from w
What a good idea comes to us today from Mick Beddoes. A very sensible suggestion. I read this in today's Fiji Times.
Call to form government of national unityFriday, February 27, 2009
Update: 3:25PM THE interim government and political leaders have been urged to consider forming a government of national unity if an agreement timetable to parliamentary democracy is not reached within 12 months.
Ousted opposition leader Mick Beddoes says Fiji state of economy cannot possibly endure the looming worldwide financial crisis, another 12 months of political uncertainty and the issues they bring to bear on people.
"While the recommencement of the dialogue process on March 13 is most welcomed, there is a need for leaders, especially the interim Prime Minister (Commodore Frank Bainimarama) to consider alternative options," he said.
Mr Beddoes says a government of national unity to oversee the transition from military to civilian rule and the holding of general election would among other things; establish a level of political stability necessary to help improve the level of confidence required to re-start the wheels of economic recovery.
Showing posts with label Fiji politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiji politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Priorities in Fiji news stories
from w
While the developed world papers and media are shouting 'Sell, sell, sell' and all about 'Money, money, money' the Fiji papers have different priorities. a new phone company. A rugby player on the cover.
And a cartoon of a week or so ago tells it all about Fiji's concerns:
I like the way the Fijian girls just sit around in groups after the bus ran off the road. A Fiji Times story.
Students scramble out of problem bus
By Mereseini Marau
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Jasper Williams High School students wait for transport back to school after their bus (inset) veered off the road. q Picture: ANOKH KUMAR
THREE students were rushed to hospital and about 50 thanked their lucky stars after they escaped uninjured when their bus ran off the road yesterday.The Nadi General Transport bus was carrying students of Saint Thomas High and Jasper Williams High schools when the bus encountered problems in Saweni.
Saint Thomas teacher Vinesh Mistry said as soon as the bus ran into a drain, the students started jumping out of windows.
"The rest rushed out through the door," he said. "The students reacted very quickly, it must have been due to all the incidents that have happened recently."
Mr Mistry said bus operators must ensure their buses are roadworthy. "There are so many lives at risk, they can't afford to have those kind of buses," he added.
Nadi General Transport director Jagdish Singh said it was fortunate no one was injured. He blamed the road condition, saying it was a contributing factor. Mr Singh said the bus hit a pot hole and part of it broke. "As a result it pulled off the road," he said. West police chief Fesaitu Kava said the bus was headed towards Lautoka from Nadi. "At a slope in Saweni, it developed a tyre problem and went off the road," he said. "Some passengers suffered minor injuries."
While the developed world papers and media are shouting 'Sell, sell, sell' and all about 'Money, money, money' the Fiji papers have different priorities. a new phone company. A rugby player on the cover.
And a cartoon of a week or so ago tells it all about Fiji's concerns:
I like the way the Fijian girls just sit around in groups after the bus ran off the road. A Fiji Times story.
Students scramble out of problem bus
By Mereseini Marau
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Jasper Williams High School students wait for transport back to school after their bus (inset) veered off the road. q Picture: ANOKH KUMARTHREE students were rushed to hospital and about 50 thanked their lucky stars after they escaped uninjured when their bus ran off the road yesterday.The Nadi General Transport bus was carrying students of Saint Thomas High and Jasper Williams High schools when the bus encountered problems in Saweni.
Saint Thomas teacher Vinesh Mistry said as soon as the bus ran into a drain, the students started jumping out of windows.
"The rest rushed out through the door," he said. "The students reacted very quickly, it must have been due to all the incidents that have happened recently."
Mr Mistry said bus operators must ensure their buses are roadworthy. "There are so many lives at risk, they can't afford to have those kind of buses," he added.
Nadi General Transport director Jagdish Singh said it was fortunate no one was injured. He blamed the road condition, saying it was a contributing factor. Mr Singh said the bus hit a pot hole and part of it broke. "As a result it pulled off the road," he said. West police chief Fesaitu Kava said the bus was headed towards Lautoka from Nadi. "At a slope in Saweni, it developed a tyre problem and went off the road," he said. "Some passengers suffered minor injuries."
Monday, May 19, 2008
When I thought things were going wrong today
from w
I've had such a messed up day today - mending going wrong by chopping off too much, porridge burnt, the builders next door making a racket with their concreting, a pleasant program cancelled. Thought I'd go to bed and start all over again, then when I read the latest Fiji news - well, here is some bright news at last. THEY ARE TALKING!
from Fiji Village:
Interim PM, Qarase Meet Publish date/time: 19/05/2008 [18:57]
Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama and Ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase met for the first time today.
Also attending the meeting were the President of the Methodist Church Laisiasa Ratabacaca and Head of the Catholic Church Archbishop Petero Mataca.
The two church leaders have met several times over the past few weeks and together facilitated the meet.
The meeting today was marked by an informal exchange of views, with all leaders noting in particular the great importance of constructive dialogue not only among political leaders but also among Fiji's diverse communities and the leaders of religious and civil organisations.
The four leaders in a joint press statement said that genuine, trust-based dialogue is essential in order for real progress to be achieved in any national level efforts at healing and reconciliation.
The four leaders agreed to meet again in the near future.
I've had such a messed up day today - mending going wrong by chopping off too much, porridge burnt, the builders next door making a racket with their concreting, a pleasant program cancelled. Thought I'd go to bed and start all over again, then when I read the latest Fiji news - well, here is some bright news at last. THEY ARE TALKING!
from Fiji Village:
Interim PM, Qarase Meet Publish date/time: 19/05/2008 [18:57]
Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama and Ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase met for the first time today.
Also attending the meeting were the President of the Methodist Church Laisiasa Ratabacaca and Head of the Catholic Church Archbishop Petero Mataca.
The two church leaders have met several times over the past few weeks and together facilitated the meet.
The meeting today was marked by an informal exchange of views, with all leaders noting in particular the great importance of constructive dialogue not only among political leaders but also among Fiji's diverse communities and the leaders of religious and civil organisations.
The four leaders in a joint press statement said that genuine, trust-based dialogue is essential in order for real progress to be achieved in any national level efforts at healing and reconciliation.
The four leaders agreed to meet again in the near future.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Paying taxes in Fiji
from w
Saw this picture in an advertisement in some newspaper magazine and it reminded me of something.
Hands up all those who have paid their taxes!
Saw this picture in an advertisement in some newspaper magazine and it reminded me of something.
Hands up all those who have paid their taxes!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Democracy and Fiji
from w
A thoughtful feature article in the Fiji Times today is by Appana and about democracy in Fiji.
Desperate for democracySUBHASH APPANA
Friday, February 01, 2008
The search for true democracy in Fiji has been long and arduous. Many have lamented the violent death of the 1970 Constitution at the hands of Rabuka's hitmen. There have been unending discussions of "if only" that constitution had been allowed to deliver.
Fiji was indeed at Rostov's "take-off" stage in 1987. Unfortunately there were those who supported that constitution only so long as it ensured political paramountcy in perpetuity.
Its electoral provisions were designed for exactly that.
The disproportionate number of seats allocated to "generals" and the carefully crafted cross-voting seats were meant to give the Alliance Party a sure head start every time.
Moreover, the two major ethnic groups were supposed to vote on strictly racial lines. If anything, the personal cross-cultural appeal of Ratu Mara would have ensured an Indian Alliance presence within government. That was the electoral focus of the 1970 constitution.
None of its engineers foresaw a convergence of cross-ethnic concerns at any time in future. That racial premise was supposed to hold in perpetuity.
Unfortunately the formation of the Fiji Labour Party in 1985 showed that race could be subordinated to bigger more pressing issues in Fiji.
Mutual concerns mixed with a bigger national agenda was the antidote to the race venom that had been such a salient strategic tool in Fiji's politics up till then.
Two years later the Alliance government fell and the whole set of premises (some articulated and some silent) on which the 1970 constitution rested was suddenly brought up for serious review.
A golden opportunity stared our leaders to steer Fiji onto a higher political plain, but power-play, parochial self-interest and opportunism ruled and those who had been revered and relied on came away permanently tainted.
Race suddenly became an issue of primary public concern; every problem was blamed on the kai idia because that provided a ready-made justification for the 1987 coup.
A string of punitive measures were put in place to harass and subjugate the Indo-Fijian community: humiliating searches by immigration officers, caps on capital transfer, blacklists, Sunday bans (no business, no picnics, no leisure, etc.) just to name a few. It came to a stage where even if it rained suddenly it was blamed on the kai idia.
The nationalists had a field day, calls were made for an all Fijian parliament, the "Indians go back home" slogan was again on the agenda.
And the notorious 1990 constitution was promulgated with the support of all of those Fijian institutions that had previously championed democracy amid token support from hand-picked Indo-Fijian representatives.
Rabuka as the newly elected PM knew that something was amiss. His concerted search for answers led to a personal accord with Jai Ram Reddy and the 1997 constitution was born.
That achievement cannot be taken away from either man despite the shortcomings of that constitution.
It is instructive that bigger agenda ruled that exercise — national interest superseded opportunistic short-term focus.
It can be argued by political sceptics that the 1997 constitution was supposed to propel both gentlemen into government. That is true, but the main difference between that and earlier constitutions was that electoral provisions were not designed for perpetual victory.
They were more focused on the collective and the designing of an appropriate democratic framework for Fiji.
That is precisely why it is invoked repeatedly in the aftermath of the 2006 coup by supporters and critics alike.
Now we are talking about a People's Charter that would guide Fiji and presumably help bring about necessary changes to the 1997 constitution.
This represents an ongoing search for a democracy that is suitable for Fiji. And the main glaring weaknesses of that constitution lie in its electoral provisions and the requirement for a multi-party cabinet.
A number of factors will need to be considered seriously for modifying the electoral provisions.
Firstly, population proportions have changed significantly since 1997 both in terms of ethnic composition as well as geographic concentration. Parliament must now comprise 37 per cent Indo-Fijians, 57 per cent Fijians and 6 per cent others.
In addition to this, Fijian representation must reflect urban-rural population concentrations.
The present constitution is heavily biased towards rural representation, and this is where the voting has historically been less issues-related. After all for democracy to deliver the voter must make an informed rational choice.
Secondly, constitutional boundaries need to be redrawn so that the number of voters that a member of parliament represents is balanced rather than skewed as at present where some represent 4000 while others represent as many as 16,000 voters.
This is why the constitutional boundaries commission has to be membered by people who are seen to be professional and non-partisan.
Thirdly, representativeness is an issue that lies at the centre of any democratic framework of governance.
Under the 1997 constitution, the NFP polled some 30 per cent of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, but ended up with zero parliamentary representation rendering their supporters voiceless for the next 5 years. That is not how a representative democracy should work.
This brings us to the most contentious and pressing issue that needs a serious selfless relook in the 1997 constitution.
The present preferential voting system where parties who cannot win outright at the first count choose to hand their votes to other preferred candidates on behalf of the voters makes a mockery of the whole concept of public choice as this gives the party precedence over the voter in choosing who ultimately represents them.
And the requirement for a multi-party cabinet further distorts the picture no matter how noble and visionary its original intentions were.
The public will recall Qarase's bloated cabinet of 36 with its associated costs. That was a mischievous response to a constitutional provision that was seen as a nuisance.
The bigger agenda of giving Fiji the best as envisaged by that constitutional provision did not matter.
In other words, just as forced marriages have a very slim chance of working, that constitutional provision for a multi-party cabinet may be too ambitious.
It is sad that the historically misguided preoccupation with shackling, curtailing and blaming the kai idia has diverted attention from the real issues facing the country.
There needs to be an understanding and appreciation of the fact that the Indo-Fijian no longer poses a political threat to Fijian rule. In fact the exodus continues like a tap that has lost its washer. That washer cannot be replaced because it's gone out of production with repeated political uncertainty.
Fiji needs to appreciate the fact that democracy is an answer that calls for honesty and a bigger concern for nation rather than self; therein lies the solution for true democracy Fiji-style.
The opinions contained here are those of the author and not necessarily shared by his employer, The University of the South Pacific, or any other organisations both local and foreign that he may be associated with.
A thoughtful feature article in the Fiji Times today is by Appana and about democracy in Fiji.
Desperate for democracySUBHASH APPANA
Friday, February 01, 2008
The search for true democracy in Fiji has been long and arduous. Many have lamented the violent death of the 1970 Constitution at the hands of Rabuka's hitmen. There have been unending discussions of "if only" that constitution had been allowed to deliver.
Fiji was indeed at Rostov's "take-off" stage in 1987. Unfortunately there were those who supported that constitution only so long as it ensured political paramountcy in perpetuity.
Its electoral provisions were designed for exactly that.
The disproportionate number of seats allocated to "generals" and the carefully crafted cross-voting seats were meant to give the Alliance Party a sure head start every time.
Moreover, the two major ethnic groups were supposed to vote on strictly racial lines. If anything, the personal cross-cultural appeal of Ratu Mara would have ensured an Indian Alliance presence within government. That was the electoral focus of the 1970 constitution.
None of its engineers foresaw a convergence of cross-ethnic concerns at any time in future. That racial premise was supposed to hold in perpetuity.
Unfortunately the formation of the Fiji Labour Party in 1985 showed that race could be subordinated to bigger more pressing issues in Fiji.
Mutual concerns mixed with a bigger national agenda was the antidote to the race venom that had been such a salient strategic tool in Fiji's politics up till then.
Two years later the Alliance government fell and the whole set of premises (some articulated and some silent) on which the 1970 constitution rested was suddenly brought up for serious review.
A golden opportunity stared our leaders to steer Fiji onto a higher political plain, but power-play, parochial self-interest and opportunism ruled and those who had been revered and relied on came away permanently tainted.
Race suddenly became an issue of primary public concern; every problem was blamed on the kai idia because that provided a ready-made justification for the 1987 coup.
A string of punitive measures were put in place to harass and subjugate the Indo-Fijian community: humiliating searches by immigration officers, caps on capital transfer, blacklists, Sunday bans (no business, no picnics, no leisure, etc.) just to name a few. It came to a stage where even if it rained suddenly it was blamed on the kai idia.
The nationalists had a field day, calls were made for an all Fijian parliament, the "Indians go back home" slogan was again on the agenda.
And the notorious 1990 constitution was promulgated with the support of all of those Fijian institutions that had previously championed democracy amid token support from hand-picked Indo-Fijian representatives.
Rabuka as the newly elected PM knew that something was amiss. His concerted search for answers led to a personal accord with Jai Ram Reddy and the 1997 constitution was born.
That achievement cannot be taken away from either man despite the shortcomings of that constitution.
It is instructive that bigger agenda ruled that exercise — national interest superseded opportunistic short-term focus.
It can be argued by political sceptics that the 1997 constitution was supposed to propel both gentlemen into government. That is true, but the main difference between that and earlier constitutions was that electoral provisions were not designed for perpetual victory.
They were more focused on the collective and the designing of an appropriate democratic framework for Fiji.
That is precisely why it is invoked repeatedly in the aftermath of the 2006 coup by supporters and critics alike.
Now we are talking about a People's Charter that would guide Fiji and presumably help bring about necessary changes to the 1997 constitution.
This represents an ongoing search for a democracy that is suitable for Fiji. And the main glaring weaknesses of that constitution lie in its electoral provisions and the requirement for a multi-party cabinet.
A number of factors will need to be considered seriously for modifying the electoral provisions.
Firstly, population proportions have changed significantly since 1997 both in terms of ethnic composition as well as geographic concentration. Parliament must now comprise 37 per cent Indo-Fijians, 57 per cent Fijians and 6 per cent others.
In addition to this, Fijian representation must reflect urban-rural population concentrations.
The present constitution is heavily biased towards rural representation, and this is where the voting has historically been less issues-related. After all for democracy to deliver the voter must make an informed rational choice.
Secondly, constitutional boundaries need to be redrawn so that the number of voters that a member of parliament represents is balanced rather than skewed as at present where some represent 4000 while others represent as many as 16,000 voters.
This is why the constitutional boundaries commission has to be membered by people who are seen to be professional and non-partisan.
Thirdly, representativeness is an issue that lies at the centre of any democratic framework of governance.
Under the 1997 constitution, the NFP polled some 30 per cent of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, but ended up with zero parliamentary representation rendering their supporters voiceless for the next 5 years. That is not how a representative democracy should work.
This brings us to the most contentious and pressing issue that needs a serious selfless relook in the 1997 constitution.
The present preferential voting system where parties who cannot win outright at the first count choose to hand their votes to other preferred candidates on behalf of the voters makes a mockery of the whole concept of public choice as this gives the party precedence over the voter in choosing who ultimately represents them.
And the requirement for a multi-party cabinet further distorts the picture no matter how noble and visionary its original intentions were.
The public will recall Qarase's bloated cabinet of 36 with its associated costs. That was a mischievous response to a constitutional provision that was seen as a nuisance.
The bigger agenda of giving Fiji the best as envisaged by that constitutional provision did not matter.
In other words, just as forced marriages have a very slim chance of working, that constitutional provision for a multi-party cabinet may be too ambitious.
It is sad that the historically misguided preoccupation with shackling, curtailing and blaming the kai idia has diverted attention from the real issues facing the country.
There needs to be an understanding and appreciation of the fact that the Indo-Fijian no longer poses a political threat to Fijian rule. In fact the exodus continues like a tap that has lost its washer. That washer cannot be replaced because it's gone out of production with repeated political uncertainty.
Fiji needs to appreciate the fact that democracy is an answer that calls for honesty and a bigger concern for nation rather than self; therein lies the solution for true democracy Fiji-style.
The opinions contained here are those of the author and not necessarily shared by his employer, The University of the South Pacific, or any other organisations both local and foreign that he may be associated with.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Wise words from Alumita. Vinaka Dr Durutolu
from w
Dr Alumita Durutolu, a lecturer at the USP talks about dialogue as the way to go in Fiji. This is part of an article by Verenaisi Raicola in the Fiji Times Friday April 13th. Some good insights and advice here. Vinaka Dr Durutolu!
He (Dr Brij Lal) and USP academic Dr Alumita Durutalo believe there is a need for space and time for dialogue as well as reflection.
"Perhaps, it is now time for dialogue and consensus. All parties should come together and discuss common ground for nominating somebody as Vice President," said Dr Durutalo. She said the GCC, as the foremost institution of Fijian society, should initiate and facilitate talks with discontented or aggrieved members of Fijian society to understand the thinking and actions of their people in the trying times we face.
Dr Durutalo said nominating a chief to assume the role of President or Vice President in Fiji was clear under sections 9092 in Fiji's 1997 Constitution.
However, the process of nominating chiefs to these positions is quite complex as it involves consensus and a flair for the "chiefly way of politicking".
"I understand chiefs of the vanua and matanitu in the Bose Levu Vakaturaga have worked out a way to rotate the positions among the three confederacies.
"Additionally members of the chiefly council usually appoint chiefs who command the respect of the majority of its members as representatives of indigenous Fijians in the vanua throughout Fiji."
Dr Durutalo said constitutionally and, at this point in Fiji's political history, one could say that the next Vice President would depend on the endorsement of the chiefly council.
Dr Durutalo said members of the GCC could only be removed if they were no longer nominated by their respective provincial councils to be representatives to the GCC. "I understand some chiefly members are in the council because of their high rank and status as title holders of various matanitu, for example.
"So to forcibly remove these chiefly members, in Fijian protocol, one is not removing one chief but the hundreds or thousands of Fijians whom they represent," she said.
Dr Durutalo said at the level of the vanua, removing some members could only exacerbate old rivalries and further aggravate ongoing problems.
"Additionally, one in the long-term may jeopardise chances of national resource development, especially if members of the aggrieved party are important resource owners," she said.
Dr Alumita Durutolu, a lecturer at the USP talks about dialogue as the way to go in Fiji. This is part of an article by Verenaisi Raicola in the Fiji Times Friday April 13th. Some good insights and advice here. Vinaka Dr Durutolu!
He (Dr Brij Lal) and USP academic Dr Alumita Durutalo believe there is a need for space and time for dialogue as well as reflection.
"Perhaps, it is now time for dialogue and consensus. All parties should come together and discuss common ground for nominating somebody as Vice President," said Dr Durutalo. She said the GCC, as the foremost institution of Fijian society, should initiate and facilitate talks with discontented or aggrieved members of Fijian society to understand the thinking and actions of their people in the trying times we face.
Dr Durutalo said nominating a chief to assume the role of President or Vice President in Fiji was clear under sections 9092 in Fiji's 1997 Constitution.
However, the process of nominating chiefs to these positions is quite complex as it involves consensus and a flair for the "chiefly way of politicking".
"I understand chiefs of the vanua and matanitu in the Bose Levu Vakaturaga have worked out a way to rotate the positions among the three confederacies.
"Additionally members of the chiefly council usually appoint chiefs who command the respect of the majority of its members as representatives of indigenous Fijians in the vanua throughout Fiji."
Dr Durutalo said constitutionally and, at this point in Fiji's political history, one could say that the next Vice President would depend on the endorsement of the chiefly council.
Dr Durutalo said members of the GCC could only be removed if they were no longer nominated by their respective provincial councils to be representatives to the GCC. "I understand some chiefly members are in the council because of their high rank and status as title holders of various matanitu, for example.
"So to forcibly remove these chiefly members, in Fijian protocol, one is not removing one chief but the hundreds or thousands of Fijians whom they represent," she said.
Dr Durutalo said at the level of the vanua, removing some members could only exacerbate old rivalries and further aggravate ongoing problems.
"Additionally, one in the long-term may jeopardise chances of national resource development, especially if members of the aggrieved party are important resource owners," she said.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Maika asks, 'Do we need a Vice-President?'
In the Fiji Sun today Maika has his usual commentary about Fiji politics. See this page
It certainly sounds like a comedy of errors and reads like a song from a Gilbert and Sullivan musical, such as 'I am a Major General....etc. etc.'
On the other hand, it can stay as it is - only change titles to their letters - which is usual in Fiji. This is the last paragraph then...
In such case, the P is said to exercise a reserve power. With the absence of parliament and in such an odd situation the nation is now facing, can the P use his reserve power to select a VP. With the suspension of the BLV, the P can use his reserve power. I know if the P uses his reserve power, it can be challenged in court. The only other way out of this crisis is to go without a VP until the government reinstates the BLV. The IPM can surely play the role of VP when the P is away. In the absence of the P, the VP will perform formal functions. He will attend all state functions, receive foreign dignitaries. He or she will sign credentials of the republic's ambassadors and receives those of ambassadors accredited to the FI. Surely we can be without a VP for the time being. The Office of the P has confirmed the P will soon name a VP. If this happens, the legality will be questioned. Already the legality of the P has been queried after the C removed him when he took over the EA on December 5, 2006. To avoid legal challenges against the appointment of the VP by the P at this time, the nation can go without a VP until the BLV is reinstated and recognised by the IG. Well I know the IPM and his regime want a VP and will surely go ahead with the appointment.
It certainly sounds like a comedy of errors and reads like a song from a Gilbert and Sullivan musical, such as 'I am a Major General....etc. etc.'
On the other hand, it can stay as it is - only change titles to their letters - which is usual in Fiji. This is the last paragraph then...
In such case, the P is said to exercise a reserve power. With the absence of parliament and in such an odd situation the nation is now facing, can the P use his reserve power to select a VP. With the suspension of the BLV, the P can use his reserve power. I know if the P uses his reserve power, it can be challenged in court. The only other way out of this crisis is to go without a VP until the government reinstates the BLV. The IPM can surely play the role of VP when the P is away. In the absence of the P, the VP will perform formal functions. He will attend all state functions, receive foreign dignitaries. He or she will sign credentials of the republic's ambassadors and receives those of ambassadors accredited to the FI. Surely we can be without a VP for the time being. The Office of the P has confirmed the P will soon name a VP. If this happens, the legality will be questioned. Already the legality of the P has been queried after the C removed him when he took over the EA on December 5, 2006. To avoid legal challenges against the appointment of the VP by the P at this time, the nation can go without a VP until the BLV is reinstated and recognised by the IG. Well I know the IPM and his regime want a VP and will surely go ahead with the appointment.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
From Putsh to Shove - and responses
from w
The ordinary Fiji people have plenty to say, judging by forums, letters to the editors, have your say. Here are a few responses to the situation that arose yesterday when the Interim Prime Minister suspended the Council of Chiefs because they did not endorse the nomination of Ratu Epeli Nailatikau as Vice President.
From Fiji Sun yesterday
Meant to be leaders?
Dr. Fereti Seru Dewa
SuvaIt is interesting to observe the Great Council of Chief's deliberations about the vice president. The Roko Tui Dreketi claims that chiefs are "meant to be" leaders. Those that claim to support tradition, however, have not observed the tradition that the GCC endorses the President's nominations. It seems that tradition is meant to be observed only when it suits the purpose of those observing it. In fact there is nothing traditional about the GCC or even the chiefs' positions. These are all, creations of British imperialists who diverted the natural order of Fijian society to make it easier for them to rule. Similar structures were set up in all colonies, worldwide, which were neither about preserving tradition nor about moving countries to democracy but simply about keeping the peace and making the imperialists' lives easier. Our neighbour Tonga is a case in point.
Traditionally Fijian society prior to contact with Europe was led by chiefs who earned the right to rule, not just by their birthright but by their intelligence, their ability to lead their people wisely and their prowess in battle. A leader who did not protect his people effectively and lead them wisely was soon overthrown. One of our great leaders did in fact say "If you cannot measure up, stand down" or something to that effect. The essential difference is that between a leader and a chief. Leadership is not inherited but earned through hard work and good governance. Many modern day chiefs may want to hide under the umbrella of chiefs such as Ratu Mara who were both chiefs and great leaders. They ask us to believe that their abilities were down to the fact they were chiefs rather than great leaders and exceptional individuals.
Good leaders should be supported by their people for who they are, not for who their father was. They should lead wisely and plough back the money earned from leases to improve our environment, their people's homes, schools and medical centres. How can chiefs expect respect when they keep these proceeds for their own use when their people live in poverty? Leadership by birthright is not compatible with a modern democracy. It is time to move on. Nowhere in the world have indigenous people won rights by sticking to hereditary hierarchies. The rights of indigenous Fijians will not be won by sticking to hereditary hierarchies. The rights of indigenous Fijians will be won by working with all racial groups in our society through the ballot box through the chiefly system or the GCC.
-----------
From Fiji Times: Some responses: Your Say Current Topic
The interim PM has announced the suspension of further GCC meetings and the reallocation of their budget. Is this the correct way to handle the situation? Is the GCC being manipulated, and if so, by whom?
Laite of USA (3 hours and 18 minutes ago)
A suspension does not mean a complete removal of anyone or as in this case, complete removal of an entity. Bainimarama and the IG needs to use this suspended time wisely.
I think the suspension is simply a ploy to give more time to the Interim Government to take a deeper look at the GCC... its functions, responsibilities, fiscal integrity, strengths, weaknesses, and what its role should be in the future.
Some of us are old enough to know that our modern day GCC is as far away from how we viewed and revered them then as they are today. That is, the vanua was well taken care of, and managed accordingly from the Provincial Councils down to the Turaga Ni Koro. Now we see the degradation of Fijian societies across the country with the people of the vanua moving to cities and towns and adding to the unemployment and poverty numbers. There is no shame like the one you feel when you are poor in your own land.
The GCC as a polarizing factor for the vanua and the country, has become heavily politicized to gain any respect from the educated Fijians who truly care about the vanua.
The 1997 Constitution, which gave this august body more power than perhaps it deserves, has given rise to the number of political seekers within the GCC. For two reasons:
1. the electoral system has remained the same, that is, communal, which means easy votes for chiefs from their people in the vanua.
2. parliamentary set up that allows them to sit at the Upper House without being elected to it, if not by the whole country, then at least by the people of the vanua, and not by the GCC or the PM.
This coup was not backed by the GCC, therefore, some of its members who were ousted by Bainimarama are among the GCC members who voted against the President's nominee.
So, either they denied the nomination because they are angry at Bainimarama for not having them on board during the coup, for being ousted, or for being influenced by the anti-Bainimarama GCC members from the Methodist Church....it was a losing situation from the get go.
Manipulation? Big time. By disgruntled members, ousted cabinet members, Methodist Church members, and their combined political ideology as a whole.
1. Savusavu@CalgaryCanada of Canada (2 hours and 5 minutes ago)
Don't anyone care any more about what the "people" want and what the "people" have to say. What happened to the old and new teaching I ELect my leader and government. Way to go GCC when push comes to shove, you have done a good job. Fiji has a beautiful historic culture and values, as much as possible keep in touch with the historic culture and values.
2. Bowman of New Zealand (1 hour and 39 minutes ago)
Is there any other well educated chief out there to take that post (VP), that they only picking on those who just volunteer themselves because they cannot win any seat during normal election.
Slack tactics PM & President.
3. Osama of Fiji (1 hour and 10 minutes ago)
If you don't like what they say, sack them! That's the hallmark of VB.
It's not a question of whether the GCC is right or wrong, or if they should or shouldn't be there; the question is, "What gives VB the right to suspend them?"
This is an insult to Fiji.
4. crooked of New Zealand (38 minutes ago)
Theres two things in this topic to ponder about.
Suspension means they can have the meeting latter and reallocation means no more council of chiefs meeting.
It's a bit confusing, however let's get back to the basics on what the constitution say about Vore's action: is it legal or illegal.
If it's illegal that's the court to solve and if its legal let him please himself because all his actions will only prolong his term behind bars.
Another point to ponder how these chiefs are being nominated to be member of the GCC. I believe if we go back to the basics there were only about 13 chiefs (if my memory is correct) real chiefs I mean who signed the deed of cession at Levuka on behalf of all the Fijian chiefs whom we see nowadays. Ma'afu was one of the Tongans who signed, so I also believe that if we recognise the deed of cession then Nailatikau can represent Ma'afu because they are both Tongans.
Where are all these chiefs coming from? If we keep this trend we will end up with the saying "there's too many chiefs with no Indians around"
5. Davenport-Larking
The GCC had become politicised, and were doing a publicity stunt. (28 minutes ago)
The GCC would have rejected "any" 2nd VP, or 3rd nomination made by the president, had further meetings been allowed to continue.
They were using political arguments to reject the VP nomination. The writing was on the wall.
When you are a PM, or a Minister, especially in Fiji, with a road-map with a limited time frame, and pressure from the international community to meet dead-lines as quickly as possible, you can't get mucked around by publicity-political-stunts.
Prime Minister Bainimarama, and his Fijian Affairs Minister have shown foresight, and nipped this thing in the bud.
There's going to be a whole more of these "stunts", just like there has always been.
This time round, however, good governance/leadership/swift decision making is going to behaviourally modify the trouble-makers, once and for all.
This time round the road out of "third-worldness" is going to happen, because no road-blocks, or delays will be tolerated.
And the credible international community are becoming assured that a stable socio-economic environment will prevail.
And the people are being assured, that staying, or growing new businesses, building their house, keeping their educated children in Fiji, is the right decision now.
6. Historian of Suva (22 minutes ago)
Well done Frank for taking the first step towards removing the so called 'Great' Council of Chiefs. This group was a device constructed by the British Colonial Government solely to make Fiji administration easier. It is certainly not "ancient" as some people have written. These days it has entirely outlived its usefulness. (What was it doing between 1914 and 1987?) Nowadays it is costly, racist, ignorant and hopelessly undemocratic.
To media reporters: Please stop using the expression "august body". Many of you appear to think it means 'August body'. Look up the word 'august'. It is probably the last adjective anyone would use to describe the GCC anyway!
The ordinary Fiji people have plenty to say, judging by forums, letters to the editors, have your say. Here are a few responses to the situation that arose yesterday when the Interim Prime Minister suspended the Council of Chiefs because they did not endorse the nomination of Ratu Epeli Nailatikau as Vice President.
From Fiji Sun yesterday
Meant to be leaders?
Dr. Fereti Seru Dewa
SuvaIt is interesting to observe the Great Council of Chief's deliberations about the vice president. The Roko Tui Dreketi claims that chiefs are "meant to be" leaders. Those that claim to support tradition, however, have not observed the tradition that the GCC endorses the President's nominations. It seems that tradition is meant to be observed only when it suits the purpose of those observing it. In fact there is nothing traditional about the GCC or even the chiefs' positions. These are all, creations of British imperialists who diverted the natural order of Fijian society to make it easier for them to rule. Similar structures were set up in all colonies, worldwide, which were neither about preserving tradition nor about moving countries to democracy but simply about keeping the peace and making the imperialists' lives easier. Our neighbour Tonga is a case in point.
Traditionally Fijian society prior to contact with Europe was led by chiefs who earned the right to rule, not just by their birthright but by their intelligence, their ability to lead their people wisely and their prowess in battle. A leader who did not protect his people effectively and lead them wisely was soon overthrown. One of our great leaders did in fact say "If you cannot measure up, stand down" or something to that effect. The essential difference is that between a leader and a chief. Leadership is not inherited but earned through hard work and good governance. Many modern day chiefs may want to hide under the umbrella of chiefs such as Ratu Mara who were both chiefs and great leaders. They ask us to believe that their abilities were down to the fact they were chiefs rather than great leaders and exceptional individuals.
Good leaders should be supported by their people for who they are, not for who their father was. They should lead wisely and plough back the money earned from leases to improve our environment, their people's homes, schools and medical centres. How can chiefs expect respect when they keep these proceeds for their own use when their people live in poverty? Leadership by birthright is not compatible with a modern democracy. It is time to move on. Nowhere in the world have indigenous people won rights by sticking to hereditary hierarchies. The rights of indigenous Fijians will not be won by sticking to hereditary hierarchies. The rights of indigenous Fijians will be won by working with all racial groups in our society through the ballot box through the chiefly system or the GCC.
-----------
From Fiji Times: Some responses: Your Say Current Topic
The interim PM has announced the suspension of further GCC meetings and the reallocation of their budget. Is this the correct way to handle the situation? Is the GCC being manipulated, and if so, by whom?
Laite of USA (3 hours and 18 minutes ago)
A suspension does not mean a complete removal of anyone or as in this case, complete removal of an entity. Bainimarama and the IG needs to use this suspended time wisely.
I think the suspension is simply a ploy to give more time to the Interim Government to take a deeper look at the GCC... its functions, responsibilities, fiscal integrity, strengths, weaknesses, and what its role should be in the future.
Some of us are old enough to know that our modern day GCC is as far away from how we viewed and revered them then as they are today. That is, the vanua was well taken care of, and managed accordingly from the Provincial Councils down to the Turaga Ni Koro. Now we see the degradation of Fijian societies across the country with the people of the vanua moving to cities and towns and adding to the unemployment and poverty numbers. There is no shame like the one you feel when you are poor in your own land.
The GCC as a polarizing factor for the vanua and the country, has become heavily politicized to gain any respect from the educated Fijians who truly care about the vanua.
The 1997 Constitution, which gave this august body more power than perhaps it deserves, has given rise to the number of political seekers within the GCC. For two reasons:
1. the electoral system has remained the same, that is, communal, which means easy votes for chiefs from their people in the vanua.
2. parliamentary set up that allows them to sit at the Upper House without being elected to it, if not by the whole country, then at least by the people of the vanua, and not by the GCC or the PM.
This coup was not backed by the GCC, therefore, some of its members who were ousted by Bainimarama are among the GCC members who voted against the President's nominee.
So, either they denied the nomination because they are angry at Bainimarama for not having them on board during the coup, for being ousted, or for being influenced by the anti-Bainimarama GCC members from the Methodist Church....it was a losing situation from the get go.
Manipulation? Big time. By disgruntled members, ousted cabinet members, Methodist Church members, and their combined political ideology as a whole.
1. Savusavu@CalgaryCanada of Canada (2 hours and 5 minutes ago)
Don't anyone care any more about what the "people" want and what the "people" have to say. What happened to the old and new teaching I ELect my leader and government. Way to go GCC when push comes to shove, you have done a good job. Fiji has a beautiful historic culture and values, as much as possible keep in touch with the historic culture and values.
2. Bowman of New Zealand (1 hour and 39 minutes ago)
Is there any other well educated chief out there to take that post (VP), that they only picking on those who just volunteer themselves because they cannot win any seat during normal election.
Slack tactics PM & President.
3. Osama of Fiji (1 hour and 10 minutes ago)
If you don't like what they say, sack them! That's the hallmark of VB.
It's not a question of whether the GCC is right or wrong, or if they should or shouldn't be there; the question is, "What gives VB the right to suspend them?"
This is an insult to Fiji.
4. crooked of New Zealand (38 minutes ago)
Theres two things in this topic to ponder about.
Suspension means they can have the meeting latter and reallocation means no more council of chiefs meeting.
It's a bit confusing, however let's get back to the basics on what the constitution say about Vore's action: is it legal or illegal.
If it's illegal that's the court to solve and if its legal let him please himself because all his actions will only prolong his term behind bars.
Another point to ponder how these chiefs are being nominated to be member of the GCC. I believe if we go back to the basics there were only about 13 chiefs (if my memory is correct) real chiefs I mean who signed the deed of cession at Levuka on behalf of all the Fijian chiefs whom we see nowadays. Ma'afu was one of the Tongans who signed, so I also believe that if we recognise the deed of cession then Nailatikau can represent Ma'afu because they are both Tongans.
Where are all these chiefs coming from? If we keep this trend we will end up with the saying "there's too many chiefs with no Indians around"
5. Davenport-Larking
The GCC had become politicised, and were doing a publicity stunt. (28 minutes ago)
The GCC would have rejected "any" 2nd VP, or 3rd nomination made by the president, had further meetings been allowed to continue.
They were using political arguments to reject the VP nomination. The writing was on the wall.
When you are a PM, or a Minister, especially in Fiji, with a road-map with a limited time frame, and pressure from the international community to meet dead-lines as quickly as possible, you can't get mucked around by publicity-political-stunts.
Prime Minister Bainimarama, and his Fijian Affairs Minister have shown foresight, and nipped this thing in the bud.
There's going to be a whole more of these "stunts", just like there has always been.
This time round, however, good governance/leadership/swift decision making is going to behaviourally modify the trouble-makers, once and for all.
This time round the road out of "third-worldness" is going to happen, because no road-blocks, or delays will be tolerated.
And the credible international community are becoming assured that a stable socio-economic environment will prevail.
And the people are being assured, that staying, or growing new businesses, building their house, keeping their educated children in Fiji, is the right decision now.
6. Historian of Suva (22 minutes ago)
Well done Frank for taking the first step towards removing the so called 'Great' Council of Chiefs. This group was a device constructed by the British Colonial Government solely to make Fiji administration easier. It is certainly not "ancient" as some people have written. These days it has entirely outlived its usefulness. (What was it doing between 1914 and 1987?) Nowadays it is costly, racist, ignorant and hopelessly undemocratic.
To media reporters: Please stop using the expression "august body". Many of you appear to think it means 'August body'. Look up the word 'august'. It is probably the last adjective anyone would use to describe the GCC anyway!
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Reminds me of the Blues Brothers
from w
An unhappy chappie it seems who does not like the job, but is committed to see it through.
from a Fiji paper today:
In an interview in the latest Time Magazine, Commodore Bainimarama said he didn’t want to be Prime Minister, and accepted the position only at the urging of his military council. "I hate this job," he says, "but it has to be done. And we are going to stay until we complete this business."
--
The photo was taken at the International Women's Day event in Fiji. No doubt the photographer waited for an off moment and snapped. He/she could have waited for a smiling moment surely!
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fiji's Yellow Bucket
from w.
Fijivillage Yellow Bucket occasionally gives a quirky, realistic, sometimes irreverent, take on the political and social life of Fiji. Lately they have been quiet, simply simmering the ingredients as the plot thickens. Anyway they are back with a take on how people in Fiji are looking of events. The ‘yellow bucket’ refers to a plastic bucket used for kava drinking I presume and the author/authors are anonymous. I am only using extracts from the article.
The Bucket is Back By fijivillage Feb 16, 2007, 17:25
…….. The first challenge is to come to terms with the magnitude of change, the reality of military rule and what that entails. Yes we know there is a civilian administration in place tip toeing within the boundaries of the constitution (this assumes the broadest possible interpretation possible of the blue book) but the fact is what Commander Frank wants he gets. For those of us brought up in the tradition of Fijians vs. Mahend politics this new Fiji order takes some getting used to. The military has been particularly strategic in this regard. Under the guise of emergency legislation they have left the media (with a couple of early exceptions) alone but have instead targeted those critics of the regime using “incitement” to validate what has on some occasions been some pretty tough treatment we understand however that this may be about to change.But lets get back to the basics lets strip away all the buzz words and slogans and delve into what this is really all about. 36 years of indigenous Fijian rule (with a couple of momentary lapses) created a Fijian elite that dominated public life. While there were the occasional scraps and some fell in and out of favour, power was essentially shared within this group maintained via democratic and when necessary military means.
(section deleted – as it’s too long but gives the background of Fiji since 1987)
The scale of change that has taken place presents issues here. There is a large group of displaced, disgruntled and in many cases financially desperate former politicians and public servants who now sit wondering how they and their families are going to survive. As any student of revolutions will tell you resistance is usually born in the disgruntled educated middle classes who then provide leadership to the masses.
YB understands a couple of attempts (and we are not talking about the democracy protests) have already been made by this newly disenfranchised group to stir up dissent with little success.So what is the mood of the masses? Right now the ordinary Josefas and Jigneshs are still confused. Survival is their main priority with school fees to pay there is no time to worry about politics. But they are adding up the pluses and minuses and the tally currently looks a little like this. For Jignesh the pluses are increased security (the aggressive clean up of criminal elements is appreciated by all), the whole multiracial tone of the new government, increased access to “guvment” in a whole range of new areas previously sealed off, removal of the blue print, the fact that Mahend is in power and they like the sound of the whole “clean up” campaign. Minuses largely center around worries about the economy, job security and the impact it could have on his personal bottom line but in general he supports the coup and ousting of the government.For Josefa the pluses would once again be increased security (there is a BUT coming), the clean up (unless one of his relatives is affected) and possibly talk of changes to NLTB land rental distribution. As a Fijian he is used to “guvment” and more particularly politicians delivering or at least promising to deliver the goodies although many have waited for years. These can range from simple assistance to get a licence or FNPF money to more direct hand outs often at a very basic level. For the moment he is testing the army and waiting to see how they perform. Underlying this however is a reluctance to get involved in politics. He is aware that he has been manipulated in the past by nationalist politicians and isn’t going to be fooled again so would have to be given a very good reason to take action.Minuses would be more significant then his neighbor Jignesh. He probably voted SDL initial anger at their ousting has now passed and for the moment he can live with it. He will be skeptical but not surprised by the corruption claims and waiting for proof.Top of the minuses will probably be concerns over the military’s jack boot approach to stomping on dissent particularly if relatives have been targeted. All this adds up to a general sense of apathy not particularly for or against just watching and waiting.But the “jack boot” approach does, for the moment, represents the biggest threat to maintaining a tranquil transition. It does appear that the military is now moving to shift strategy with the lifting of travel bans, this we understand will be accompanied by a general softening of the military’s aggressive stance re criticism and freedom of expression. Once again we hear that there is a feeling within the armed forces that now is the time to start sampling public opinion. Also they are aware that human rights abuses get in the way of international relationships and with the crucial EU aid review looming it is time to repair the image.
You do get the sense that we are now entering into the third phase of this process. The first being the initial take over and clampdown, the second a consolidation process aimed at securing power and ousting opposition elements. The third is one of starting the process of delivering on the promises. This means getting down to the business of government and this is where the Commander is faced with critical choices that will determine ultimate success or failure.
(and so on)
Read the whole text for yourself anyway.
An excellent discussion on reactions in Fiji to the Four Eminent Visitors report (supposed to be FOR YOUR EYES ONLY but who in Fiji worries about things like piracy of tapes, copyright material, etc.) is on Ms Vakaivosavosa’s blog site. The whole text of the 20 page report is on the net already anyway on another site.
Fijivillage Yellow Bucket occasionally gives a quirky, realistic, sometimes irreverent, take on the political and social life of Fiji. Lately they have been quiet, simply simmering the ingredients as the plot thickens. Anyway they are back with a take on how people in Fiji are looking of events. The ‘yellow bucket’ refers to a plastic bucket used for kava drinking I presume and the author/authors are anonymous. I am only using extracts from the article.
The Bucket is Back By fijivillage Feb 16, 2007, 17:25
…….. The first challenge is to come to terms with the magnitude of change, the reality of military rule and what that entails. Yes we know there is a civilian administration in place tip toeing within the boundaries of the constitution (this assumes the broadest possible interpretation possible of the blue book) but the fact is what Commander Frank wants he gets. For those of us brought up in the tradition of Fijians vs. Mahend politics this new Fiji order takes some getting used to. The military has been particularly strategic in this regard. Under the guise of emergency legislation they have left the media (with a couple of early exceptions) alone but have instead targeted those critics of the regime using “incitement” to validate what has on some occasions been some pretty tough treatment we understand however that this may be about to change.But lets get back to the basics lets strip away all the buzz words and slogans and delve into what this is really all about. 36 years of indigenous Fijian rule (with a couple of momentary lapses) created a Fijian elite that dominated public life. While there were the occasional scraps and some fell in and out of favour, power was essentially shared within this group maintained via democratic and when necessary military means.
(section deleted – as it’s too long but gives the background of Fiji since 1987)
The scale of change that has taken place presents issues here. There is a large group of displaced, disgruntled and in many cases financially desperate former politicians and public servants who now sit wondering how they and their families are going to survive. As any student of revolutions will tell you resistance is usually born in the disgruntled educated middle classes who then provide leadership to the masses.
YB understands a couple of attempts (and we are not talking about the democracy protests) have already been made by this newly disenfranchised group to stir up dissent with little success.So what is the mood of the masses? Right now the ordinary Josefas and Jigneshs are still confused. Survival is their main priority with school fees to pay there is no time to worry about politics. But they are adding up the pluses and minuses and the tally currently looks a little like this. For Jignesh the pluses are increased security (the aggressive clean up of criminal elements is appreciated by all), the whole multiracial tone of the new government, increased access to “guvment” in a whole range of new areas previously sealed off, removal of the blue print, the fact that Mahend is in power and they like the sound of the whole “clean up” campaign. Minuses largely center around worries about the economy, job security and the impact it could have on his personal bottom line but in general he supports the coup and ousting of the government.For Josefa the pluses would once again be increased security (there is a BUT coming), the clean up (unless one of his relatives is affected) and possibly talk of changes to NLTB land rental distribution. As a Fijian he is used to “guvment” and more particularly politicians delivering or at least promising to deliver the goodies although many have waited for years. These can range from simple assistance to get a licence or FNPF money to more direct hand outs often at a very basic level. For the moment he is testing the army and waiting to see how they perform. Underlying this however is a reluctance to get involved in politics. He is aware that he has been manipulated in the past by nationalist politicians and isn’t going to be fooled again so would have to be given a very good reason to take action.Minuses would be more significant then his neighbor Jignesh. He probably voted SDL initial anger at their ousting has now passed and for the moment he can live with it. He will be skeptical but not surprised by the corruption claims and waiting for proof.Top of the minuses will probably be concerns over the military’s jack boot approach to stomping on dissent particularly if relatives have been targeted. All this adds up to a general sense of apathy not particularly for or against just watching and waiting.But the “jack boot” approach does, for the moment, represents the biggest threat to maintaining a tranquil transition. It does appear that the military is now moving to shift strategy with the lifting of travel bans, this we understand will be accompanied by a general softening of the military’s aggressive stance re criticism and freedom of expression. Once again we hear that there is a feeling within the armed forces that now is the time to start sampling public opinion. Also they are aware that human rights abuses get in the way of international relationships and with the crucial EU aid review looming it is time to repair the image.
You do get the sense that we are now entering into the third phase of this process. The first being the initial take over and clampdown, the second a consolidation process aimed at securing power and ousting opposition elements. The third is one of starting the process of delivering on the promises. This means getting down to the business of government and this is where the Commander is faced with critical choices that will determine ultimate success or failure.
(and so on)
Read the whole text for yourself anyway.
An excellent discussion on reactions in Fiji to the Four Eminent Visitors report (supposed to be FOR YOUR EYES ONLY but who in Fiji worries about things like piracy of tapes, copyright material, etc.) is on Ms Vakaivosavosa’s blog site. The whole text of the 20 page report is on the net already anyway on another site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
