Fiji: Getting it Right on ASK's "Sunset Clause"

pn187

In a number of ongoing postings to Fiji groups on Facebook reference is often made to Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum's "sunset clause" in which he is alleged to want to eliminate Taukei institutions. 

The now almost defunct blog Coupfourpointfive under the Hitler-inspired heading "Final Solution" writes  of "Bainimarama’s anti-Fijian policies driven by Khaiyum’s genocidal 'sunset clause' thesis on how to destroy Fijian cultural autonomy."

More recently, Lela Seruvakula writes of  "The reason for the stolen elections and SUNSET CLAUSE AGENDA... i.e., Dispossession and displacement or dismantling of any sovereignty that stands in the way of resource grab ..." 

A more partly balanced view was offered by a SODELPA candidate Niko Nawaikula who wrote: 

"Ethnic identity is important for how can we move froward or do anything for that matter without first knowing who we are. Our ethnicity defines us and the UN protects that self identification as our Human Rights under UNDRIP" 

With which few would disagree, and then he launches into FijiFirst:

"But the Fiji First Government is against it. It wants to create a new social order for Fiji by introducing its sunset clause measures to remove the things that bind us together as an ethnic group. To me, it is a form of ethnic cleansing. For instead of unity in diversity respecting ethnic identity , it wants equal citizenry that is devoid of ethnicity and ethnic referencing."  

With which others would disagree. He has misunderstood the context and argument of ASK's thesis which is strange for a lawyer. Click read here to download the thesis. 

This is what I wrote on the issue in the Fiji Sun four years ago.

The Big Loan Company, IMF Recommendations

N227. THE BIG LOAN, ITS CRITICS, AND STOKING THE FIRE. Critics were never going to let Fiji's huge US$250m loan pass without comment. It provided much too good an opportunity to put the needle in.

Foremost among the more qualified critics is USP Economics professor Wadan Narsey whose primary criticism is not so much with the need for a loan (some US$150m will be used to pay off the pre-coup government's 2005 loan, made that much more expensive due to Fiji's dollar devaluation) but with its 9% interest rate and the amount being borrowed. He thinks a cheaper loan could have been obtained from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) if Fiji had agreed to certain budgetary conditions.

Wadan said, “There is very strong conditionality attached to it [the IMF loan] and I suspect that the Banimarama government did not want to abide by the conditionality rules, I presume they would have had to cut back on their budget deficit which means they would have had to cut government expenditure, recurrent expenditure and especially I suspect on the military budget.”

Wadan's one presumption and two suspicions could be correct, but even without IMF prompting government has been taking steps to reduce spending and downsize government. No one outside Government and the IMF knows what the conditions were but the IMF team that visited Fiji in February last year when a $1 billion loan was being talked about, noted with approval the improved foreign exchange position, greater bank liquidity, and they seemed to approve Fiji's monetary and fiscal policies.

In April Government was waiting for a decision from the IMF on a US$459m loan that obviously did not eventuate, but it was nearly double the loan whose size is now criticized by Prof. Narsey.

Fiji's ability to repay its loans (much of which is for capital developments although Wadan claims it is for recurrent expenditure), generate employment and improve living standards rests heavily on growing its economy, and this in large part depends on business confidence and foreign and domestic investment. The 9% interest rate criticized by Wadan (and bewailed by the anti-government blogs that claim future generations will be left to pay for today's debts) is higher than may be expected because there is some risk in investing in Fiji, and the higher the perceived risk, the higher the interest rate.

Fiji is considered risky because of the coup, the military government and the delayed elections, but it is also considered risky because people like Wadan,  former politicians and others in Fiji, and  the overseas anti-government bloggers have , to a greater or lesser degree, done their level best to discredit all Government policies and actions and to obstruct those they can.  They are  part-owners of "the Big Loan Company."

They have spread biased, misleading, alarmist and untrue reports, urged Fiji citizens not to cooperate with Government in taking the country forward, and urged the international community not to change its stance on Fiji.

They have stoked the fires that makes loans, reforms and economic recovery more difficult, and in doing so they have played their part in making the loans their children will repay just that much more costly.

Australia and New Zealand must also, of course, share the responsibility. Their policies aimed at Fiji's "return to democracy" must by now be seen to have failed, but they have had a detrimental effect on Fiji's economy and the cost of its loans. 

No one would expect those opposing the Bainimarama government to change their fundamental position but reasonable people would expect other reasonable people to support some of the things it is doing, and to refrain from activities that harm the living of the people they claim they wish to support. -- Crosbie Walsh.


N228.  IMF SAYS STRUCTURAL REFORMS NECESSARY. The IMF's Executive Board  said structural reforms are necessary in Fiji to spur growth and help protect macroeconomic stability.

Following its latest consultations  the Board said:
(1) Fiji needed well designed land reform and the removal of price controls should support investment and the diversification of economic activity;
(2) Civil service reform and adjusting tariffs for public services will help contain contingent liabilities and should increase efficiency;
(3) Retraining programmes and additional targeted social assistance to soften the social impact of redundancies and higher tariffs; and
(4) Help Fiji  from development partners, including technical and expert advice, to help design and implement these important structural reforms which are critical to improving the overall business environment. [This is where Australia and New Zealand really could help.]

The IMF noted that fiscal deficit (government expenditure exceeds revenue) is estimated to have fallen to 3.6% of GDP in 2010 from 3.9% in 2009. The improvement is due to Government's  freeze in hiring in the public service, lower-than-budgeted capital spending and stronger-than-projected VAT receipts but losses and mismanagement of the Fiji Sugar Corporation  have to led to pressures on the budget.

The deficit was financed mostly by the Fiji National Provident Fund as commercial banks remained near their sovereign lending limits. Central government debt at the end of 2010 is estimated at close to 56%  of GDP. Contingent fiscal liabilities are estimated at 17.6 percent of GDP at the end of 2010 and includeguarantees on bonds issued by the Fiji Development Bank.

N229. SUGAR:  THE IMF HAS ADVISED GOVERNMENT to quickly finalise the restructuring of the Sugar Corporation and then divest the troubled Fiji Sugar Corporation within three years,to bolster the economy The FSC was delisted from the South Pacific Stock Exchange last month after a profit loss of $US175 million last financial year. The IMF statement also suggested reforms to the Fiji National Provident Fund to increase economic sustainability.

The Pros and Cons of Government's Huge Global Loan

WEEKEND READING. ♦ Allen Lockington column
♦ For discussion — People's Charter Pillar 2 

♦ Critical Engagement and Future Scenarios (Part 2) by Akuila Yabaki. 

I would rate Akuila's comments as "essential reading".

There will be no 6pm posting today.

By Crosbie Walsh 

Photo: Fiji Village. Posting N204.

Government has announced that it has been successful in raising a 5 year international loan of US$250 million (F$500m) at 9%. Some 60% the loan will be used to repay the US$150m (F$300m) borrowed in 2005 by the Qarase government which is due for repayment in September. The remaining US$100m will be used to finance priority capital investments earmarked in the 2011 Budget to generate economic activity, macroeconomic stability and a prudent fiscal position in the medium term.

The new loan is not uncontroversial. A reader says “At 9% interest (three times the going rate) and the way this is structured will always bring out the lenders of last resort. If it is a test of anything it is a test of regime desperation and market greed for the desperate.” Possibly, but there is no single “going rate”.

Rates depend on each county's circumstances and the global bond market at the time. Today's rates, for example, vary from Australia's 5-year bonds at 5.2%, to Russia's at 7.4%, Brazil's at 7.9% and Greece's at 12.9%. Given the small size of the Fiji economy and its current low growth rate, the European sovereign crisis, unrest in the Middle East and skyrocketing fuel prices, the interest rates does not seem excessively high.

Besides, Government had little choice. The Qarase loan had to be repaid by September and its rate, raised in far more favourable global circumstances,  was 7%, a sizeable rate at the time.

The global loan transaction was launched in Asia on Tuesday and was almost three times oversubscribed within 12 hours. Asian investors bought 36% of the transaction with Europe and Offshore-US accounts contributing the remaining 64%. Some 43 investors from 6 countries were involved. The order book comprised of 69% asset managers, 24% hedge funds, 5% private banks and 2% bank portfolios.

Critics point to the “greed” of the investors but such a diverse group would be unlikely to invest in a sinking ship.

Just as predictably the PM saw the oversubscribed loan as an “indication of the level of confidence that investors in the international market have in Fiji’s economic development and progress, on-going reforms and future prospects.” It is, of course, a qualified confidence; the usual attempt by investors to balance returns against risk. But their calculation of the risks is certainly less than the doomsayers would have us believe. And from Fiji's perspective, whether it is a wise or unwise loan will only be known by how the money is used. Investment in capital works has the potential of repaying loan interest many times over.

Main Sources: No:0577/Finance and three Fiji Times postings on the topic, click here  One  Two  Three

Comparison of place and time

Several observers have expressed concerns about the high level of debt, especially when the Fiji economy is under-performing, and anti-government people have blamed government mismanagement. Seen in perspective, however, overall government debt of 57.7% of GDP in 2010 does not compare too unfavourably with 44% in 1990, 70% in 1997 and 71% in 2000. (Accounts and Finances of the Republic of the Fiji Islands.) Government loans due for redemption under the Qarase government in 2005 totalled $125m; between 2006-2010 they averaged $100m, and from 2011-2015 average $30m, though recent borrowing will increase this total.

Emma Veve of the Asia Development Bank has noted Fiji's economic growth is poor relative to most other Pacific countries but she expected GDP to improve with increased tourist earnings, and once government reforms start to produce results. She spoke of the need for more access to land for investment, an issue being addressed with the Land Bank and investments in the country's mineral resources. Government thinks the public service reforms will have positive economic results.

The recently released Reserve Bank Economic Review for February (see right sidebar) points to mixed results. Economic growth for 2011 is expected to be 1.3% but the trade deficit has been reduced by 6.8%, with exports increasing 17.1% and imports reduced by 2.9%. A substantial increase in export earnings from minerals, and steady earnings from mineral water, fish and timber, seems likely. This year's disastrous results from the sugar industry, mainly due to faulty machinery, can get no worse, and minor gains should occur next harvesting season. Inflation increased from 5 to 5.9% mainly due to the increase in VAT (and it could increase further as a result of this month's sharp increase in world oil prices) but foreign reserves are sufficient to cover 4 months of imports.

Government, of course, has no control over the price of world oil, and limited control over its exchange rate (the loans are in US dollars). The economic situation is not improved by international reactions to the political situation and Government is one party to this picture but it is

It would need to have borrowed less if capital works had not been neglected for so long; if its “traditional friends” had been more helpful; if it had not been so bull-headed; if its dismal PR improved by even 1.3%; if more money were available from domestic sources. But it would have needed to borrow more than has been borrowed before if the Roadmap's infrastructural reforms (roads, bridges, sea and air access, agricultural and rural sector development) are to be carried out.

The loans —the Global Bond loan is one of several— are intended in part to patch up the Fiji economy but they are also bent on transforming it. The critical issue is not the size of the loans but whether five, ten and more years on we see a more robust and diversified economy, fuller use of Fiji's natural and human resources, appropriate levels of investment and more employment.

Rome, my elderly neighbour used to remind me, was not built in a day and the same is true for  all long-term visions, plans and projects, no less and no more in Fiji than anywhere else.
 
Postscript. Another perspective on Fiji's borrowing. "China's investment in New Zealand government bonds is understood to be rising but just how much it holds remain a mystery, according to the Treasury. Asian central banks and state superannuation funds are also investing more in New Zealand as Asian investors shy away from financially troubled European states. New Zealand is competing to borrow about $300 million every week  ...Treasury [is aiming] to raise $13.5b this financial year..." Click.

Speight of Rumours

Photo: Janus, the Roman  god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings, endings and time.

N0168  by Crosbie Walsh

February must be the rumour season in Fiji, such has been the spate of stories of arrests, detentions and manhandling that have hit the blog and international media airwaves in the past two to three weeks.

I'm not sure how complete my list is but Felix Chaudhary was the first journalist to be "taken to the barracks" this year.  He was released the same day and did not report ill-treatment. Then there were stories of the arrests of  Felix Anthony, Maika Namudu and 'two  (unnamed) politicians.' The blogs reported that Anthony and Namudu were beaten up and required hospital treatment. This was followed by the Sam Speight and  Apisai Tawake stories that were taken up in interviews by ABC's Pacific Beat interviewer Bruce Hill. Both admitted to what would be seen as anti-government activities and both claimed ill treatment.

More puzzling is last Wednesday's  story that three high ranking military officers who supported the 2006 coup — Ratu David Mara, Pita Driti and Mohammed Aziz — have been arrested on the strength of a story by conman Ben Padarath who claimed to have evidence that they had approached the President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau to replace Bainimarama. It appears that there is an investigation into an attempt to remove the government last year but it is not clear who is suspected. No one has been charged with anything so I assume the police  are still investigating.

No doubt the truth or otherwise of these stories will eventually  be revealed. I shall reserve fuller comment until more is known.  For the moment I'll restrict my comments to general remarks on the detentions, the Speight detention, and the reporting of the detentions, most especially by Amnesty International NZ.

On Detentions 

The Public Emergency Regulations (PER) give the police and military extra-ordinary powers  that include the arrest and detention of anyone suspected of threatening public security and anti-government activities.  I have previously argued that unless there is a genuine threat to public order, PER should be lifted, and other measures taken to maintain public order. There seems little doubt that a primary purpose of PER is intimidatory; a simple way to prevent the mobilisation of anti-government elements.

But there really could be very real threats to public order (if the anti-government bloggers are to be believed), and for this reason the continuation of PER may be necessary. No government anywhere would leave itself unprotected when its opponents have threatened violence and targeted assassinations.  But this does not mean that detentions should be unregulated, and the methods of interrogations left to the whims of individual officers.

The military seems to have assumed the role of political police, leaving the police force to deal with ordinary civil offences. From what one can gather, most of those detained have probably breached the emergency regulations. If this is so, their detention is understandable and acceptable. Several aspects of the detentions, however, are not acceptable because they breach minimal standards of justice for the persons interrogated and because they inevitably backfire on Government, making many doubt its sincerity of working towards a better Fiji.

To protect the individual and the state, standards similar to those listed below should be implemented:

1. Initial interrogations must take place at a police station and the detention, its cause and the names of all parties involved, must be recorded. Only in extreme cases should subsequent interrogations take place at a military barracks;
2. Those interrogated must be formally charged if they are detained for more than 24 hours, or if they are taken to a military barracks, and they must be able to inform their kin of their whereabouts;
3. All interrogations must be witnessed by an independent and respected observer who does not belong to the military or the police, such as a lawyer, religious official, senior teacher or NGO leader. The names of witnesses should be recorded;
4. Details of all detentions must be reported to the Chief Justice (or his nominee), and his advice taken on appropriate legal action;
5. No detainee should be physically manhandled;
6. The physical condition of released detainees  should be certified by a qualified medical practitioner;
7. Detainees must have the power of legal redress if any of these conditions are not observed;
8. The media or any other interested party has the right to enquire into and report on detainments if they have first sought the advice of the Chief Justice's office and if they comply in full with the conditions of the Media Decree.

Ardent government supporters may think these conditions overly favour detainees. I would argue that the absence of such conditions plays into the hands of those opposing government, and that adherence to these guidelines and greater transparency will win support for Government.

The Detention of Sam Speight

Sam Speight Junior, alias Samasoni Tikonisau, is the brother of George Speight who was the frontsman  for the 2000 coup that overthrew the elected FLP-led government of Mahendra Chaudhry. He was also a cabinet minister in Laisenia Qarase's SDL government, and a supporter if not a member of the extremist (and racist) CAMV party that dissolved to form part of that government.

He was detained at the SDL headquarters in downtown Suva by the military on the evening of Monday 21 February, taken to Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Nabua, interrogated at 3am Wednesday morning, when he was allegedly severely beaten up,  and released on Thursday at 10:30 pm when he walked to the CWM Hospital for treatment. On Friday he flew to Brisbane, received further medical treatment, and was interviewed by ABC's Pacific Beat radio journalist Bruce Hill at 5:34 pm EST the same day. Hill's interview (click here) would appear to be the most reliable source of events. Other reports include the anti-government blog Fiji Today, Radio New Zealand   and the Australian Network News  all of which report Amnesty International NZ's reaction to the Speight detention. There has been no mention of the detention  by the Fiji media and governnment has apparently refused comment.

Questions on the Speight Story and the role of Amnesty International NZ 

Two questions need to be asked about these events. First, how accurate are Speight's and his supporters' accounts of what happened? Secondly,what steps did Amnesty International NZ take to ensure their accuracy before condemning the military's alleged actions?

First, the Speight interview and other reports.  There would appear to be a number of inconsistencies in these reports.  Speight told Bruce Hill that he was detained because of a DVD found at the SDL office made by the "freedom community in Australia"" (Tui Savu's Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement.)  Speight said the  DVD was received in December last year, and it concerned "truths" leading up to and around the time of the Bainimarama coup in 2006.  Speight said he'd helped to distribute the DVD, which is in Fijian, to rural Fijian villages, but he claimed to be unclear of its contents, which seems strange, and he also said he was unclear how he had broken the PER regulations by distributing the DVD, which is stranger still.  Others say the DVD revealed far more recent "truths" about the Bainimarama government than the events of  2006. Given the difficulty in keeping any major happening a secret in Fiji, it is also strange that Government remained unaware of the widely-distributed DVD for nearly two months.

It would seem Speight was first interrogated on Wednesday at 3am, two days after his detention (although this is not altogether clear from what he told Hill) when he  said "they took me from the cell, got me to crawl and into the interrogating room and tactics were used to kind of extract information further regarding the disk." Asked about the extent of his injuries, he said, "Well, basically bruising to the face and all that and swelling on my head and on sprained fingers which they tried to sort of bend back to get information, use of the pain and overall body aches and all of that, yeah." I do not dispute the likelihood that he was assaulted but his account is surprisingly vague on the "tactics" used given that Amnesty International claims he was repeatedly "beaten until he lost consciousness" and others claim he was "kicked and beaten with rifle butts."  Why did Speight not provide these important details in the Hill interview, and where, if not from Speight,  did others obtain these stories?

Events following his release at 10.30pm on Wednesday also raise questions. Why did he walk to the CWM Hospital instead of taking a taxi home or to the hospital? How could a severely injured man (who later, we are told, needed urgent medical treatment in Australia) walk five kilometres at night time to the hospital?  Why did his relatives not have him inspected by a medical doctor to assess and record the extent of his injuries?  Was he whisked so quickly to Australia  for his personal safety and for medical treatment, as is claimed, or were there other reasons? What further treatment was needed in Brisbane? And why in Suva or Brisbane was he not photographed to provide evidence of his ill-treatment? In the absence of medical information from Suva or Brisbane, or photographs of his injuries, his story will be seen by many as politically motivated exaggeration.

This brings up an equally important question: the role of Amnesty international NZ in disseminating information and protesting his detention and treatment. Most people see AI as an independent  and outspoken critic of political torture and abuse by oppressive governments worldwide. With their endorsement, Speight's story will be taken by many as fact.

But where, and from whom, did they obtain their facts of  his "severe beatings amounting to torture"? Did they talk with Speight? Did they listen to his Hill interview? Did they check with their Fiji counterpart organization? Did they ask whether his story or, more likely, the story relayed to them by his family and SDL supporters,  could be politically motivated,  as Hill did? What measures did they take to ensure its accuracy? Did they consult several sources to cross-check for inconsistencies? Why did they report the story they were told without questioning its plausibility, imprecisions, inconsistencies and likely motivation?

I am saddened to say that this is not the first time Amnesty International NZ  has jumped in to take a partisan stance on Fiji. We know some things in Fiji are not as we might hope but their accusations would be more believable if they were less dramatically expressed  and if they had provided some verifiable evidence to support their allegations.  They should at least have had the honesty to say their sources were anti-government bloggers and similar-minded "activists."

Amnesty International NZ has called on the Fiji government to:

• Immediately stop the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of critics and activists;
• Immediately initiate an independent impartial investigation into the arbitrary detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Sam Speight and others, and ensure that those military officers suspected of involvement in these acts, irrespective of rank, are brought to justice;
• Immediately suspend the Public Emergency Regulations;
• End the censorship of the media;
• Ensure that freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are respected.

Reasonable as these demands may be in ordinary circumstances, Amnesty International needs to recognize that Fiji's current circumstances are not ordinary. Most of the people they cast as villains seek a fairer Fiji stripped of its institutional racism and many of those they rush to protect have far less worthy intentions.  The Fiji situation is volatile. The people detained are few. They are political detentions. The beatings cannot be condoned but beatings have long been used in interrogations in Fiji, and they fall far short of what would usually be considered as torture.

Suva is not Naypyidaw, Yangon or Pyongyang but neither is it Wellington, Christchurch or Auckland.  A slower, more cautious and less hysterical response from this otherwise reputable organization is very much needed.

Australian's What Ifs, Christchurch Earthquake, USP's Confucius Institute, Yabaki in NZ, Treason Trail Continues

N0150. AUSTRALIA'S SPINNING JENNY. I suppose it was inevitable that someone would look for parallels between events in Egypt and Fiji and I shouldn't be too surprised that Lowy Institute's Jenny Hayward-Jones has taken the bait.

 She has the good sense to note that the two countries have "little in common" other than the role of the military but then couldn't stop herself from wondering about  the possibility of "a similar popular protest in Fiji." She  went on to wonder why there hasn't been a popular uprising, and then wondered what would have happened if there was.

She doubted the army would "fire on the people" but they could use "intimidatory tactics."  And if the protest persisted, she wondered whether Cde Bainimarama "would attempt to stare the people down and assure them that he, and he alone, can maintain stability in the country and must be allowed time to enact his reforms to build a better Fiji."

This is all wonder-full poppycock and nonsense that displays how little the Lowy Institute's Melanesian expert knows about Fiji but she does provide one interesting insight, and theree's no more wondering:"The Australian Government would find it all but impossible to restrain from encouraging the demands of the Fiji people for democracy." But she offers little light on what Australia might do that it is not already doing. 

How any intelligent, responsible person can possibly think such outpourings are helpful to the Fiji situation at this time defies explanation.  But they will be lapped up anti-government people and splashed all over their blogs.

More importantly, it may also influence those in the Bainimarama government who want to maintain the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) to extend them further.  With an already hypersensitive military-led government reacting too often to any suggestion of opposition, Hayward-Jones's wonderings can only make life more difficult for those seeking to make helpful criticisms and an accelerated agenda leading to constitutional and electoral reforms, and elections no later than 2014. She should wonder on that.  -- Crosbie Walsh.

N0151. CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE. Fiji has joined other countries in expressing support for NZ in the wake of Christchuch's second devastating earthquake. In letter the NZ Prime Minister John Key, Cde Bainimarama  said he was "shocked and saddened at the loss of precious lives and damage to property caused by the disastrous earthquake that struck Christchurch again. Our hearts go out to the affected people. We share with the Government and the people of New Zealand, the distress and sorrow, in these challenging times.”

“On behalf of the people and the Government of Fiji and on my own behalf, I would like to convey our heartfelt condolence to the bereaved families and all those who have been affected by the terrible natural calamity.”   He has offered Fiji's help in any way NZ thinks appropriate. -- Based on No:0463/MOI.

N0152. ANOTHER CHINA LINK. USP has signed an MOU to establish a Confucius Institute that will teach Mandarin and Chinese culture.  It is expected to be operational by the end of the year.

N0153. CITIZENS' CONSTUTIONAL FORUM CEO Rev Akuila Yabaki was in Wellington and Auckland during the week, when he held talks with interested groups. I hope to publish his paper "Fiji 2011: Critical Engagement and Future Scenarios" soon.

N0154. TREASON TRIAL CONTINUES. This is the link to Wednesday's and Thursday's proceedings. And Friday's. Mutiny leader can't remember.

Minerva Reef: Media and Expert's Unbelievable Nonsense

N0131. MINERVA REEF.  If you've read Olaf Ruhen's book by the same name you'll know that 40 years ago a Tongan boat, the Tuaikapau on the way to Gisborne, NZ, was wrecked on the reef.

The crew spent over a year living (and some died)  in a wrecked Japanese fishing boat, the only area above sea level at high tide. They waited for rescue that never came and their families in Tonga, believing them dead, held funeral services for each of them.

Giving up hope of rescue the crew built a small outrigger canoe from timbers in the wreck, named it Malo e Lelei, and three of them — the captain, his son, and a crew member —  sailed it to Kadavu, south of Viti Levu,  where they had to abandon it and swim for shore. Inside the reef the son told his father he could go no further. They held each other, prayed, and the son drowned.

Theirs is the  incredible story of courage, survival and faith that is echoed many times over in stories of how Pacific Islanders have survived in what to others would seem impossible circumstances.

I was living in Tonga when a RNZAF flying boat brought the survivors home. Almost everyone on Tongatapu turned out to welcome them. Some had to be carried ashore and most were skin and bones. They were taken to Vaiola Hospital to recover and, I suspect, to delay the feasts that their stomachs could not handle after a year eating only what they could gather on the reef.  These days, when up to 400 yachts visit or pass close to the reef every year,  they would have rescued more quickly.

Minerva Reef is in the news again because both Fiji and Tonga claim ownership and, predictably, the media and blogs have used the claims to build imaginary tensions between the two countries.  Dr Rod Alley from Wellington's  Centre for Strategic Studies  claimed Fiji was using this dispute to “flex their muscles” and “to show their neighbours… that Fiji can stand in its own corner and declare its interests.” 

This really is unbelievable nonsense denied by both countries. Samiu Vaipulu, Tonga's Deputy PM, has advised yachties to avoid the reef until the ownership situation is resolved. Solo Mara, Fiji's Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary, says "there is no ‘conflict’ between Tonga and Fiji as alluded to in media reports overseas.”

“What we have are overlapping claims in our maritime boundaries in the South, which is now a subject of negotiation after both countries have submitted claims for an extended continental shelf beyond the 200 mile Exclusive Economy Zone (as provided for under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS].” 

Mr Mara went on to say that this is not an extra-ordinary event as we also have overlapping claims with New Zealand in the same area in our Southern waters.


 He said situation was nothing as reported in the media and Fiji and Tongan officials will meet later this year to negotiate the delimitation of our maritime boundaries as mandated by UNCLOS.

 “We will be doing the same with Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu,” Mr Mara said. -- Based partly on No:0366/MFA.

Blog Reports on Typhoid and the Denarau Decree

NEW QUOTE FOR THE WEEK in the right sidebar.
N0128.
Photo: Denarau Marina.

Line up of three Blogs. Thank goodness for FijiToday.It is now the only reasonable anti-government blog.  Coupfourpointfive once shared this honour before it became a factory for churning out venom and false rumours.

The typical FijiToday article contains its political message in the title; the article itself is usually published unedited and the source acknowledged. My typical article relies less on the heading for its political message which is embedded in a precis of the original article, with source acknowledged. Both approaches are honest in that they are clearly opinions and not news.  This was my gripe with a recent Michael Field article on the FRU crisis (see N0116). Opinion masqueraded as news, and was therefore dishonest.

Typhoid Outbreak — Remember Michael Field

A recent article by FijiToday complained about the delayed information on a typhoid outbreak in Upper Naitasiri. I find nothing unusual about this. There are typhoid cases and minor localised outbreaks every year in Fiji and I do not recall much prominence being given to them when I lived in Fiji in the 1970s and 1990s. But if things have changed FijiToday has a point.  FijiToday's political point was the delay in confirming the rumour.  But the blog hastened to add: "FijiToday wishes to point out that the reported outbreak is well outside the normal tourist area and unless it spreads is no threat to tourists." Compare this with Michael Field and Barbara Dreavers' coverage of last year's outbreak in inland Navosa where they had tourists believing the outbreak was in the main tourist area and it was unsafe to visit Fiji.   Who says blogs are less reliable than the mainstream media!

The Denarau Decree

However,  FijiToday is not quite as honest in an article on the The Denarau (Nadi River) Development Decree 2011.  But it erred with a sin of omission, not commission.  It was not what they said, but what they left out.

Denarau is without doubt the most developed of the tourist attractions in the West. Built on a large area of reclaimed and channelised mangrove swamp, it is close to Nadi International Airport, has a mix of luxurious to not quite so luxurious accommodation (Hilton, Westin, Sheraton,Sofitel, and more), swimming pools galore, a world class golf course, massage facilities and spas, and an extensive shopping complex.  But the area that is the concern of the Decree involve the marina, that provides services to visiting yachtsmen and transfers to tourist island in the Mamanuca and Yawasa Islands to the north of Nadi. 

FijiToday reported that one company, Ports Denarau Marina Limited, had been given a 20 year exclusive licence in 2000 of about 26 hectares for an annual rental of $400 "in return for extensive dredging and development of what was then a swamp. The licence was cancelled without warning or compensation. No legal challenge was allowed. Announced today but came into force yesterday. The Decree vests absolutely in the Director of Lands any existing interest in the channel. Any person who obstructs or prevents any person from accessing or using the channel, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and/or imprisonment.

What FijiToday did not report, that was also in  the Government release was that the purpose of the decree was "to liberalise access to and use of the Nadi River channel for the public of Fiji for the purposes of tourism, recreation or personal as well as commercial use," and that the Company had been demanding that all persons, including all owners and operators of vessels, payment for access and use of the channel. Complaints from other users and the importance of the channel for the tourism industry were the reasons for the Decree. I presume the fees collected by the company since 2000 was considered sufficient compensation.

Foreshore for All

Readers will remember Bainimarama's opposition to the Qoliqoli Bill that would have given individual vanua exclusive rights over the foreshore was a major reason for the Coup. Free access to the Denarau Channel is entirely consistent with opposition to the Qoliqoli Bill and the liberalisation of all surfing areas by the Regulation of Surfing Areas Decree last year.  FijiToday focused on the loss to the Company and gave no reason for Government's action.
-- Crosbie Walsh

Re-Ploughing the Muck in the Same Field

N0116.

By Crosbie Walsh

What veteran journalist Michael Field (photo) can't teach you about reporting on Fiji isn't worth knowing. Take his latest Sunday Star-Times article on the Fiji Rugby Union crisis, Fiji Leader Doesn't Care for NZ. It's 282 words long and has 82 words of new information. Most of the rest was published last week by the the same journalist in the same weekly paper.

First, we need to look at the heading because it gets the message across even to those who don't read the article. It says Bainimarama doesn't like us and we reply: Up yours! We don't like you either. It's a good way to get readers tuned in to what you want them to believe, even if it was not quite what Bainimarama said. 
 
Then, it's important to typecast the main actors so that readers are left in no doubt about who the baddies are. Bainimarama, of course, is the “Fiji coup leader.” He's the guy we usually see on TV in his unchanged military uniform. And another key actor is “his brother-in-law Francis Kean, a convicted killer.” No explanation, just a convicted killer which would leave readers unfamiliar with the case wondering whether it was a brutal and gruesome murder or an unintentional manslaughter. It was the latter. Kean was convicted by the court and served part of his prison sentence. I agree with others that he should have served all his sentence, but a “convicted killer” of the type wishfully projected by Field he was not.
 
Now, having got the readers well primed, we can start on the supposed scheming by these villains. Bainimarama and Kean are “taking over the union to secure VIP access [to the Rugby World Cup in NZ], guaranteed under the hosting agreement.” 
 
Actually, Kean's name has been put forward unopposed for chairman of the union and it is possible that Bainimarama, a former president, may again become president, but this has nothing to do with supposed freebees to the World Cup. Both are military men on the NZ travel bans and, as Minister McCully repeated, they will not be allowed to come to NZ. Bainimarama and Kean would not be seeking freebees they knew they could not collect. 
 
McCully had been sought out by the media to comment on the story the media had created: that Bainimarama wanted to come to NZ. And Bainimarama's response was a reaction to this story. So the media got two for the price of one. A sort of double negative where no news plus no news equals news. A mountain had been made out of two non-existent molehills. 
 
Finally, all we need to do now is to stretch a fact or two. So, the two International Rugby Board representatives were in Suva last week to tell Fiji its membership “would be further at risk if the union bowed to the regime and dumped its board for state-supported appointees.”

This is what Field said, not the IRB men. Government had said it would not release $3 million of government funding for Fiji's participation in the World Cup if the FRU Board did not resign. Government wanted their resignation because of alleged misuse of funds and a botched lottery. For Field's “state-supported appointees,” read people who were unlikely to flog further funds. For the IRB statement, read: We must be convinced the new Board is not subject to government political influence and is freely elected by the FRU's constituent members.

Stretch number two: “Bainimarama is refusing to rule out taking key union positions and his bid to get Suva Rugby Union boss Kean into the top post continues.” What this means is that Bainimarama refused to comment to a media enquiry: I don't want to say anything more at this stage. It was Field who was doing the not “ruling out.”

And stretch number three, totally unrelated the the FRU situation: “The coup leader's control over his country's sporting groups (why on earth would he want control over sporting bodies?) strengthened last month when he made his daughter the head of the state-funded Sports Council.” He did not make his daughter the head of the Sports Council. The position was advertised and the Council, not Bainimarama, decided she was the best applicant. It is, of course, possible the Council could have been influenced by the fact that she is Bainimarama's daughter, but he had no direct part in her appointment, and her qualifications for the position, which I have seen, look very credible. See my posting on this (N0097). As far as one can reasonably tell, her appointment was completely above board. 
 
The only new news in Field's re-ploughed article is that IRB-Government discussions were fruitful, that a way out of the dilemma may be to appoint a temporary administrator for Fiji, and that Fiji and Namibia's World Cup participation may also be in doubt. 
 
It seem ironic the two countries should be put together. The IRB has taken over the administration of the Namibia union amid allegations of corruption and members not being paid. In Namibia it's the union that stands accused of corruption and the IRB that's seeking a way out. In Fiji, it's also the union, or more precisely senior executives on the FRU Board, that stands accused, but it is the Bainimarama government (whose actions the IRB is questioning because of complains from those accused) that is trying to stop the corruption. Had he chosen, Field could have explored this irony. 
 
When a journalist writes a news article that so clearly intends to persuade a reader to form opinions that are propped up by leading headlines, typecasting, and unsupported and misleading “facts”, this is not news; it is opinion that editors should not allow to masquerade as news. What is admissible in an opinion piece is not admissible in a news item. My heading gives you my opinion of Michael Field's coverage of news from Fiji. He is a journalist who is now so partisan that he seems unable to report news to the standard normally considered acceptable in the industry. It is time the industry woke up.
Earlier comment on the FRU situation was made in N0069 and N0078.

Rumours, the Shopkeeper and Mary Bainimarama's One Million Dollars

N0115.
The latest story from CoupFourPointFive (citing a "source that has been reliable from the outset and is from within the military ranks") is that Renee Lal, a female lawyer accused of fraud, was "beaten about her head with a full bottle of water and that her beating was apparently organised by an army officer by the name of Ben Naliva.

"The officer is believed to be part of the illegal leader Frank Bainimarama's personal security detail. And it's claimed, as we said, that he was given $10,000 to ensure Lal got beaten.".

Saras'sista, a  commentator only too well known to readers of my blog, had this to say on CoupFourPointFive (I leave it unedited) :

"of course Croz would see nothing contradictory in the police commish demanding that police know the 2009 domestic violence decree by April, but the governments own thugs beating upa woman. No sir. For all the bleatings about how we should be nice, polite, positive and constructive, Croz is never keen to decry the appalling treatment handed out by the military before some has even been charged. Credibility anyone ??"

I'm not sure how or why  I should decry something before it is known to have happened but it should go without saying that such behaviour, if it did happen, is to be condemned, but until we have some reliable report on the incident I'll go along with the following letter about Renee Lal and rumours that was published by Fiji Today, another —but more reasonable and reliable—  anti-Government blog.

Letter to Fiji Today

"Sir, When the mainstream media cease to report or investigate anything controversial the rumour mill winds up and goes into overdrive. It is a quirk of our Fijian nature that rumours are treated as fact and passed on and added to with relish. Recently we have been hearing new rumours of beatings and unreported detentions under PER.

"One story had a shop owner at Nine Mile detained and beaten for being vocal in his opposition to the “Bainimarama Junta”.  I admit he was never slow at letting his opinion be known and his customers were under no illusions as to his opinions.  In fact I was leaning towards believing this story as he was suddenly not serving in his store and his wife was evasive on his whereabouts. 

"This story was in my mind as a fact when I ran into the gentleman concerned in Lami yesterday in the Hot Bread Shop.  He looked unmarked and greeted me effusively. I raised the story of the beating with him and he sheepishly told me he had been caught out with a neighbour’s wife and had been kicked out of home. As his wife’s relatives had financed the store he had lost that also.  His wife was obviously embarrassed and this showed as being evasive and helping the rumour along. Small facts apparently confirming the rumours become proof. No investigative reporting by the media is making “facts” out of any and all claims that manage to get into the public arena.

"We have a recent Coup 4.5 story claiming that Renee Lai was beaten by the military. While we all accept beatings have happened in the past I have problems with the idea of paying a soldier $10,000 to beat someone up. This to me sounds far fetched.

"But the part of the story that is believable to me is the use of a bottle of water as a club to beat her. This is a tactic first used in the Sinai to extract confessions without leaving visible marks on the prisoner.  Our boys from the Sinai would know of this. Small facts apparently confirming the rumours.

"We urgently need the news media to step up and investigate such rumours even if they have to report that the military refuses to answer the queries. Find the person concerned. Ask them what happened. I believe most of the rumours would go down the path of the Nine Mile shop owner and have a more mundane and  logical answer."

 Last Year's Prize Rumours

Small "facts", of course, only apparently "confirm" rumours.  Readers may  remember the rumours last year that the PM was dead (Rumours of my death are greatly exaggerated) or seriously ill, and that Public Service Permanent Secretary Parmesh Chand had resigned and Solitor-General Christopher Pryde had been sacked. I didn't comment on these rumours either, until I'd checked them out. The Permanent Secretary was still in his office and the S-G told me he was going on a short overseas trip. Yet all these rumours had been "reliably" reported by CoupFourPointFive.

But last year's top prize must surely go to another anti-government blog, Solivakasama, that reported on September 20th that PM Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum had been arrested by "some senior military officers."  They told their readers to "Watch this space."  We're still watching.

Rumours Serve Political Purpose, Need Oxygen to Live and Multiply

I agree rumours abound partly because of PER (that I also would like to see lifted) and I agree the media should verify the more serious and credible rumours, but rumours of this particular type also abound because they serve an important political purpose.

Those inventing and spreading these rumours believe the old saying: Thrown enough mud at the wall and some of it is sure to stick. They seek to distract and destabilise government, and keep alive the dwindling hopes of the government's opponents, most especially the SDL supporters of Laisenia Qarase, Ratu Naiqama and others like them.

Giving such rumours unnecessary publicity is to give them the oxygen they need to live and multiply.  So I'm no more likely to rush in to publish them than I am to publish the "reliable" rumour that Mary Bainimarama recently won a UK $1,000,000 lottery.   -- Crosbie Walsh

Why the Roadmap? The Politics under the Bridges Part III

                                               By Crosbie Walsh

Government opponents have made much of the fact that the Roadmap has not yet been published and released for pubic scrutiny, and some have doubted its existence. I have no doubt the Roadmap exists in draft form, sufficient for government planning but clearly not sufficient for release.

I suspect Government reasoning, as in all else they have done, is that the Roadmap and the Strategic Framework for Change (that also has not been published) are operational documents based on the well known principles of the People's Charter. Publication for the general public is therefore not a priority at this time. 

If this is the case, it demonstrates government's step-by-step approach to change. First, the infrastructural changes discussed in Part I, followed by the constitutional and electoral changes that require public participation and the publication, if by then if it has any residual relevance, of the Roadmap. We should know the answer by the end of this year.

The purpose of this three-part article is to set the everyday actions and statements of Government within the broad framework of the People's Charter in order to reveal the main elements of the Roadmap and their likely outcomes. Thus, in Part I we discussed the hoped for political outcomes (the “winning of hearts and minds”) of the infrastructural reforms (the politics under the bridges) and  in Part II the sorts of changes that are likely, because of perceived shortcomings in the 1997 Constitution, to be part of the constitutional reforms. 

In this, the concluding section, I itemise and comment on the likely electoral changes and their intended purposes.

Thank You, No Thank you, Ratu Naiqama; Revisiting the Lease Payment System

N0104. THANK YOU, NO THANK YOU, RATU NAIQAMA.
Coup 4.5 has released a statement from the Gone Turaga na Tui Cakau dated 3 January offering to help Government.

These extracts capture its essence:

“The Tui Cakau wants to open a dialogue with the PM to show him “the reality of what is happening in Fiji, [assist him] with an alternative set of advice from that which he is receiving at present [and impress upon him the] “the folly of disregarding the role of the Great Council of Chiefs and its role in national affairs in times of distress:- eg. 1874, 1987, 2000 and the present.” [my emphasis]

Comment

The Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, seems to think all the Cakaudrove vanua are behind him (which is certainly not so) and that the only way forward is to reconvene the Great Council of Chief, several of whose members were party to the 1987 and 2000 Coups.

The GCC was so politicised during the time of the Qarase government that it did nothing to warn against or stop the divisive and racist legislation that was a major factor in causing the Bainimarama coup. Indeed, Ratu Naiqama held several portfolios in the Qarase government including Fijian Affairs and he personally was instrumental in advancing the proposed legislation.

Ratu Naiqama was also a leader of the ultra-nationalist Conservative Alliance (Matanitu Vanua) party that included prominent Speight coup supporters and chiefs.

Its policies called for Fiji to be a declared a Christian state and for the offices of President and PM to be held solely by ethnic Fijians. Many members also thought the British government should repatriate Indo-Fijians to India!

To avoid splitting the ethnic Fijian vote (and because it was deeply in debt with legal costs arising from defence of the 2000 coup plotters), his party dissolved after the 2001 elections in which won six seats. Its more prominent members joined the Qarase's SDL party.

In 2003, while a Cabinet Minister in the SDL government, Ratu Naiqama is reported to have called for an overhaul of the country's constitutional institutions, saying that political authority should be returned to the chiefs. As a first step, he called for the abolition of Senate and its replacement by the Great Council of Chiefs.

So last month's statement is not the first time he's made the same incredible suggestion.

Ratu Naiqama is head of the Tovata Confederacy (Qarase is one of his subjects) and one of Fjii's three paramount chiefs. In early 2006 some chiefs wanted him to become President or Vice-President but the Great Council of Chiefs, wisely on this occasion,  re-elected Ratu Iloilo and Ratu Madraiwiwi.

His latest public statement should fool no one of his true intentions.

N0105. LANDOWNER PAYMENTS SYSTEM SHOULD BE RE-VISITED. Two readers have raised concerns about the NLTB new system of distributing rent money.

Rusi Baleisale says "It would not take much for each family of a tokatoka or mataqali to have a bank account for family members and this is how most landowners read Frank's [earlier] announcement. Giving a lump sum to each trustee account is only  continuing the past problems but shifting it from chiefs to trustees. Tinkering with the problem does not solve it. I already know of two trustees who are going to forward the normal percentage to their Ratu. The rest of the trust members are too timid to protest and claim their share."

Cicero raises the question of the NLTB 15% administration charge: "Can you think of anywhere at all in the world where 15% would be considered a 'reasonable' rate to deduct for admin costs? Those responsible would be sacked then and there! Outsourcing should be imperative and it should be done NOW! 3% MAXIMUM for administration. Who is creaming off this fat? It would merit a riot anywhere else.

I take back my hasty comments on this issue, apologize to Fiji Today, and urge government to address these very legitimate concerns. Why can't money be paid into family accounts, and how inefficient — or grasping — is a government rental agency that it charges this exorbitant 15% admin charge?

Why the Roadmap? The Politics under the Bridges Part II

By Crosbie Walsh

Resume. In Part I that was published last Saturday I argued that the Appeal Court ruling that overturned the High Court judgement (that the Bainimarama government was legal) was a critical turning point when Bainimarama was forced to accept that the only way to implement the principles of the People's Charter was by dictatorial rule, and to ensure their sustainability it was necessary to implement infrastructural and institutional reforms that would shift the people's allegiance from their separate ethnicities to allegiance to a Fiji shared fairly by all its citizens. The Roadmap was the result.

Have a bias toward action - let's see something happen now. You can break that big plan into small steps and take the first step right away. – Indira Gandhi.

Much of the Roadmap deals with economic issues — attracting and streamlining investment, tax reforms, the sugar, manufacturing and tourism industries, fiscal stringency and reducing the cost of government, agricultural, fishing, forestry and mining production and increasing exports and import substitution. 

Growing the economy is the platform upon which Government's other reforms depend. So far, due to a variety of local and global factors, government and Fiji's economic performance falls far short of expected and needed growth levels, and the funding of the infrastructural measures that are an essential part of the Roadmap have relied heavily on local and overseas borrowing. The seriousness of Fiji's macro-economic situation is accepted without further comment here. I wish instead to comment on infrastructural and institutional reforms because of their social and political implications.

Infrastructural and Institutional Reform until 2012

There is little doubt that physical infrastructure and institutional reforms were needed for a more integrated economy and more efficient government but their political purpose, in my view, is to produce a more integrated society where all citizens are treated fairly, irrespective of their race or location. Thus, the emphasis on rural development —the new roads, bridges and jetties, the focus on import substitution, the land bank to bring more land into production, the micro-hydros and bio-diesel schemes, the new rural classrooms and health clinics, micro-businesses for rural women, and the equal distribution of land lease rental moneys — most of which have been announced or opened with much fanfare and a visit from the Prime Minister,  are seen as ways to win the i'taueki's unquestioning support away from the traditional chiefs and church talatala so that in 2014 more people will exercise their votes independent of chief and church influence. 
 

Development projects are underway in all provinces,  but it would seem that those where the extremist CAMV political support was strongest, Upper Naitasiri/Tailevu, Bua, Macuata, Cakaudrove and Taveuni, are receiving special attention. The military leadership of the country's four Divisions and most of its provinces may add to more efficient local government but they are also another way to neutralise the old influences.

The reforms underway in the public service to downsize government, farm off state-owned enterprises and make ministries and departments more efficient and accountable through regular reports to the SFCC,  should minimise opportunities for misuse of office and petty corruption. These reforms, together with decrees making scholarships equally available to all races, the introduction of civics and financial management education in schools, the removal of race-based school names, and the decree that makes all Fiji citizens Fijians, have, I think, wide support among educated urban people of all races whose main complaint against government is not with what government is doing but with the fact that they have no say in the decision-making and limited opportunity, because of the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) and the Media Decree, to discuss what is happening.

Other Government policies are also likely to have won support among ordinary urban people. These include lifting taxable incomes from $9,000 to $15,000, the exclusion of basic foodstuff from VAT, concerted moves to improve access to low cost housing, the upgrading of urban squatter settlements, moves to introduce a minimum wage, and various other anti-poverty measures such as increased and wider benefit payments, and for those eligible, free or subsidized transport, free textbooks and school fees. Work to reduce corruption is ongoing. No major heist has been revealed but the exposure of those caught with their hands in the kitty, better auditing and better police work must be having made some impact. 

Other measures include: 

The Media Decree, much maligned by overseas media, contains a code of ethics and a mechanism for complaints. The old Media Council lacked the teeth to introduce these long overdue changes. For the present, media freedom is limited but I would expect the situation to slowly improve after 2012, and in the longer term the Media Decree will serve the country well. 

The Legal Practitioners Decree is a welcome improvement. Mechanisms are now in place for criticism and complaints that were previously lacking. Many would also approve the prison reforms with their greater emphasis on education, rehabilitation and non-reoffending. Considerably more attention has also been given to women, domestic violence, child labour and sexual offences. The list could go on but I think this is sufficient to indicate government concerns about important social issues that are likely to win it support for its constitutional and electoral reforms. 

A dictatorship Fiji definitely is, but it is quite unlike the dictatorships of Burma and North Korea that its detractors would have us believe, and is more akin to Singapore whose advice has already influenced its policies and may continue to be a model for the future.

Constitutional Reform 2012

We are now [2011] into the last year of economic development. Next year our whole focus 

goes on governance. – Pio Tikoduadua, Permanent Secretary, PM's Office

What these reforms will be and how inclusive dialogue will be leading to their formulation is, of course, unknown but there have been some strong indicators. If we start from what Government might think is wrong with the old constitution, we should not be too far wrong. 

First, the electoral system was enshrined in the constitution making even small amendments a major task. I think only the broad principles of the proposed new electoral system —non-ethnic voting, equal franchise and proportional representation—will be enshrined in the new constitution. Amendments to the electoral law will be made by Parliament or possibly by a popular referendum.  I will discuss these issues more fully next week.

 

Secondly, the old constitution gave special powers to the Great Council of Chiefs and the Fiji Law Society. The GCC could veto the Prime minister's nomination for President and it could —and did— veto its nomination for Vice-President. The new GCC role is likely to be limited to providing advice to Government on matters concerning i'taukei culture and custom. The Fiji Law Society will have no special role. 

Thirdly, the powers and method of appointment of the President will be revisited. Fiji may decide to move away from the Westminster system that limits the authority of the Head of State and move more towards other models. The least we can expect is an increase of his “emergency” powers. The presidency will be open to all races. 

Fourthly, the above changes will necessitate changes in the authority of Parliament, the governing party and, more specifically, the Prime Minister. It seems unlikely these powers will be increased without new checks and balances. I would expect Government to seek the advice of the local legal fraternity and overseas constitutional lawyers on what they should be. 

Fifthly, the new constitution will almost certainly spell out the role of the military in upholding the principles of the People's Charter. This is a contentious issue with some inherent dangers but it is most unlikely Bainimarama and the Military Council will order a “return to the barracks” unless they are empowered to protect the Constitution, which will embed the principles of the Charter. 

A New Role for Senate?

The old constitution gave Fiji a bicameral parliament. Government has already indicated it may  seek the abolition of Senate, probably because they associate it with the Great Council of Chiefs and the manipulations of the former adversarial parliament system. In my opinion, Senate should not be abolished until its possible complementary roles are fully examined. 

Senate should, in my opinion, have no (or very limited) political powers but wide advisory functions with extensive ad hoc sub-committees. It could, for example, include professional experts and representatives of business, the trade unions, tertiary education institutions, and the different professions. Temporary, rotating or permanent places could be set aside for youth, women's organizations, the disabled, disadvantaged minorities, and small ethnic groups such as Rotumans, Kai Solomoni, Banabans and Tuvaluans. There could be a permanent sub-committee representing the major religious affiliations. 

The possibilities are endless but an advisory body of civilians and civilian organizations would, I think, made for better government than a parliament consisting of only one chamber. Members of Senate and its sub-committees should receive a per diem but only to cover their actual travel, accommodation and incidental expenses.

Overseas governments have insisted on inclusive dialogue involving the 2006 political parties. I think dialogue will be representative and reasonably inclusive but it is unlikely to include leaders of the political parties, least of all Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudhry, unless in exchange overseas governments offer the Bainimarama government incentives it cannot afford to decline. Qarase is on record saying he opposes the People's Charter and saw no reason to change Fiji's communal electoral system for years come. Given that the Charter and electoral reform are at the centre of Government policies, all he could do would be to play fool's advocate.

The series will conclude next Saturday.

Why the Roadmap? The Politics under the Bridges Part I

By Crosbie Walsh

The Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development 2009-2014 was approved by Cabinet not long after the Abrogation of the 1997 Constitition in April 2009 and I think the two events were related. 

The 2009 Roadmap, however, was not Fiji's first. A Roadmap for the Return to Parliamentary Democracy was announced by Bainimarama in February 2007, barely two months after the December 2006 Coup. This earlier Roadmap focused on economic recovery, stabilising government finances, keeping national debt within 2% of GDP, restructuring the the sugar industry, reviving tourism and proper land use planning, resolving the land lease issue, creating more jobs, better incomes and less poverty. Some progress was made on the land and leases issue but few if any of the other goals were achieved. Government had underestimated the difficulties, made no allowance for the negative effects of the Coup (which saw aid and loan moneys dry up and key civilians unwilling to take up senior positions); disastrous floods and a hurricane, and the Global Recession, and overestimated their ability to “go it alone.”

When is an Indian Not an Indian

By Crosbie Walsh 

(a Causasian, once English New Zealander with Maori, Pacific and Indian overlays) 

Note: editorial changes have been made to this article since it was first posted.

The Bainimarama government recently decreed that all Fiji citizens would be known as Fijian and ethnic Fijians as i'taukei.  The move, in line with Pillar 2 of the People's Charter*, which is intended to help nation-building, was understandably objected to by many "Fijians," not because they were not i'taukei — which they demonstrably are — but because they had got used to this name, bestowed on them by Tongans, as exclusively theirs. All other citizens, excepting Rotumans,  were vulagi (visitors) no matter how long their ancestors had lived in Fiji. 

Jone Baledrokadroka's Ideas on Legitimacy, Negotiation and Mediation

Opinion by Crosbie Walsh

Photo: Jone Baledrokadroka.

 I quote Jone Baledrokadroka, a former senior RFMF officer now living in Canberra with a scholarship to ANU, writing in CoupFourPointFive:

The Tongan Elections

by Crosbie Walsh

When I lived in Tonga nearly 50 years ago, parliament comprised 7 nobles representing 33 nobles,  7 elected commoners representing about 25-30,000 adults, and a Cabinet of 8 which including the Prime Minister, appointed by the much loved Queen Salote.

I doubt many people were concerned about this inequality.  Nuku'alofa was barely urban. There was little industry or commerce. Most people were subsistence or semi-subsistence farmers. Few Tongans had been educated overseas and overseas communities were small.  There was a weekly Heron flight to Fiji but most overseas travel was by the Tofua or Hifofua that took five days to get to New Zealand.  There was a weekly foolscap-size government broadsheet but no newspapers and one government-owned radio station.

Race, Racism and the 2014 Election

By Crosbie Walsh

In the relatively moderate anti-government blog FijiToday a Pita Massam writes to publisher Peter Firkin  raising interesting questions on race, racism, legislation and the 2014 elections.

Pita writes about an IndoFijjian business friend who says he can think of no one who would be acceptable to both i'taukei and IndoFijians as prime minister. "Both Qarase and Chaudry are way too polarised to be allowed to stand and the PM has promised to exclude them anyway."

Further, his friend doubts any "village Fijian would vote for a “Mongoose” and that is 30% of the total vote. No Settlement Indian would vote for a “Tu” and that is 18% of the population."

"He proposes a question to ask to gauge the level of racism bred into the current population. Would you be happy if your daughter married a Fijian or Indian? He believes that an almost 100% of parents would say “no way.” This will not change in the six years as proposed by the current Government. So if we do get to have an election in 2014 it is impossible that it will be non racial and even the most non political Indians see themselves worse off than before 2006."

The friend thinks "that the current administration has the right policies about non-racial schooling and the next generation is the first opportunity for advances towards a non-racial society [but] irrespective of what dreams the current administration has, racism is way too alive and well in Fiji and the majority Fijian vote will own the next parliament."

Many people probably share these views. At first glance, they seem so obvious but a closer examination is needed. First, it is important not to confuse race with racism. There's no way any legislation anywhere will be able to change people's race, so to this extent the 2014 elections will not be non-racial. But society can put structures in place to reduce hostility and suspicion between races and take actions against institutional racism.  Individuals and groups, of course, may still be racist but the opportunities to treat other races unfairly or unjustly will be very limited by removing institutional racist structures. It is important not to confuse individual or group racism with institutional racism.

Of course, parents may still prefer their children to marry within their own race, or religion or social class. This is entirely natural, but it is only racism when the parents seek to prevent marriage to an otherwise suitable son- or daughter-in-law because of their hatred towards or unreasonable suspicion of the "other" race. And voting for an MP is nowhere near as intimate or permanent as choosing a marriage partner!

Pita's friend correctly says racism is alive and well in Fiji and cannot be "killed by legislation." But institutional racism can be killed and race relations improved.

The next four years, with ongoing institutional and infrastructural reforms, the new Constitution and Electoral reforms, should see Fiji go a long way to ensuring that race is pushed to the sidelines of  politics, and that when the election is held parties will be formed around policies and issues, not race.

Most MPs, the PM and the President after 2014  will probably be i'taukei simple because most people in Fiji are i'taukei. This should not be an issue, but if it is, the Deputy PM and Vice-President could represent other races. The bigger parties at least will be multi-ethnic, and structures will be in place to prevent a return to the race-based and often racist politics and legislation of Fiji before the 2006 Coup. Among most educated people, the race of the country's leaders will be far less important than the quality of their leadership. And given more time, most people will think the same. "By their deeds [and not their faces] ye shall know them."

There is, of course, always some doubt about future outcomes. None of us can predict the future. But if Peter, Pita and his IndoFijian friend want the kind of Fiji I think they want, I'm sure their best option is to keep the Bainimarama regime — for all its many warts and imperfections —  honest to the principles of the People's Charter and on track to elections in 2014. The alternative, the so-called "return to democracy,"  proclaimed by the racists in the extreme anti-government blogs is too frightening to think about.