Obituary: Susan Parkinson

Susan Parkinson OBE, OF 

July 26, 1920 – October 7, 2012

By Matt Wilson  

Susan Parkinson, celebrated South Pacific nutritionist and a pioneer of women’s rights in Fiji died in Suva on Sunday October 7, 2012, after a short illness. She was 92.

Ms Parkinson was brought up on her family’s sheep farm, Te Hopai, in New Zealand’s Wairarapa Valley with her late younger sister Betty. Their father, Edward Carlton Homes, formerly of\ Matahiwi near Masterton, was a leading figure in the community. He had strong links with local Maori as a benefactor and friend.

Young Susan’s future seemed to point in one direction. She would become a farmer’s wife and raise sturdy children who would continue in the agrarian traditions of the Holmes family. But she had other ideas.  Susan said she had no desire for what she described as routine domestic life. She was interested in science and wanted to attend university.

When she was 21 she graduated from Otago University with a diploma in home science. She then became food supervisor at Masterton Hospital before completing studies as a dietician student at Wellington Hospital.

It was the start of a stellar career that would take her round the world and bring her to Fiji and the
Island nations of the South Pacific. Fiji would be her home for 62 years.

She became the acknowledged regional authority on food and nutrition preaching the gospel of healthy balanced diets, based on local foods. Susan saw that this was critical for avoiding the lifestyle diseases that would inevitably accompany the growth of consumerism.

She wrote and taught on dietary issues, visited remote villages, made numerous radio broadcasts, delivered lectures and contributed to columns in the Fiji Times. Her cookery book series, A Taste of the Tropics (later Taste of the Pacific), is widely acclaimed.

Susan won many accolades and awards. She was a leading figure in the inauguration and
development of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) of Fiji, and the Fiji Women’s
Rights Movement (FWRM).

In those early days in New Zealand, as Susan was preparing to spread her wings, her gaze turned to Great Britain, the land of her ancestors. So she boarded a ship and was UK-bound. In 1946 she began dietary work at Leeds Infirmary in the North of England and then joined the Ministry of Food in London.

She qualified for an international scholarship that took her to Cornell University in the United States to study for a Masters Degree in Public Health and Nutrition. Her thesis was on the nutritional trends among Navajo native Americans living on an arid reservation in Arizona. This gave her an acute awareness of the dangers of rapidly changing diet amongst indigenous people and the need to combine the study of anthropology with public health.

Based on her unique background she was recruited to become the first nutritionist to be employed by the colonial era South Pacific Health Service headquartered in Suva.

For four years she traveled to regional countries studying and surveying food and nutrition issues in villages, schools, hospitals and other institutions. She developed educational material and specific programmes to promote healthy eating.

 The emphasis of her efforts was often on infant and maternal nutrition

 Susan traveled regularly by boat and canoe, and on foot and horseback where there were no roads. Later she said these were among her happiest times.

In 1956, in Suva, Susan married Ray Parkinson, from Melbourne, the Fiji government statistician.
He passed away suddenly in 1969. Susan endowed the Ray Parkinson Lectures at the University
of the South Pacific in his memory.

The new Mrs Parkinson had become a lecturer at the Fiji School of Medicine (FSM) where she
developed dietetic and public health nutrition training. A Parkinson diploma course for medical,
nursing and agricultural students may have been a first for developing countries.

Susan resigned from the FSM in 1972 to take on voluntary work with a wide range of organisations, and was closely involved in the formation of the Fiji National Nutrition Committee. The Committee convinced the Fiji Government of the  importance of nutrition in national development. This led to the adoption of a food and nutrition policy. It was in this phase of her  career that Susan wrote and published her first handbook on nutrition for the Pacific Islands. There have been a number of editions. It is still in use as important reference.

 In the 1980s Susan conducted research, in association with the University of the South Pacific, into traditional uses and preservation methods for staple crops. This attracted great interest at the 1989 Seventh World Congress of Food Science and Technology.

Susan was a shrewd and sometimes critical observer of the colonial system. One of her more caustic comments from her correspondence reads: “One gets very tired of the English civil servants whose only ambition is to do the right thing socially and politically in order to get promotion in another colony. One has the feeling that many of these people have not much interest in the ultimate future of Fiji.”

Susan’s experiences in colonial Fiji sparked her interest in feminism. She wrote that neither the social or professional systems of the time knew where to place her because she was not a nurse or a teacher.

Among the medical profession and agriculturalists,  she said, there were a few men with postgraduate degrees. They mostly belonged to The Fiji Society that had a membership of elite male scientists. “It was at this stage,” she wrote, “that I became a feminist and stormed the Society!”

For many years she was a trustee of the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement that used her home in
Vuya Road for their early meetings.

Susan earned awards and recognition for her career accomplishments from the Commonwealth
Foundation and the Asia Pacific Clinical Nutrition Society.

She was made a member of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and the Order of Fiji (OF), and
received an Honorary Degree from the University of the South Pacific.

For over 50 years, Susan lived in her beautiful Vuya Road home. The carefully tended fertile
gardens, and her pets, were an important part of her life.

 “Marama” as she was known in the neighborhood, was a great supporter of the many
educational institutions based close by, including  the Pacific Theological College.  She also
helped a number of community organisations, particularly the SPCA.  She was an instinctive
environmentalist with an intense dislike of litter.

Susan leaves a son William, daughter-in-law Sufi and grandchildren Farah and Shavez, as well
as many relatives in New Zealand and Australia.
__________________

The Mahatma and Wadan Narsey

Wadan Narsey was invited by the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School to address pupils on  Mahatma Gandhi Day. Click this link to read what he said.

The invitation to be chief guest came from  Kamlesh Kumar, the President of the Gujarat Education Society, and Kailash Rajput, the MGM Principal.

Graham Davis takes Wadan to task for using a school assembly to advance his own political ideas
# HIJACKING THE MAHATMA

In one of his several comments to Graham's posting, former Fiji resident Charlie Charters says Government does it all the time.  I think he's wrong, The intrinsic nature of what Government speakers and Wadan say differs.

As for Wadan's address, I'm not altogether convinced by Graham's argument  but there were times in his address when he crossed the line from a broad ranging address to making a political statement. Given the political division in Fiji, presumably replicated among MGM parents, a  captive audience of 14 to 17-year olds would seem to be an inappropriate forum.

Wadan is an old boy of the school and a Gujerati. In "normal" times he would be an obvious choice as chief speaker on Mahatma Gandhi Day. But in today's Fiji one has to wonder whether his selection  as the chief speaker by the Gujerati Education Society was  itself a political statement.

Knowing Wadan as they do, they must have known  the sort of things he would  say.

Confusion Still Reigns on Merits of Christian State

 Labasa Methodist Minister Rev Savirio Vuata continued the misunderstandings on the merits of Fiji as a Christian state in his submission to the Constitution Commission in Labasa last  week.

He said a Christian State  would "remind all the people of Fiji, especially the Christian denominations, of how the Christian missionaries brought 'light and life' during the ages of cannibalism." The early missionaries not only brought Christian principles but also trade and jobs. "People should also be informed of the importance of Christianity and at the same time be reminded of the privileges it offers to all the different races to live in harmony."

The Rev. Vuata said there should also be a Remembrance Day set aside to commemorate the arrival of Christianity into the nation.

"If we want the favour and blessings of the Almighty, we must be reminded that Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship we have with God. "We might do whatever we want with religion but to interfere with Christianity is affecting the relationship with the Almighty and this will be the main cause of instability in our nation not only today but also in the future,"he said. He also thought making Fiji a Christian state would lead to "peace" in the country.

I will not comment on the logic or historical accuracy of these sincerely held views but the 1997 Constitution already spells out the contribution of Christianity to Fiji and there is no reason to assume the new constitution Fiji will not do the same.

State-Church relations elsewhere
But it could be instructive to look at state-church relations in other parts of the world.  Outside the Muslim states from North Africa to Bangladesh, and Buddhism in Cambodia, almost all other states now recognize the need to respect the legal separation of church and state. Exceptions include Tuvalu where 92% of the population belong to the same Christian denomination, a situation not shared by Fiji, and England where the Queen (and by extension the PM and parliament) are the Church of England's "supreme authority", where 26 Bishops sit in the House of Lords, and where all church Measures must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I doubt the Rev.Vuata would like to see the Fiji parliament exercise such controls.

The separation of church and state does not, of course, mean there is no interaction between them. The role of Christian churches in education, health and and a wide range of welfare issues is well known, and most Western countries now also have declarations on religious freedom and acknowledge the state has no place in church affairs.

Fiji Methodists will also see themselves at odds with Methodists in other parts of the world if they persist in their calls for Fiji to be declared a Christian state.

The United Methodist Church view
I quote from the The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church published in 2004 by American Methodists.

"The United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and state. In some parts of the world this separation has guaranteed the diversity of religious expressions and the freedom to worship God  according to each person's conscience. Separation of church and state means no organic union of the two, but it does permit interaction. The state should not use its authority to promote particular religious beliefs (including atheism), nor should it require prayer or worship in the public schools, but it should leave students free to practice their own religious convictions. We believe that the state should not attempt to control the church, nor should the church seek to dominate the state. The rightful and vital separation of  church and state, which has served the cause of religious liberty, should not be misconstrued as the abolition of all religious expression from public life."

The media would be doing the country a service if it ceased giving such prominence to the Christian State issue, or at least provided some balance and background against which these submissions may be assessed.

What Government, Business and NGOs Can Do About Poverty

POVERTY IN FIJI

ISSUES WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

BY GOVERNMENT, THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE NGO COMMUNITY

(Suva, Holiday Inn,Holiday InnH October 2^nd 2012)

Kevin J. Barr

INTRODUCTION

I would like to begin with the observation of Mahbub ul Hag in 1998:

“We cannot leave intact the model of development that

produces persistent poverty and wistfully hope that we can take

care of poverty downstream through limited income transfers or

discrete poverty reduction programs. ... A few technocratic

programs downstream are not the real answer. The real answer

lies in changing the very model of development, from traditional

economic growth to human development, where human

capabilities are built up and human opportunities enlarged, where

people become the real agents and beneficiaries of economic

growth rather than remain an abstract residual of inhuman

development processes.”

Note that ul Hag stresses that a few poverty alleviation programs are not the answer. We must make a radical change in the economic system which is the root cause of the growing poverty and inequality in our world today. In other words poverty and inequality are on the increase in Fiji and in our world because of the unjust neo-liberal economic system underpinning globalisation which is being promoted by the International Financial Institutions. Because there is a growing consensus that neo-liberalism has brought great wealth for a few but great poverty for many and has increased levels of inequality, we need to wake up and see that we need a radical policy change.

Many of us would like Fiji to be in reality a people-centred society and be underpinned by an economic system which makes this possible – a system which would promote social justice and the common good. This would mean that we would recognizes that the resources of the earth are meant for all and, while it respects that everyone has the right to private property, it distributes its wealth in such a way that everyone can meet their basic needs and poverty and gross inequality are eliminated. Consequently we would promote an economy that works for the benefit of all - not just the few - and allows everyone to realize their full potential in society. Fiji would be motivated by more communitarian values of sharing, compassion and concern for all and be built on the appreciation that all its members are brothers and sisters in the one family and have equal dignity and rights.

The vision and values thus promoted would be more in line with our traditional Pacifican values and traditions. As well it would be in line with the values of the world’s great religious traditions.

Such an economy would have to move away from the extreme neo-liberal, free-market capitalism being promoted in our world today through the United States, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank.

1. WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO

1. Government must realise that a few poverty alleviation programs (good as they may be) are not the answer and that we must address the root causes of poverty which lie in the economic system and policies we have been following under that direction of the WB, the IMF and the ADB.
2. Structure its National Budgets so that they are more centred on the needs of the people rather than on providing incentives in the form of huge tax cuts for businesses and investors. To this end the system of progressive taxation needs to be upheld so that the more wealth and income you have the more tax you are required to pay. Also regressive taxation in the form of VAT should be re-looked at and all VAT removed from all food – except luxury foods.
3. Government must also show appreciation for the workers of the country and address the issue of just wages and not bend to the demands of a lobby of greedy, selfish employers..
4. Because of the lack of sufficient affordable low cost housing, government needs not only to see to its provision but find ways of subsidising housing for those 50% of the population earning below $10,000 a year.
5. Accept that the current social welfare system covers only about 3%-4% of those living below the poverty line and that its allocations to these destitute people are totally inadequate.
6. Address the rising costs of such basic necessities as water and electricity brought about by corporatisation policies.

2. WHAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN DO

(a) The private sector needs to recognise the levels of poverty and hardship faced by so many people in Fiji. Some need to realise that their selfish greed is unsustainable and contrary to social justice and learn to be satisfied with socially acceptable profits.

(b) Realise that while business may be the engine of economic growth it is their workers who keep the wheels of the engine turning and so must be respected, not exploited and be duely rewarded with just wages.

(c) Appreciate that “social responsibility” is not limited to the funding of sports competitions and clean-up campaigns but begins with the way they treat their workers and see that they receive justice and proper working conditions.

3. WHAT NGO COMMUNITY CAN DO

1. Empowering people – especially the poor – to move away from the “culture of silence” in which they live, expecting handouts etc. Then they can begin to take responsibility for their own development, This requires an attitudinal change not only in the poorer people of the nation but also of government and city councils because it demands consultation with the people and the people’s own active involvement in speaking up, being involved and providing their labour.

2. NGOs should also provide workshops in Economic Literacy which

Teach people to budget, to set priorities in their spending and learn to save for their future. The setting of priorities might also mean contributing less to the vanua and religious organisations and spending less on mobile phones. People should also be better informed about hire purchase and its negative consequences for their families.

3. NGOs can also be involved in housing projects and the promotions of small loans for business enterprises.

Conclusion

We need investors. Yes! But we need them to be responsible, pay just wages and not exploit their workers in the name of greater profits for themselves.

We need economic growth. Yes! But it must be properly redistributed so that all the people of the nation benefit and their quality of life is improved.

NOTES:

(a) Social Welfare

It is extremely important to note that the Family Assistance Scheme does not cover all those in poverty. Of the 35% of those said to be in poverty in Fiji the scheme covers only 3%-4% of the population. The other 31%-32% is not covered. Only some very serious cases who may be on the waiting list for FAS may benefit from the food stamp program.

A recent World Bank study said that the FAS was well administered by the Social Welfare Department and successfully reached 70% of its target group. In other words 70% of those on FAS were truly destitute and met the strict criteria demanded by the scheme. Unfortunately this was interpreted by some senior government officials as meaning that the other 30% were not poor and should be excluded from assistance. But the Report did not say this. In fact they were poor but did not fit the strict criteria of the scheme. Previous reports had pointed out that the criteria applied were too narrow and needed to be enlarged to include other categories of people who were destitute.

Unfortunately when the National Budget and some other government Ministries talk about poverty alleviation and the poor they think mainly about those covered by Social Welfare (the 3%-4%) and not the whole 35% of those in the country who are living in absolute poverty and cannot meet their basic needs. Many of them are in full-time employment but are earning wages well below the poverty line. They are often referred to as the “working poor”.

(b) Recent Additional Hardships for the Poor

Moreover everyone seems to have forgotten that we are living in the aftermath of two recent disasters for the poorer section of our nation. The first - the 20% devaluation of the Fiji dollar in 2009 - meant that the purchasing power of existing low wages decreased while food increased by 36% and building costs by 29%. The second was the increase in VAT from 12.5% to 15% in 2010. Being a regressive tax it had serious effects on poor and low income families. Everyone seems to gloss over these disasters as though it is all “water under the bridge” and no harm done. But a lot of harm has been done to the quality of life of poorer people in the nation and nothing in the recent budget really addresses the effects of these disasters.

The vast majority of those who are poor hardly feature in the Budget even though they are a huge percentage of our population. They need better incomes, reasonable food prices and better, more affordable housing. VAT needs to be removed from all food (except luxury foods and food bought in restaurants). Housing needs to be subsidised in varying degrees for those earning below the tax threshold.

(c) Misconception about Economic Growth

The recent Budget set in place policies such as huge corporate and personal tax reductions to attract investors and encourage the business sector in order to increase economic growth BUT how does this economic growth benefit the workers and the people of the nation unless regulations are set in place to make sure that workers receive just wages and all the people benefit from the economic growth? The old theory of “trickle down” has been proved to be a myth. It rarely happens. For thirty years or more we have been hearing about attracting investors and increasing economic growth but it never seems to happen.

Again economic growth depends not just on investor capital but on a well trained, satisfied and enthusiastic workforce. But how can workers be expected to work productively and enthusiastically when their wages are kept low and their Unions are emasculated and their Union leaders vilified.

We may need many more private sector investors BUT workers and their Unions are as important to economic growth as any investor and this has not been captured in the Budget. Instead, what we are seeing is worker’s rights being ignored and their unions effectively destroyed while every advantage is being offered to investors and the business sector. In such conditions do you think workers want to be productive and cooperative?

Of course we all want to see greater economic growth but economic growth depends on more that attracting more private sector investment. That is only part of the solution. Authentic economic growth depends on the workers and the resources of the nation and cannot be achieved at the detriment of our own people. Also we need to spell out clearly how any economic growth – big or small – will really benefit the ordinary people of Fiji and not just investors. The economy is meant to benefit all the people of the whole nation.

(d) The Cost of Poverty

As often happens in modern economic planning, poverty is seen as marginal to mainstream economic planning. This is because economic policies are often underpinned by the view that money spent on poverty alleviation is unproductive and that government shold target its resources to areas that are productive in terms of economic growth – areas such as agriculture, fisheries, business development. But this is a very limited perspective, even in economic terms for, as we shall see below, investment in poverty alleviation ultimately benefits society in terms of a healthy and educated population and in terms of spending on security.

Poverty usually brings social disharmony and higher crime rates. Obviously this is not to say that all poor people are criminals but that poverty is certainly a breeding ground for crime – especially petty crime. Glaring levels in inequality give rise to a “them and us” sense of frustration especially when poor families cannot meet their basic needs.

(e) Social Justice

A people-centred society is built on Social Justice. Social justice reflects the ways in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society in terms of access to wealth, power and opportunities. It protects human rights but goes beyond any individualistic approach to human rights to take into account the good of all. Social Justice challenges us with the demand that we provide all people with equitable opportunities and rights in a real and substantive way. This means that all people have the right to participate fully in society. Social justice requires us to protect the most vulnerable people in society and endeavour to eradicate the cases of poverty and disadvantage which prevent many people from enjoying life and realizing their full human potential. Social justice demands that the needs of the poor take priority over the wants of the rich, that the freedom of the weak takes priority over the liberty of the powerful, that the rights of workers take priority over the desire of employers to make excessive profits, and that the access of marginalized groups in society take priority over the maintenance of an order which excludes them.

Social justice demands that we challenge and change the structural injustices which disadvantage and marginalize so many of our brothers and sisters. Social justice calls upon us to stand up for those whose basic rights are ignored and who live in desperate poverty and de-humanising conditions. Social justice demands that those who have more than they need should share with those who lack the basic necessities for living a decent life. Social justice challenges us to work for the good of all – the common good – and not allow a few to exploit others and monopolise the wealth and resources of the earth which were made for all. Social justice seeks a more equitable distribution of wealth, power and opportunities and urges us to fight against exploitation and oppressive relationships. Thus social justice promotes distributive justice where people get a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development, and economic wealth does not just accumulate only in the hands of a few.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

Lessons from the Floods

Tavioka (cassava) is getting very scarce in Lautoka. But we have switched to taro, dalo ni tana and green bananas for our meals and we are doing well. The scarcity of cassava, I am told, is because of the factory on Ra. They are buying the commodity at a very good price and the famers have chosen to go that way.

 I say – good one, because if it benefits the people then so be it. And we have switched to other root crop and uto (Breadfruit) will soon be in season.

 Anyway, I have been travelling all around Nadi,  Lautoka and some parts of Ba. Just after the floods we began our tour to assess damage done to farms and what the farmers needs were. The first flood happened in January and then another one in March. And then there was a heavy down pour in April that washed away much of the vegetables that had just been planted. We did our bit distributing seedlings, seeds, farm implements and fertilizer. It is now September and the markets are flooded with vegetables. Tomatoes are so cheap now.

Many organizations reached out to  assist farmers and we are back on our feet again. This shows that many farmers did not wait for assistance but helped themselves. The assistance that came for outside was a bonus. There are still some farmers who are struggling and I hope we will get to them soon.

But to all the organizations that reached out to assist – thank you very much. And to the farmers who started all over again with out initial assistance, you are inspirations.


We have learnt a lot from the floods and one thing I have to say is that creeks in the hills of Lautoka must be cleared, if not any little rain will cause flooding. We will begin by assessing what we can do.



Allen Lockington is a self-employed customs agent and business consultant who has regular articles published in Fiji. I thank Allen for permission to reprint some of them in this political blog. They remind us that life goes on, whatever the political situation. And it's good to know that. 

Changes in Constitution-Making in Fiji Part VI – After 1987

Changes in Constitution-Making in Fiji Part VI – After 1987

By Subhash Appana

Add caption

The last article argued that by 1987 Mara’s hold on the Fijian polity through the Fijian chiefly system had weakened enough to present Fiji with a new PM in Dr. Bavadra for the first time in 17 years. This centralizing of the traditional Fijian system was always flawed because it refused to acknowledge the inevitability of change – of new ideas, new aspirations, enlightened endeavours, individual pursuit of success, etc.

For those who attempted to seek success outside the ambit of the traditional socio-political system presided over by the chief, new political parties had to be explored. This is why disgruntled elements joined Butadroka as early as 1975. That voice of demand and dissent had always been managed and subsumed within openings offered by government in the form of the Alliance Party.

Apolosi Ranawai’s demand was for access to business opportunities held tightly by white planters. Butadroka wanted to run buses “like the Indians”. There was a tortured link between government support and running business stemming back to the paternalistic policies of the colonial government. Times had changed, but Fijian expectations from government had not only increased but hardened.

Ratu Mara was holding a hot political egg with his bare hands. To what extent could Fijian economic (and other) expectations be met without adequate monitoring and commensurate accountability? By the same token, to what extent could the chiefly system appease and contain changing Fijian demands? These were one-dimensional-looking questions with two prongs: production and distribution.

The Fijian component of Fiji’s political equation appeared to emphasize distribution with no concern for production. That was for government to work out provided the ever-increasing and changing demands for distribution were adequately met. To further complicate the Alliance predicament, what constituted “adequate” was easily open to redefinition. Any anti-Mara mischief maker could play with this.

Thus the alarm bells that began ringing in April 1977, then in 1982 were harbingers of inevitable defeat. When Mara’s Alliance Party finally did lose in April 1987, an unsuspecting Fijian electorate was apparently caught absolutely unawares. What was not meant to be had happened! The Indians had tricked Fijians into joining the FLP! Little India in Fiji! How dare they disrespect chiefs!

The Fijians thus were not willing to accept the verdict of the ballot box. And more importantly, even though Ratu Mara made his famous speech on “democracy is alive and well in Fiji”, his defeated colleagues rejected the outcome. In that silently crackling cauldron all that was needed was an outlet for Fijian reaction. That’s where Apisai Tora and the Taukei Movement emerged. Fiery ethno-nationalist speeches, hymns, sermons, nationalistic songs, food, transport and an underlying threat of unmitigated violence became part of an orchestrated movement against the Bavadra government. When the RFMF Bati moved in to restore power where it belonged on 14^th May 1987, Fiji was simply trying to force back an inadequately articulated desire for change among the Fijian electorate.

That desire was going to present itself in unexpected ways in the future and the coup phenomenon would assist it in unforeseen ways. Fiji’s once-celebrated, now-maligned coup culture is a direct result of attempts to appease the Fijian electorate within a paternalistic political framework that denied the existence of ever-widening fissures and fractures within the Fijian polity – this is the root cause of the coup culture.

Straight after that coup was executed, every attempt was made to stem this aspiration for change and capture Fiji back within a traditional framework that was not only inappropriate, but was largely fictional in the first place. Centralizing the GCC as the main arbiter in negotiating stability and normalizing life in Fiji after May 1987 was the first step in this direction. That also started the ultimately debilitating process of politicization of the GCC – more on this later.

The emergence of the Methodist Church as a champion and bastion for Christian (read Methodist) Fijian aspirations was the second major shift in attempting to stem the tide that threatened the traditional Fijian system. The Sunday Ban herded the Fijian back into the fold as the chosen of God. An intense indoctrination process followed and, with that, traditional linkages and allegiances were reaffirmed under God’s guidance.

Never in the history of Fiji was the population more clearly divided than during the era of the Sunday Ban. Neighbours told on neighbours to settle old scores or petty jealousies. It was us-n-them, the chosen vs the infidels, the accepted vs the unaccepted, the believers vs the non-believers, the right vs the wrong, God vs Satan. That ban played the role of justifying human inhumanity within God’s humanity.

Another highly symbolic development that attempted to reaffirm the chiefly hold on Fiji’s polity took place after the September coup of 1987 as, after struggling with the reins of government for three months, Rabuka handed power back to Ratu Penaia Ganilau in a stirring traditional ceremony on 5^th December 1987. Rabuka stood at the head of traditional Bati that day as he sought forgiveness and reaffirmed support for the high chief from Tovata.

The political processes at the time were clearly focused on re-entrenching and reaffirming the traditional Fijian system. There was no room for any other concerns even though a large chunk of Fiji’s population were simply watching through a shroud of doom. Few realized that the return of Mara as caretaker PM, following the December handover from Rabuka, would even the keel for changes that would deliver later.

It was Mara among the Fijian leadership at the time who understood best the need for Indians in Fiji. It was he who appreciated best the production half of the equation that was largely being forgotten in focusing on distribution for myopic political gain. After all a captive tax base, a captive human skills base, etc. within a politically powerless polity could not be dismissed on the basis of fired up ethnocentric dreams.

Fiji needed its Indians as much as it needed its Fijians. Distribution had to be matched with production – there was no other way. But a tortuous process had to be negotiated amid a torrent of expectations that the 1987 coup, and Rabuka’s experiment with power, had unleashed. The 1990 constitution was thus an inevitability that paved the way for 1997.

Next, we will look at the 1990 constitution, Rabuka’s epiphany and the 1997 constitution. Keep tuned.

Subhash Appana is an academic and political commentator. The opinions contained in this article are entirely his and not necessarily shared by any organizations he may be associated with both in Fiji and abroad. Email appanas@hotmail.com

Sent: 28/9/12

News and Comments Friday 5 October 2012

Kite flying

WEEKEND READINGS. • Allen Lockington Column Subhash Appana continues his series on constitution-making in Fiji  • Fr Barr talks of what government, business and NGO's can do about poverty.

KITE FLYING: RELEASE GEORGE SPEIGHT. To "fly a kite" is an expression similar to "testing the waters". I'm proposing that 2000 Coup frontman George Speight be released from jail. He has now served longer than many would serve for murder when good behaviour is taken into account; the deterrent message has already been posted, read, and ignored; the main movers behind the 2000 Coup remain undetected and unpunished; George is costing the taxpayer money; and no further purpose is achieved by his ongoing incarceration. Your opinion?

U.S.PREFERENTIAL TRADE. In response to the submission to the US hearing of a petition filed by the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations that Fiji be removed from the list of eligible beneficiaries of the Generalized System of Preferences, Fiji representatives  called for a bilateral informal dialogue process with appropriate US trade and labour officials to assist in obtaining "true facts" about the rights of workers in Fiji. Both sides now have three weeks to respond. A final decision is not expected for several months.

WILL THE PM FORM A POLITICAL PARTY for the 2014 elections? There's been a lot of speculation but no firm news on this question but Kisoko Cagituivei of the PM's Office told FBC News yesterday that he thought there should be a party to safeguard all the work that this Government has done and will do before elections in 2014.

GRAHAM DAVIS EXPOSES COUP4.5 FORGERY.  This article exposed a supposed email exchange between Sharon Smith-Johns, Permanent Secretary of Information, and the Grubsheet publisher.

WAGES ANNOUNCEMENT NEXT WEEK ... The ten Wages Councils are currently considering submissions on the proposed Wages  Regulation Order, according to Minister for Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment Jone Usamate, and should be able to submit their recommendations next week. The exercise has taken longer than expected because of the "significant numbers of written objections received." The Minister said Government is fully committed to social justice for workers in ensuring fair wages that are also affordable to employers. An 8-15% increase has been proposed for the  printing trades, wholesale & retail trades, hotel & catering trades, garment industry, sawmilling & logging industry, road transport, building & civil & electricity workers.

... BUT EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION CEO Nesbitt Hazelman expects only "modest" increases.

SOME 3,000 WELFARE RECIPIENTS have been disqualified as a result of an ongoing review by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Women and Poverty Alleviation to ensure that assistance is not provided to the ineligible. Most cases involve those whose circumstances have improved over the years. Those disqualified can write to the Appeals Panel for clarification.

KIWI EVACUATED AFTER ASSAULT. A New Zealand national who was injured after he was allegedly assaulted by four people at his room in a hotel in Nadi was evacuated to New Zealand last week. Four people have been charged and produced in court for their alleged involvement and their alleged involvement in a series of robberies and break-ins in Nadi over the past few weeks.

Fji Today seems to think that the use of the word "alleged" means that police are dodging the issue. They write: Alleged assault? There were witnesses and he has spent a week in hospital………..but we will spin it as an alleged assault" The word 'alleged' is always used when people stand accused but their guilt or otherwise has not been decided in Court. It has nothing to do with the police brushing anything under the carpet.

An overseas reader says he's been told from friends in Fiji that cases like this are not reported in the Fiji media. I am unsure about the print media but the electronic media seems to be reporting most cases of public interest.

This Story Needs to be Told Over and Over Again

Racism Took Land Out of Production
 Macuata has suffered more than most provinces from the politically motivated non-renewal of land leases backed by extreme ethno-nationalists during the Qarase SDL time in government when there were so many stories of Native Land Trust Board officials urging iTaukei landowners not to renew leases to Indo-Fijians farmers, and promising government would compensate them for the loss of lease money.

Now, Macuata chief Ratu Aisea Katonivere is calling for new legislation on land use and land leases to "create an enabling environment for land use development."

Speaking on his submission to the Constitution Commission in Labasa earlier in the week, he acknowledged the contribution of the Indo-Fijian farmers, the effects of their forced relocation, and the vital role of agricultural ventures like sugarcane farming which he said was "the lifeblood in the North as it had been in the past decades."

One does not need to look any further to see the disastrous effects of politically-motivated racism on the Fiji economy.

Chief Acknowledges Indo-Fijian Contribution to the North
Ratu Aisea said most of the Indo-Fijian cane farmers were second, third or even fourth generation farmers who had tilled the land and supplied cane for the sugar industry and when their leases expired, they were left in limbo as debate took place in the political circles.

"Because the displaced farmers urgently needed sources of livelihood, they opted to relocate to other parts of the country and also ventured into other forms of farming. Their departure is a great loss
to the Northern economy as these are generations of cane farming families who have built our roads, fund raised for the establishment of some schools, erected businesses and provided employment opportunities to name a few. They were the ones who have worked to improve the way of life in their communities."

He requested the legislation that covered land leases be dealt with on a case by case basis whereby records of  the community contribution of individual farmers or families were evaluated and acknowledged.

"What better way to acknowledge their hard work than to renew their leases and allow them to do what they do best — cane farming, otherwise large patches of land that used to be productive will be left idle," he said.

Ratu Aisea is a paramount chief, Tui Macuata, and Chairman of the Macuata Provincial Council. He stood for the SDL party in 2001 but was beaten by the extremist CAMV party that came to exercise increased influence in the Qarase administration. He was one of 14 chiefs  in the Senate nominated by the Great Council of Chiefs.  More recently, he has been associated with conservation measures to protect the world's third largest coral reef that lies off the Macuata coast. 

U.S.Trade Preferences Decison: Update

GOVERNMENT MEDIA REALEASE : FIJIAN GOVERNMENT ATTENDS GSP CASE IN USA

A delegation representing the Fijian Government today attended the hearing of a petition before the Generalized System of Preferences Sub-committee (“GSPSC”) at the United States Trade Representative Office in Washington DC.

The petition seeks to remove Fiji from the list of eligible beneficiaries of the Generalized System of Preferences.  

The delegation was led by the Acting Solicitor-General Sharvada Sharma, and included His Excellency Ambassador Winston Thompson, Principal Legal Officer from the Solicitor-General’s Office, Salaseini Serulagilagi, and First Secretary, Ray Baleikasavu.

Addressing the GSPSC, the Acting Solicitor-General updated the members of GSPSC about the constitutional processes that have been implemented by the Fijian Government. This includes an inclusive nation-wide dialogue process by an independent Constitutional Commission that will result in the promulgation of a new Constitution in early 2013; and lead to Fiji’s first non-race-based democratic elections by September 2014. The non-negotiable principles which will be incorporated in the Constitution are: a common and equal citizenry; a secular State; removal of systemic corruption; an independent judiciary; elimination of discrimination; good and transparent governance; social justice; one person, one vote, one value; elimination of ethnic voting; proportional representation; and a voting age of 18 years.

The GSPSC was also informed that with the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) in January 2012, Fiji is now operating under the amended Public Order Act. This amendment provides internationally accepted, modern laws to combat terrorism, racial and religious vilification, and other serious public order offences. With the implementation of the constitutional consultation process, all persons and organizations, including trade unions are now able to hold public meetings without the need for a permit or other form of advance notice. In addition, all forms of media censorship have been wholly removed.

GSPSC was also updated on numerous other recent worker-related reforms in Fiji, including the implementation of substantial income tax reduction for workers, a National Employment Centre, a soon-to-be-established National Minimum Wage for Fijian workers, and a no-fault compensation scheme for injury at work.  

In terms of the Essential National Industries (Employment) Decree 2011 (“Decree”), GSPSC was informed that the intention of the Decree is to ensure the viability of specific industries that are vital to the Fijian economy and GDP.  The Decree is designed to protect jobs, while safeguarding the fundamental rights of workers. It does not destroy the trade union movement in Fiji, as has been alleged.

It was also stressed to the GSPSC that under this Decree, workers continue to have fundamental rights, including the right to organize; form unions; independently vote for representatives; bargain collectively; and develop processes to resolve employment disputes and grievances. It was also highlighted that the Decree is not unique as its key provisions are comparable to that of the U.S. National Labor Relations Act and laws in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

GSPSC was also informed about the successful implementation of the Decree in essential industries where workers have freely organized, formed bargaining units, and elected representatives. Furthermore, they have successfully reached collective agreements with employers and have devised their own dispute resolution processes.

The Fijian Government’s concerns with respect to the impact of the loss of GSP to Fiji and the Fijian workers were also emphasised at the hearing. Currently, 39 Fijian companies export Fiji’s products into the US market under the GSP system.  In 2011 alone, this generated $57 million in export revenues. If GSP were lost, worker layoffs of about 15,000 workers would be the only option for affected companies and would adversely affect 75,000 Fijians (over eight percent of our population).

Government affirmed its commitment to a future of equality and opportunity for all Fijians. This includes ensuring that the rights of its working people are protected and extended.  The Fijian Government made this promise not only to the United Nations but also as the newly chosen Chair of the G-77 for 2013. 

In addition, GSPSC was informed that, in order to address the lack of bilateral relations between the Fijian Government and the US Government, a bilateral informal dialogue process could be established with appropriate U.S. trade and labour officials to assist all parties in obtaining true facts about the rights of workers in Fiji.  

The Hearing concluded with answers being provided to questions raised by the GSPSC to correct inaccurate information and to give further factual information. Following detailed discussions, GSPSC has now invited both the Government and the petitioner to present post-hearing written submissions within 3 weeks.

Government Has Only Itself to Blame But ...

Opinion by Crosbie Walsh

Neo-liberalism: neither new nor liberal

This blog criticized the introduction of the Essential National Industries Decree when it was introduced a year ago. We maintained the decree undermined national trade unions, exposed workers to the whims of employers, and earlier legislation made the decree unnecessary.

The legislation  was not unique and similar legislation, prompted by the same neo-liberalist philosophy, now exists in many Western countries.

But in the highly charged Fiji context, it became a critical political issue. Government was seen to be aligning itself with employers and alienating support from trade unionists and "middle" Fiji.

With so many elements of the "old regime" still alive and well, it was also a tactical —and possibly a strategic — error.

Some people have said the enactment of the decree was a turning point in Government's commitment to a fair Fiji. Where, people asked, is the idealism of the  People's Charter?  Had Government lost the plot?

Since then, the  FTUC has appealed for help to the Australian and NZ trade unions and is now appealing to the USA to revoke Fiji's special trade concessions if Government does not revoke the decree. Government continues to call these acts anti-Fijian because they threaten jobs, but the decree was imposed without any consultation with the unions, and that also could be seen as not the Fijian  Way.

If the decision goes against Fiji in Washington DC today, it could stop Fiji from benefiting from the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Scheme and put 15,000 jobs at risk through loss of exports.

Meanwhile, the PM continues to accuse unionists of using people for their own benefit. It is easy to personalise these matters (and the union leadership is certainly not beyond reproach) but the crux of the issue is about the future of nation-wide  trade unions, not personalities.

I am not reassured by the PM's  statement that "the government seeks to ensure unions can take collective action as directed by their member workers and are subject only to restrictions that are generally accepted to protect the public good." There could be few "member workers" left  if the decree is allowed to run its course, and one must ask whether Government is the only acceptable arbiter of public good?

The PM says the decree was part of Fiji’s progress toward establishing parliamentary democracy, and all labour laws are now being reviewing to ensure their compliance with the 34 ILO conventions that Fiji has ratified.

The review is being conducted by the Employment Relations Advisory Board  that comprises representatives from government, the trade unions and employers. The review is welcome —even if it is only a response to possible US action— but the public needs to know the membership of the Board, whether the unionists represented include those affected by the decree, and whether any are affiliated to the FTUC.  I was unable to obtain information on the membership of the Board. 

The PM also announced government will soon adopt Fiji’s first national minimum wage and he urged employers, unions and employees to make submissions to the Constitution Commission.

All very encouraging, one may think, but to  maintain the US trade concessions and prevent  future threats from overseas unions, not to mention criticism from many Fiji citizens and the international community, Government should accept the advice of the FTUC president Daniel Urai:

Remove the decrees that limit the rights of the workers and enable the decrees to be challenged in court.

Government got itself into this situation in the first place.  It is important it extricates itself with honour.

But the unions also have to ask themselves  two important questions of honour.  Have they really explored all other means to resolve the problem? And, more importantly, is what they are fighting for worth up to 15,000 other people losing their jobs?

News and Comments Wednesday 3 October 2012

SOLOMONS BACKS FIJI.Solomon Islands PM Gordon Lilo told the UN General Assembly that the Solomons recognises the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Fiji, and says his country will continue to dialogue with Fiji. He called on the region and the international community to support Fiji’s “Engaging with the Pacific” process and its road map to the 2014 general elections.

PACIFIC FORUM LINE COUlD BE SOLD. A NZ Government plan to sell a state-owned asset considered vital to Pacific  development is expected to be rubber-stamped this week. The Sunday Star-Times understands an urgent meeting  took place last week in Tonga, to be followed by another this week in Fiji, finalising plans to sell the 35-year-old Pacific Forum Line (PFL) to Singaporean firm Sofrana.The move has drawn strong criticism from the NZ Labour Party with foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff claiming small island nations would bear the brunt of a decision made behind closed doors. "It is being conducted not simply privately, but in secret without the chance for those people who will be deeply affected by the decision to have a say," he said. NZ and 11 island countries have equal voting rights in PFL, but practical control is exerted by NZ, Fiji and Papua New Guinea which between them own around three-quarters of the company's shares. All three are reported to favour the sale.

PRIVATE SECTOR SUBMISSION. Contrary to what the anti-bloggers say, Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation chief executive Nesbitt Hazelman says the private sector wishes "to make a meaningful contribution to the work that is being carried out by the Constitution Commission." At a recent workshop busines leaders identified "fundamental issues they would like to see filter through the making of the new constitution." Hazelman said business, land and the structure of government,  especially the separation of the legistrature and judiciary, and the role of the auditor-general in ensuring that there are checks and balances in the way public funds are spent, were all discussed. The FCEF plans intends to make its submission before the October 10 submission deadline.

FORUM CONTACT GROUP MAY VISIT AGAIN.The Pacific Islands Forum Ministerial Contact Group  may visit Fiji again in November. This was discussed when Fiji's Foreign Minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, met his counterparts from Australia and New Zealand, Senator Bob Carr and Murray McCully, in New York at the weekend.  They are attending the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

PM APPEALS TO UNION LEADERS ahead of the unions bid  to stop Fiji from benefitting from the US Generalized system of Preferences Scheme which has given certain Fijian exporters duty free access to the United States.

FIJI TO CHAIR GROUP OF 77. The ministerial meeting of the Group of 77 and China in New York has endorsed Fiji as its chair for 2013. In his address at the 67th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Ratu Inoke said: “I am pleased to say that at today’s Ministerial meeting of the Group of 77 and China, Fiji was endorsed as the Chair of the G77 for the year 2013.”Ratu Inoke said Fiji has taken on this responsibility with a deep sense of humility, willingness to work collaboratively  with all States and commitment to addressing inequalities that exist between developing and developed countries.

LOMAIVITI WANTS REFORMED GCC, LAND, FISHING SAFEGUARDED.The Lomaiviti Provincial Council  submission to the Constitution Commission proposed the re-installation and reformation of Great Council of Chiefs "as the institution [that]protects and safeguards the rights of the indigenous people of Fiji.” All provisions in the 1997 constitution that safeguarded  native land and fishing rights should be entrenched in the new constitution. “For i-taukei’s, land is our life, it is our existence, the concept of Vanua is all encompassing covering the earth, we stand on, the rivers and seas and most importantly, the people, their tradition, culture and belief,” he said.

OLDER PEOPLE who are not under any sort of pension are requesting  at least $,1000 per month of assistance from relevant authorities. [That's on a par to the NZ government pension  for a single person.]

BRIBERY IN PM'S OFFICE. A public relations officer at the Prime Minister’s Office appeared in the Suva Magistrates Court yesterday charged with bribery. FICAC is alleging that Rudra Maharaj accepted cash favours so he could influence a tender contract.

CCF Submission Trying to Please All But One

Review and Opinion by Crosbie Walsh

The Citizens' Constitution Forum submission to the Constitution Commission in Levuka last week could be striving a little too hard to achieve a general consensus at the expense of forfeiting once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for change.

The preamble and general principles will, I think, be accepted by all fair-minded people in Fiji— respect for differences, social justice, protection of NGOs, affirmative action based on needs,  a bill of rights, and leadership code of ethics, and decisions by dialogue and consensus.

Electoral reform
The document is forward-looking in its support to call all citizens Fijians, and for electoral reform that
includes proportional representation,¹ open list seats, fewer electorates (the four divisions and the overseas diaspora), a voting age of 18 years, a smaller 51 seat parliament, and political parties that must  be open, inclusive, reflect diversity and promote national integration.

Accountability
In addressing the issue of accountability, they recommended the establishment of a Constitution Office or Commission to appoint, terminate or discipline public servants such as the Ombudsman, the Attorney-General, Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Service Commission, Military Commander, Commission of Police, and the Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The Commission would be appointed by the PM, Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, Chief Justice and Ombudsman (when his position is not involved). I could find no reference to who appoints the Chief Justice.

The judiciary would be appointed by a resurrected Independent Judicial and Legal Services Commission comprising the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman, legal professionals, and Chairman of the Public Services Commission.

The powers of the  Ombudsman were to be greatly extended with unspecified powers over the legislature and executive, a re-appointment Human Rights Commission and, I think, the Electoral Commission. Who appoints the Ombudsman and Electoral Commission was not clear but I assume it would be the new Constitution Commission.

Other issues
On other issues they wanted:

• An elected President² but they did not say who elects, or what his powers would be other than dissolving parliament in unspecified circumstances;
• A Senate³ of 25 members but they said nothing of its functions, or how it was to be elected;
• A Great Council of Chiefs that played no part in national politics, but they left "the back door" open by saying it could have a national advisory role and could continue to be active in provincial councils.

Here again, other than reducing the direct power of the Great Council of Chiefs, there is little change from 1997.

The role of the military
Finally on the Catch 22 question, what to do with the military, the CCF is unequivocal. It should be
accountable to civilian institutions "such as the legislature"; its size should be appropriate to "Fiji’s
national security requirements"; recruitment and appointment must be on merit; there needs to be a review of the roles of the military, police and corrections service; and, most importantly, the Immunity clause for "coup perpetrators should be revoked".

In other words, there is to be no role for the military in the Constitution dialogue process from this point onwards and no special role for the military in the governance of Fiji, not even on critical civilian appointments, a seat in Senate or in the Great Council of Chiefs.  Understandable perhaps, given the total insensitivity of the the military even towards its former friends in recent months, but not very realistic (even the Great Council of Chiefs is assured a greater role), and  historically a little unfair.

But what if?
If there had been no military coup in 2006, the CCF would not have been in Levuka last week for there is nothing to indicate that without the military intervention of  2006 Fiji would have become anything other than the unfair, unjust and undemocratic country it was. There were parliamentary advocates of change towards a more inclusive and representative democracy or moves towards change.

 Before the Coup here were  no SDL whispers of amending the 1997 constitution as urged ten years earlier by the Reeves Commission; no talk by the SDL or a frightened FLP of affirmative action for all; no concerted efforts to renew leases, increase agricultural production and sustainable development (the FLP mentioned it in 1999 and was out of office less than a year later); no attempts to rout out corruption (that even the Fiji Times said was rampant under the SDL government); no mention of seeing ordinary iTaukei receive a just share of land rents; no forthright attacks on the divisive, religious extremism and racism of some politicians and religious leaders; a little talk, but absolutely no action on tolerance, equality and national unity.

Surely, the Bainimarama government must have done some good over the past six years and deserves some place in shaping Fiji's future, at least until 2014.

And the final irony?  The CCF is advancing  recommendations that for the most part will find support from the old racially-elected parties and the Great Council of Chiefs: the very people it condemned prior to December 2006, and condemning those who sought change, and be opposed by the Government that launched the People's Charter, also unmentioned by the CCF.

If all does not go well
The CCF is "putting all its money" on a new electoral system that if all goes well should  return a truly representative government and opposition, and on administrative checks and balances.

But if all  does not go well —if the military insists on some role in Fiji's future, or if too many of the old politicians, political parties and lawyers put in a reappearance; if there has been insufficient change in the mentalities that allowed corruption and abuse of office to flourish; or if it takes a while to get used to the new system —they may well wish they had recommended more powers for the President and the ongoing participation of the military in some role acceptable within the new Constitution.

Notes

<sup>1. CCF prefers Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation which it claims "assures proper representation for any group to be represented in parliament." This would presumably involve voters having two votes, one for their constituency, the other for one (or more) candidate on open lists supplied by the political parties.
2.  No mention is made of the position of Vice-President.
3. Senate could be an assembly of representative experts with authority to receive public petitions, advise Government, and defer certain legislation for further parliamentary consideration. Membership could comprise two representatives each from  designated sections of society, for example, the professions, educationalists, lawyers, trade unions, employers' associations, religious organizations, ethnic minorities, women, youth, and the disabled, preferably elected or nominated by them from among  their membership.. The disciplined forces (military, police, correction services) could also each have two members, and certain officers or their nominees (for example, the PM, Leader of the Opposition Senate, Ombudsman)  could be ex officio members. Senate could meet for one or two days six times a year when parliament is sitting. Senators could be paid a sitting fee and expenses.  .</sup>