible with the idea of destroying them "piece-meal" by the time they get to your location (if there is a survivor). Defence position frontage could cover kilometres depending on your capability. The difference is in peace-keeping operations the defence stance is totally different. You are actually defending a checkpoint usually at a road junction etc or an Observation Post on a ridge, hill etc. rather than a layered area defence. Absorbing and repeling an attack in a 30m x 80m for example is not as easy as a well-layered in-depth defensive position. The best you have in a peacekeeping checkpoint or OP is mutual support with your small weapons ( and you would be lucky to have a bigger version like the 50 Cal.
      Finally, whilst I respect your opinion, please do not patrionise me by saying that I am trying to desperately defend and apologize for what happened or the incompetency of the commander on the ground. The bottom line is you and I are debating without facts from those that were involved (45 soldiers). Yes, you the taxpayer in Fiji deserve an answer to what occured but at the same time need to have the patience to wait for those facts to come to the fore. Maybe Commander RFMF should not have criticised Senikuta publicly (especially the mentioning of rank) but rather state that once facts are confirmed, "taxpayers" would be informed. I certainly am not in the cover-up bandwagon but rather someone who likes to give everyone a fair go (soldiers and taxpayers alike).

    7. Vinaka Anon. I appreciate your response which I find very informative and helps me understand the dynamics of the situation. I apologize if you thought I was being patronizing or that you guys were engaging in a cover up etc. I shall be more careful when on the keyboard next time. Meantime, have a great Fathers Day. All the best.

  4. The courageous, well led and patriotic Filipinos soldiers are to be applauded for their stand against the Islamic terrorists. Such proud soldiers would never surrender to such people.

  5. In response to the ex military fellow posting as Anonymous @ 3.50pm above. Mate, you have an inflated sense of importance of how the public at large views the RFMF as an organisation. Prior to May 1987 the RFMF was held in high regard. Its service in Lebanon and Sinai (Malaya etc also included) were applauded. Then in May 1987 it became politicized and supported an ethno-nationalist agenda that targeted ethnic minorities. Some of its best officers were sidelined including a potential Commander RFMF at the time who Rabuka resented just because he was not a full taukei. The Indo-Fijian population were targeted. Their temples and mosques ransacked. If you were in the RFMF then then you are, legally, an "accessory after the fact".

    Then again in 2000 the so-called 'elite' unit of the RFMF (the CRW) aided and abetted by senior officers at QEB, sided with the extreme ethno-nationalist agenda of George Speight and co. Again ethnic minorities were targetted, their mosques and temples desecrated, their farm animals slaughtered to feed the ethno-nationalist orgy going on in Parliamnet House.

    The point I am making is that by being an active participant in the upheavals of 1987 and 2000, the RFMF lost credibility in the eyes of the public. Rabuka and his men swaggered around with AK47s threatening unarmed members of the public who once looked up to them. Many were beaten up just for having another political point of view. Were you still in the RFMF then? If so, did it not hurt you conscience to condone such acts by these so-called 'soldiers'?

    Like the proverbial schoolyard bully, when these men are faced with others on an equal footing, they surrender.
    immediately surrender. Then their surrender is publicly supported by the Commander RFMF!!!!

    Don't you now see how people's attitude of the RFMF differs from yours, and justifiably so? You appear to have too close to the organisation to be able to stand back and make an objective assessment. The other poster above is correct: you have allowed your emotions to cloud your judgement.

    Final point: we, the members of the 'great unwashed' out there who you guys terrorized in 1987 and 2000, are praying for those men who have been captured through the folly of their own Commanders. Never before in the history of the RFMF have they surrendered in such numbers. This points to a deeper malaise within the Force. Whilst we continue to pray for their safe deliverance, we expect something to be done about the RFMF as an institution. We now have a generation of leaders up there at QEB who see surrender as a viable option. This latest debacle only confirms the deep reservations - even a very negative view - many in the public hold about the RFMF as an organisation. If the RFMF does not learn from this then it will have gained nothing.

    1. Mate please read my reply above. I will not answer your questions ref 87 and 2000 as I was not part of either. I was in the military by 2000 but I was deployed overseas.
      Firstly, let me make it clear to you that whatever illegal acts a few or selected members of RFMF subjected you and your likes to, is unacceptable. That's why I left RFMF because I did not agree with certain activities. And just to be technical, it could also be argued that only the 2006 coup was a fully backed RFMF act as it was carried out by its Commander at the time unlike the 87 and 2000 coups where only certain elements took part. In saying that, it does not mean the 2006 coup was legal. My point is it is too far-fetched to tie the events of 87, 2000 and 2006 directly with the situation in Syria at the moment although "we could argue until the cow comes home". The timings of nonsensical comments without people having all facts in front of them is what is annoying.
      As for your comment ref allowing emotions to cloud my judgement, maybe you should have a wee peek in the mirror.

    2. Vinaka Naita (?)...1987...2000....2006....and the Golan....all have their historical contexts. To link them all up is a very long bow. Keep up the debate though...some of us appreciate your insights ...and enjoy the reasoned arguments behind the differences in your opinion. Thats what informed debate is all about. Ni kalougata tiko. Bill Wadely

    3. Isa ni bula Ratu Naita. Sa donu saka. Kalougata tiko.

    4. Ratu Naita, Overseas media are reporting Jone Baledrokdroka's comments as follows;

      Jone Baledrokadroka, Fiji's former land forces commander who is now a visiting fellow at the Australian National University in Canberra, said the Golan Heights deployment appeared rushed.

      "They decided to go in June last year, and by August they were in," he said. "It was quite hasty. I knew they didn't have the logistics and training for such a deployment, or for the escalating violence in Syria."

      Fiji's commander says the nation won't abandon its mission in Syria, and he is even willing to replace the 45 troops if they need to recuperate if and when they are released.

      Baledrokadroka said he finds that attitude staggering.

      "This is incredible," he said. "When you look at other democratic countries, they're looking at pulling out, but this regime in Fiji is just doing things unilaterally."

      "It's the duty of every soldier to not be disarmed, to resist being captured," he said. "It's a shock to every former soldier like me to know this has happened. It's quite a big blow to our martial traditions. Fijians have been known as warriors down through the ages."

      Reference: Should Fiji Troops Be in Syria as UN Peacekeepers?
      SUVA, Fiji — Sep 3, 2014, 5:59 AM ET
      By NICK PERRY and PITA LIGAIULA Associated Press

      Do you any comments on Jone B's statements to the media?

      Bill Wadely

    5. Bula Ratu Naita Bill-

      JB may have some merit with his opinion on how quick they deployed i.e decision in June and they were there in August but then again how do we explain the fact that the current hostage situation has taken place with Batt 2 rather than Batt 1 which according to him were inadequately prepared?
      Hindsight is a great thing and the current situation has just given JB the best possible platform to come out with that statement.

    6. The UNDOF Force Commander has accused the Filipinos of cowardice for deserting their posts!!!


    7. The Al Nusra says their position on the capture (and release) of the Fijian peacekeepers are governed by Shariah Law - see link below. If Tikoitoga and others in the RFMF want to head off to Syria and negotiate, then they better consult the Muslim community in Fiji to get their take on the particular Shariah Law in question etc.


      This new twist, just illustrates how insane and insensitive Rabuka was in making veiled threats against the Muslim community in Fiji. At this difficult time we should be consulting with them to help us understand the mindset of the captors, NOT alienating and threatening the Muslims in Fiji who are not Jihadists.

      I hope they nail Rabuka on this one. He has gotten away too much...and thinks all it needs is an (insincere) apology....like his coup apology.

  6. The example was set by the former Commander and now self-appointed PM. When his own HQ in QEB was threatened by rebels in November 2000, he uprooted the cassava, dalo and bele plants as he broke Usain Bolt's 100 meter record as he ran from the scene of the battle.

    1. Best conclusive explanation to date. The saying "follow the leader" was exercised to the letter!

    2. Gibberish post at its best. I wonder how many people in Fiji know the actual detail truth of what occured that day i.e mutiny at QEB? And not rely on the "coconut wireless" medium that is so prevalent.


All polite, reasoned, original comments welcomed. Please use your real name or a pseudonym by clicking on the down arrow next to Comment and then select Name/URL. You do not need to fill in URL. . Anonymous comments make discussion difficult..