Sunday, February 03, 2008

The Tui Labasa title continued

The response in today’s Fiji Times from Maikeli Drauna argues against Stan Ritova’s feature article in the Fiji Times.

Qomate legacy

I AM amazed by the special editorial privilege accorded to Stan Ritova, also known as Stan Whippy, in an article he wrote titled 'Defending the Qomate legacy' (ST 20/1).

The author has a direct interest in the Tui Labasa title dispute which is the central issue at stake here.

What Stan has smartly concealed or may have tried or deliberately ignored in his defence of his cousin Salanieta Tuilomaloma as the legitimate claimant to the title, is their Rotuman origin, which is why the latter's contention is being vigorously challenged.

It is a known fact within the yavusa Wasavulu and Caumatalevu that the male bloodline of the Labasa warrior Qomate is extinct.

Native Lands Commission chairman Ratu Viliame Tagivetaua was explicitly explained this by the sauturaga of the Vanua of Labasa, Maika Raiqiso, when an inquiry into the dispute was held at Nasekula in July, 2006.

Stan and Salanieta are from the male bloodline of Rotuman chief Gagaj Varomya of Malhaha who was rescued from sea by Kia people and brought to Vuo. He married a princess from Caumatalevu by the name of Adi Mairara who gave birth to a son named Raobe Lailai. Raobe married a woman from the chiefly clan of Wasavulu known as Adi Losalini Watimasirewa.

They had a son named Viliame Lautiki who married a part-European from Kadavu, Donalesi McGoon, and had two children Ratu Viliame Baleilevuka, who was Salanieta's father, and Adi Salanieta Tuilomaloma, Stan's mother.

This blood connection is well known in Rotuma and I challenge Stan to come forth with the truth.

Maikali Drauna
Comments from Peceli

Interestingly enough the title of Tui Labasa has been made public by both camps, as explained by Stan Ritova in an article in the Fiji Times on 20th January and Maikeli Drauna in a letter to the newspaper today.

I was in Labasa two weeks ago and visited Naseakula as I always do. The people there don’t talk publicly about this subject. They know what was written in the Vola ni Kawa Bula and the Tukutuku Raraba about Labasa.

The entitlement of being a chief is about responsibility and in this case perhaps the families have in mind the financial rewards of lease money as well.

So what do you think?


Anonymous said...

i think Maikali should trace his paternal link maybe he could be a Rotuman too..his father is!

Anonymous said...

i think Maikali Drauna and all is family are all frauds and full of bull crap !! Y is he trying to push for the title of Tui Labasa wen he is not even blood linked to the Qomate family !! he's so called 'drauna' family is so full of it! Unfortunatly he's ancestors were told just to hold on to the title bcoz Adi Salanieta were still young at that time ! So they thought to just own it ! Well too bad ! Get ur facts ryt and stop claiming wat is not right fully yours! Because in the end he'll be the one and his family being embarrased by the whole tikina of Labasa !!

Davila Tuivanualevu said...

Actually I think its pretty rude and im sure her ladyship Adi Salanieta Qomate wud be offended speaking lowly of her though the Media. From my perspective of view, it doesn't matter where your lineage started, its the responsibility that matters the most & to take hid of peoples needs and treasure what our ancestors had left for us. I salute the Marama na Tui Labasa for being bold enough to stand strong like a wise King. May god bless the Qomate family.

Anonymous said...

She needs to be told that her responsibility is not at the canefields where she has decided to carry out her duties from...maybe for till she enters that six feet hole...
Maikali is just another puppet of the Drauna family who have left their origins and in Nasekula claiming for something that is not rightfully theirs...

A chief is God given and not something that one claims for mere personal gains..

A chief doesn't need to claim because he knows that he is ordained by God

A chief serves his people first...self later

A chief is humble and not self righteous

A chief listens and then makes his decision

A chief leads and serves and does not command to b served

A chief does not demand respect but earns it

A chiefly does not covert his rights and responsibilities but he is born with it...