Croz Walsh's Blog -- Fiji: The Way it Was, Is and Can Be

Counting Down: Ratuva on Progress and Parties

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Sat, 25 May 2013 07:09:00 +0000

Sixteen months to the elections. What does one of our distinguished political sociologists think of developments? Dr Steven Ratuva is now a senior lecturer in Pacific Studies at the University of Auckland. His current research includes military-civil relations and regime change and Governance and electoral systems. Here’s excerpts from his views in an interview with the Fiji Sun:

On Fiji’s progress towards September 2014 and Government’s role in this process:
The government says that the required technical processes seem to be in place except for the constitution. Beyond that, I suppose the critical questions have to do with allaying people’ concerns about whether the elections will be free and fair and the other concern, given Fiji’s election history since 1987, is the guarantee that the results of the elections will accepted by whoever loses. At the end of the day these will determine people’s confidence in the electoral process.

On using the proportional representation system in next year’s election:

There are different types of PR electoral systems and Fiji, like about 80% of other countries using the PR system will be using party listing, a type of PR system. Under the PR system, suggested both by the Ghai and government constitutional drafts, the number of seats a party wins is proportional to the percentage of the votes won by that party. For instance if a party wins 20% of the votes, it will be allocated 20% of the seats in parliament. This system provides for equity in seat distribution and also gives the chance for small parties to win seats. Because of this, there will be no outright winner and thus in the end there would have to be a coalition. The process involves political parties providing either an “open” or “closed” list. While the Ghai draft proposed a closed system where parties determine their own list, the government draft proposes an open list which involves voters determining the list. There are four different ways to determine the open list but the government draft does not specify how their proposed open list will be determined. While the PR party list system (used in many countries around the world such as Brazil, South Africa, Norway, South Korea, Netherlands, etc,) is one of the fairest, it is also criticized for giving too much power to political parties and undermines the voters’ real intent in choosing people they want in parliament. NZ has tried to solve this problem by having both the First Past the Post (FPP) to elect individuals and the PR system to choose parties, so voters have two votes each. The PR system has allowed for minority parties like the NZ Greens to win seats.

On how effective this voting system is compared to the last two that Fiji had used – first past the post and alternative voting system:

The PR system is vastly different from the 1990 constitution’s FPP system and the 1997 constitution’s Alternative Voting (AV) system where there was often wide discrepancy between the number of votes and the number of seats won. The PR system ensures that seat distribution in parliament is directly proportional to the votes won. Both the Ghai and government drafts do not suggest any threshold for parties to win a seat. For instance what is the minimum percentage of the votes a party should win in order to be eligible for a seat? In most countries which use PR, there’s a threshold, for instance in NZ it is 5% and in Israel it is 2%. But the other alternative is to have an informal or “practical” minimum—but again this is not specified in the government draft.

Of these three systems of voting, which is best suited for Fiji?

The PR system is much fairer than the FPP and AV systems and is one of the most popular voting systems in the world. The FPP tended to exacerbate ethnic competition for power in Fiji while the AV system led to a large number of informal votes. The PR not only distributes seats fairly, it also ensures power-sharing between parties. No party will have a total monopoly as in the FPP system and we will end up with three or more parties sharing power. The smaller parties and even independent candidates will make a lot of different in terms of holding the balance of power. Given Fiji’s population distribution and assuming that there will be a general distribution of ethnic votes (although there are no ethnic seats), parties with greater chances of winning are those which would attract the youth voters. Remember that about 50% of Fiji’s population is below 25 years.

On whether Fiji has the structures in place for a free and fair election:
This is the major concern by political parties, voters and international observers of Fiji politics. Fiji’s post-coup political climate had not been easy for political parties opposed to the government to operate in. Government has firm control over the constitutional process and the running of the election. For people to have confidence in the process the government needs to provide not only open guarantee for minimal intervention in the electoral process, they also must be seen to be openly and actively doing it. Also, the constitutional review process and the election are mere “state building” processes to address the issue of state governance. We also need a deeper process of “nation building” through national dialogue and reconciliation between political parties, civil society and diverse representatives of society to address the social fractures, pain, anger, anguish and grievance of people after the 2006 coup. This is important for the long-term stability of the country and failure to do this will continue to haunt us in the future. ON how political parties can contribute towards the election:

This election will be anticipated after a long time because it is a way of getting Fiji out of the political quagmire as well as provide the exit strategy for the coup makers who of course are actively trying to return to power through the electoral process. The role of the political parties would be crucial in ensuring a peaceful transition and stability. The old ethnic-based political parties will need to reinvent themselves and all face massive challenges of reimaging, organisational reconfiguration and developing their mobilisation capacity. For instance, the National Federation Party will need to shed its old ethnic image, look for a strong leader and make explicit a new political position which would make it different from other parties. The SODELPA will need to extend its multi-ethnic appeal under the new team and devise new strategies to appeal to the young and women because that’s where the winning votes are. The Labour Party will need to try and reclaim its support lost after the split, shed its ethnic image and reinvent a new ideology. The proposed People’s Democratic Party needs to have a strong and vibrant leader and work extra hard to keep its urban workers support as well as use its new image to appeal to the young. While the proposed party by the government may be happy with its rural support, it will struggle to win the support of the urban middle class who felt victimised by the coup. At the moment it has the logistical and resource advantage because of its links with the current government. Parties will be horse-trading with each other for the formation of a post-election government and I’m not surprised if those opposed to each other now will eventually make up and go to bed together without any qualms whatsoever. It has happened before and may happen again. After all, in politics, politicians don’t often do what is right but what best serves their interests.

May 23, 2013 | Filed under: Fiji News | Posted by: newsroom
By ROSI DOVIVERATA

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Mystery Hut

I’ve been driving a for a few years from Lautoka to Nadi and naturally I go pass the little hut and what looks like a bus bay or something right near the turn of to Saweni beach. On Monday I decided to stop and go and have a good look at what it was.

I saw a notice on the little hut that says, “This structure is the property of the Land Transport Authority of Fiji. Loitering and vandalizing of the LTA property is strictly prohibited. Offenders will be prosecuted.” Inside the hut there was a carton or Fiji Bitter bottles, it smells like a public toilet and it's very dirty.

I wonder what the structure built for and how much was spent on it? Is it another of those needless things tax payers pay for? Is the money lost for ever or will it be used again? It must, surely, have once served a useful function but what it was is anyone's guess.

Perhaps it was supposed to be a weigh bridge? But for the life of me, why there? I'm really curious.

Have you, like me, come across other structures whose purpose remains a tantalising mystery?

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.
Nadi

News and Comments Monday 20 May 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Mon, 20 May 2013 04:25:00 +0000

Work Towards the Possible

by Crosbie Walsh

The saddest feature in the ongoing standoff between the Bainimarama government and its trade union and civil society opponents such as the Citizens' Constitutional Forum is that both groups almost certainly have far more in common with each other than they do with some elements in the Opposition line up.

I say almost certainly because I find it hard to believe the unions or the CCF support the covert racism of the so-called Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), the renamed SDL tyrannosaurus or the obvious self-interest of chameleons like Dr Tupeni Baba, and Mahendra Chaudhry of the partly crippled FLP. These players had their opportunity to point Fiji towards a fairer, more racially equal and more democratic society, and they failed miserably. Witness the events from 2000 onwards.

It seems more probable that the unions and the CCF have joined the other opponents on the basis that their enemy's enemy is their friend. They are not "for" these old political remnants, struggling to remain relevant as events continue to lie outside their control. They are against some rulings by the Bainimarama government. In particular, legislation that restricts trade union activity, restrictions on free speech, the right to participate fully in the evolving political situation, and the political influence of the military.

But I think they largely agree with many of government's social and economic policies: its work to improve physical infrastructure, long neglected by previous governments; its efforts to improve government services; its development work in rural areas; its efforts to make Fiji less dependent on food imports; its legislation on women and children; its assistance to the poor and poorly housed; and its insistence that every citizen is Fijian with equal citizenship rights.

To say the unions and the CCF have "joined" the other opponents is, however, not quite correct. A better word might be "pushed". Government started well with the People's Charter, a genuinely inclusive forum and think tank, but from the Appeals Court ruling in 2009 that found the military takeover in December 2006 illegal, the relationship between government and the vocal elements of civil society have mainly gone downhill. In 2009 Government had either to abdicate, which would almost certainly have returned power to the Qarase government it had overthrown in 2000, or it had to abrogate the 1997 Constitution to continue as government.

Since then, government has had a "go it alone" policy. The insistence on legal process, even if this came at the price of social justice, by vocal civil society and the authoritarian actions of Government made government-CCF relations increasingly difficult. And I need not go into the destructive influence of policies by foreign governments and international organizations.

It is so easy to say that had the Bainimarama Government been less paranoiac about attempts to remove or undermine it (some with good cause), and had it made more moves to include more people from civil society, including the unions, attitudes would not have hardened to the point where any reconciliation now seems next to impossible. Yet this is precisely what the Bainimarama Government and Fiji need.

The more truly democratic elements within the Opposition need to detach themselves from the Opposition in order to make Government feel less threatened and more heedful of requests for more democracy in the lead up to the 2014 elections.

CCF media release
The CCF media release earlier this month called for Government to move towards a "sustainable constitutional democracy."

As always, it makes some reasonable points: the recent submission papers to be made public, and the appointment of an "Independent Reference Group ... to look into the submissions ... and provide assistance in finalizing the document to ensure transparency in the process and that the legal drafters are held accountable to the people of Fiji". It also "believes that both the State and civil society must engage more constructively in dialogue and through the open forums and debates that will likely emerge over the next 14 months addressing issues of serious contentions."   Government may not agree with the details of these recommendations although it would probably accept the broad principles. But...

As always, the CCF asks for the impossible: "CCF also calls on the Bainimarama government to adhere to universal best practices and set up an interim administration by April 2014, six months before the planned elections in September to provide the final phases of the ever changing democratization process some legitimacy." There is no way Government will accept this request. A major reason for its not accepting the Ghai Draft Constitution was its provision for an interim administration leading up to the 2014 elections.   Does the CCF really think the Ro Teimumus, Qarares, Babas and Chaudhrys would be acting transparently in the interests of the people of Fiji during during this period?

And as always, the CCF request will not be heeded. Government may overlook its many inferences that Government is not to be trusted; it may also overlook the fact that the CCF makes no call on the Ro Teimumus, Qarares, Babas and Chaudhrys to act transparently and abandon their insistence on race-bound legislation and elections; but it will not hand over power before the elections. And no realist can reasonably insist that it should. If CCF wishes to be listened to by Government, it needs to rethink its intentions and tactics.

The trade union 'Discover Fji' campaign
The trade union release in the same week was far more demanding than the CCF's and played totally into government hands. Their promotion of a new campaign and website explicitly designed to turn prospective tourists away from Fiji will probably do little to dissuade tourists but it puts them on a direct collision course with Government.

And their cause is not helped by their statistics. Sixty percent of Fijian wage earners do not live below the poverty line; the cost of living is not "skyrocketing"; groups of three or more can meet without a permit; there is protection of minimum wages and conditions in the public sector; and the Courts did not rule in Government's favour with the so-called "trumped up charges in the courts"?

The unionists have a legitimate gripe with government on some issues but if they really want to be heeded in Fiji they need to speak to government, not overseas unions and prospective overseas tourists. Specifically, they should repeat their call for the repeal of Essential Industries Decree and other such legislation that adversely affects organized labour. They should give some credit for the minimum wages recently announced and other government actions aimed to help the Fiji economy and livelihoods. They should not align themselves with the old, tarnished political parties. And they should offer to work with government in areas of mutual interest, and support government moves towards the 2014 election.

Meanwhile, they will not be thanked by workers in the tourism industry whose livelihoods could be threatened by their campaign.

SUGAR PAYOUT WELCOME BUT ... Sugarcane farmers have received F$80 a tonne this year compared with F$50 little more than two years ago. Radio Australia reports that local farmers see this as a sign their industry has a bright future. Fiji Sugar Cane Growers Council CEO Sundesh Chetty calls it a "milestone achievement [and evidence of ] the tremendous support of the government and the stakeholders working together," Government has helped by pouring millions of dollars into the the mills and access roads, and in subsidising fertilisers. And the growers have responded by delivering "fresh and quality" cane to the mills.

This is good news, of course, but major reforms are still needed in the industry. Questions on the viability of small, largely unmechanised farms, transport, fair and secure leases to both parties, better use of byproducts, and the suitability of some land under cane and alternative or complementary crops cannot forever be left in the "too hard" bin.

BIG ENOUGH FOR BOTH. ABC's Campbell Cooney and Jenny Hayward-Jones of the Lowy Institute discuss Australian and China's aid and business in the Pacific and agree both have something to learn from the other.

MELANESIAN SPEARHEAD GROUP GETTING STRONGER. Thanks largely to the initiative of Fiji and the poorly played hands of Australian and NZ in suspending Fiji from the Pacific Forum, the MSG, unencumbered by the two countries that some see as neo-colonialists, is emerging as a serious player in Pacific trade and diplomacy. Listen to USP's Prof Biman Prasad talking to Radio Australia's Richard Ewan

Tourism and Medical Care 24/7

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:02:00 +0000

Readers will remember the unnecessary death of Tom Seeto nearly a year ago. I publish this heart-breaking letter from his daughter Clarissa, out of respect for her and her family but also because of the very important message it contains for the Fiji Government, the Ministry of Heatlth and the Fiji tourism industry. Public health regulations should ensure that all airports and all hotels provide at least basic services, and a qualified doctor should always be on call at major hospitals. My question to Government and the Ministries of Health and Tourism is: What has been done since Tom Seeto's death to improve the situation that led to his untimely death while under your care? Democracy is far less about votes and elections than it is about caring for people. See my earlier report on 27 September last year.

Clarissa and Tom Seeto

Dear Crosbie,

It's been ten months since my father died. Its 3.36 am Sydney time and yet another sleepless night as I’m plagued by the pictures, moments of that day, never knowing or understanding how I came to lose my father in such tragic circumstances. Every day is ‘groundhog day’.

I was rummaging through papers that I couldn’t bear to look at since that day and stumbled upon the contact details, scribbled on a vomit bag from the doctor aboard the flight that day. I contacted her, and my husband, my daughter and I went to meet her.

She had asked Air Pacific for my details but they did not provide her with my information. Our meeting was extremely emotional as she has also suffered immensely from the events that occurred. The doctor informed me that she wrote a lengthy letter to Air Pacific and the airport about her disgust at the way the emergency was handled.

Both the doctor and the paramedic were appalled by the lack of skills shown by the so called ‘nurses’ who boarded the plane. Like me, she has also been reliving every moment.

Suddenly, I felt human again. Fortunately, she had recorded timed medical accounts. As a result, I learned that we had not been waiting for 20 minutes for Dad to be evacuated as I had previously thought. WE HAD WAITED 45 MINUTES FOR DAD TO BE EVACUATED FROM AIR PACIFIC.

She was informed that the reason ATS did not take Dad from the plane was because THERE WAS NO STRETCHER AVAILABLE TO REMOVE HIM. A gentleman in the seat in front of where Dad lay offered to carry him off and the nurses had said, “NO”.

I read the posts on your site and others and I have been most disturbed by comments people have made, in particular, “This is the first such incident, why are we making a big deal of it? It's not like, with all due respects, the dearly departed was not "of departing age". What is the big deal about”

I am making ‘A BIG DEAL’ about my father’s death because it should never have happened.

Raffles Gateway Hotel advertise 24 hour medical assistance as their service. Note what appears on Google.

Fiji Hotel - Raffles website - Fiji www.rafflesfiji.com/‎Fiji Hotel - Raffles, Fiji, Fiji ... Hotel, Fiji. Stay at the ideally located Raffles Gateway Hotel and enjoy the privacy and comfort of your fully ... 24hr Medical Service ...

The morning my father fell ill, my daughter pointed to this statement in their hotel handbook. I showed it to the front desk manager and was told there was no doctor available. The hotel manager, Hari Singh, and the front desk manager, were fully aware of the circumstance but made no effort to visit the room and investigate the situation.

Raffles Gateway hotel had a duty of care to us as their hotel guests. I have received a letter from Hari Singh that began with a condescending opening sentence which continued with a demeaning, belittling tone throughout the letter. There was no sincere offering of empathy or apologies. This was absolutely appalling behaviour from a person in a managerial position, considering the circumstances. Why has the Fiji Hotels Association not reprimanded Raffles?

Nadi International Airport had 1.5 hours notice from the pilot that there was an emergency landing taking place with a sick passenger on board. How is it possible that NADI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EMERGENCY PROCEDURES IN PLACE?

When we landed in Sydney on our return, there was a sick passenger on board. Medics boarded the plane within minutes of landing and the person was evacuated. Why was my Father's body dumped on a gurney and taken off on a food catering truck with no medical facilities? Why were we not allowed to go with my father? Why we were not escorted to the hospital? Nadi airport has offered no answers and no apologies.

The Fijian Police involved lacked any type of professionalism. I am still in disbelief that an officer could not spell, “Tom”. That they thought not once but twice it was my husband who had died. And why did my daughter have to fill out the police report, whilst the officer sat there texting on his mobile?

I had just finished renovating my entire home for my father to move in with us on our return from Fiji. Now, I have to look at a room built for him that he will never use. He will never get to live in comfort surrounded by his only daughter and only grandchildren. He will never have the right to have died peacefully, gracefully and with dignity.

Instead, he died surrounded by strangers in the most tragic of circumstances and had his body treated in the most disrespectful, inhumane manner. People are dismissing this ‘incident’ because my father was elderly. If this had happened to a child, then there would be a public out roar, I’m sure. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. My father was a healthy 73 year old, looking forward to a new life in his new home.

I have every right to know what my father died from. I have spent sleepless nights researching frantically, going through his symptoms on that flight trying to find answers, trying to understand how someone was warm, living, breathing, talking to me and then dead.

I have to live with the image of my father’s soft brown aged eyes streaming with tears as I’m promising I will take care of him and take him home. I ache with the knowledge that my daughter watched her grandfather dying in front of her very eyes, watching the CPR and hearing his ribs crack. I see the blood seeping from the autopsy wound on his head, the white lining of the coffin stained with blood, every time I close my eyes.

AND THEY SAY,”WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?”

As for the comment regarding the Australian High Commission, they were actually referring to the fact that they were aware of Fiji having poor emergency procedures in general not about my father’s case. They were not the only ones. Every government body I came into contact with was not surprised.

I also learned that a 40 year old yachting couple were in Vuda when his wife collapsed on the deck. He called an ambulance for over an hour and was told they were coming and they never came. His wife died and he had to transport her deceased body to a hospital in a taxi.

Another person was on holiday on one of the outer Islands when he cut himself swimming. He must have hit an artery and there was no medical help available and nobody knew how to apply pressure so he bled to death.

A woman had an accident and was pulled from a wreckage of a car. On her return to Australia she had to have several more surgeries to rectify the surgery that she had in Fiji. Had emergency services cut her out of the car properly she would not have needed the surgery in the first place.

I had been told this information as I had been explaining my story whilst in Fiji and this is what I was told by local people, and the Australian High Commission confirmed the stories they knew.

My son cut his foot on coral whilst we were staying at a major resort on the Coral Coast the week before my Dad died. My son was bleeding profusely so I asked the resort if they could locate their first aid box. This took about 20 minutes to locate. When the person brought it to me, there wasn't even a band aid in it. The contents were minimal; most items were out of date. I told the manager that they really should keep a fully stocked first aid kit in a hotel of that size.

At this time I thought, “Typical Fiji, the whole laid back attitude”. I thought it was kind of funny, once my sons bleeding had stopped. I realized later that even the simplest of emergency procedures were not practiced or seen as necessary.

While I was still in Fiji, I went to the Fiji Times and met with a reporter, telling her my story. She refused to print the story because no one else would comment. Now, I would think that a plane making an emergency landing is pretty big news.

I’m angry at both the Fijian government and the Australian government. In Australia, Smart Traveller needs to be accurate in the information they have on their site. Actual information about medical and health facilities available in Fiji should be made clear so that people can make informed choices, after all many families travel there with small children each year. I noted that American Smart Traveller lists the hospitals available, distances etc.

Fiji is a huge tourist destination and yet medical facilities are poor. Why can’t the Fijian government introduce a levy for hotels/resorts of which there are many to give a percentage of their profits to invest in the hospitals and most definitely improving Nadi Hospital and Nadi/Suva morgue? Nadi morgue was like walking into a horror movie. Why allow a casino to be built when you don’t have appropriate health services? Would this not also serve to help the local people, especially in remote areas.

Furthermore, Crosbie I appreciate your blog. It’s now 5.22 am and I’m tired. So many things went wrong that day and all I want is answers.

Kind regards

Clarissa Seeto

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

'Hope Springs Eternal in the Human Breast'

First published in the Fiji Sun December 2010
By Allen Lockington

When I was growing up I remembered that Christmas was a joyous time for me. On Christmas Eve I was told to hang my pillow case at the top of the bed before I went to sleep. I did this from a very early age and when I woke up the pillow case would have toys, sweets and new clothes. When my parents, God rest heir souls, saw the delight in my squeals they would say Father Christmas came last night because you were a good boy. I would get up and hug them both.

Then we would attend a morning mass and like normal little children, I couldn’t wait to return home to play with my new toys and wear my new clothes. Sitting at the Sacred Heart Cathedral church in Suva, I would egg on the priest to end the mass quickly.

But after mass my parents would stand around to greet other people and talk about everything.
For me, my mind was at home. When we did get home my parents would cook and we would exchange dishes of food with our neighbour and I would go and play with the children. Some would have no toys so they were given one and we would just play until it was lunch time.

There would be a huge fight when one of the neighbour’s children would not part with a toy. Things would soon be solved and we would go home to eat a hasty meal, but come back to play again. For me Christmas was always the same. The pillow case would be hung up and Santa Claus would sneak into my room at night and bring me good things. As I grew older, I grew up hearing that there was no such thing as Father Christmas. Or like my neighbour Subhash would say, Christmas Father. I was stunned.

As I matured, the pillow case was no longer hung up and we moved in with extended family and had a Christmas tree. In the morning we would wake up and rush out to see what was under the tree.

Later in life I read that some organisation had published an article saying that we should not lie to children about Father Christmas because he doesn’t exist. It's bad to lie but for many children like me hope and fantasy almost died. For some children, hope died!

In Christianity, we live life by faith, good works and many other beliefs.Why did we listen to people who said that Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny existed? Were these the very same people who believed in the tooth fairy?

In this day and age we still need hope in our lives. As for parents who still treat their children like how my parents treated me, please carry on the tradition.Children need a little mystery and hope and believing in the unknown. This will make them grow up and look back to see how delightful their younger days were.
Hope happens when someone knows something, decides that it is pleasing, realises that they may not get it, but believes that there is still a chance of getting it. For me, I hoped for many good things when I hung up the pillow case.

Today I still have hope that things will get better. Let’s bring back the hope and wonderment this coming Christmas. Life can be an adventure howsoever you perceive it to be. A story that my dad told me when I was a child comes to mind.

Harry Griffin Lockington was a staff sergeant in the Royal Fiji Military Forces. We lived at the Queen Elizabeth barracks in Nabua, Suva, for some time and he probably heard the story from a visiting army officer from overseas. It goes like this:

‘An RAF airman was in his plane fighting the Japanese somewhere in the Pacific and his plane was shot down. As he drifted, he watched the fight taking place in the air. He saw many planes shot down and many pilots went down with their planes – Japanese and English alike.

In war nobody really wins. Then a Japanese pilot bailed out and floated down towards his life raft and he was taken prisoner. As they floated in the raft the Englishman asked his prisoner what he had. The chap said he had a box his father had given him to open when there was no more hope left. The hours grew into days and the Englishman said: “Open that bloody box and rescue ourselves.” The Japanese man said: “No, my father said only open when there is absolutely no hope left.”

They became delirious and the will to open the box came from the two men and then one would say: “No.” But soon they lost all hope and were just about to open the box when an American destroyer spotted their little dinghy and they were rescued.

The Japanese airman was taken prisoner and later on repatriated to his country when the war ended. Some 50 years later the Englishman received a letter from the Japanese man, inviting him to New York.
Prior to this they kept in contact throughout the war and had became pen friends. They both married and had children and were getting on with their individual lives.

The Japanese was much older and he knew he didn’t have many years left on his calendar so he wrote to his ‘mate-in-peace-time’. He said to meet him in Times Square, New York, and that he would pay for the air fare. He had ventured into business and became a millionaire.

They were delighted to see each other and without the publicity of the paparazzi the older man pulled out a well-kept box.

“Remember this box I had with me when we were in the South Pacific, whom my honorable father had given me to open only when there was no more hope,” the Japanese man said.

“Well today I want you to be beside me to open and see what would have rescued us if we gave up hope.”

Their wives, sitting at a respectable distance from them, peered curiously while sipping on wine. They too knew about the box. The Japanese man looked at his mate and said, “Here goes.”

He broke the seal and opened it. It was empty.’

Tears welled up in both the men’s eyes. They sat in silence each to their own thoughts.
In their 80s both men had seen many things, bad and good. The empty box and the realisation hit them hard.

They stood, hugged and shook hands and went their separate ways never to meet again, knowing that when they were in the life raft thousands of miles from land, there was still hope.

Both men will have died by now as I write this story again. You see, life is such that like those two brave men fighting for their countries, they hoped things would turn out good for them and their country.
Merry Christmas and may you bring back hope into your lives.

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.

# THE NATIONAL TRAUMA OF MAY 1987

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Wed, 15 May 2013 06:22:00 +0000

# THE NATIONAL TRAUMA OF MAY 1987
Click on the title above to read Graham Davis's experience and views on lessons learnt on the 1987 coup.

Need to Tweak Government Draft Constituton

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Sat, 11 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000

Some helpful suggestions by Dr Shameem on eradicating institutional racism (the CERD recommendations), corruption and the Ombudsman's Office, and the State's limitation of rights. --Ed.

Comments on the Government’s draft Fiji Constitution 2013

in response to Government’s request for feedback

By Dr Shaista Shameem

My few short comments on the Government’s draft 2013 Constitution are as follows:

General

The main principles of constitutional governance promoted by the Government in its public statements are:

elimination of institutionalised racial discrimination;
elimination of corruption and bad governance; and
protection of all constitutional rights, including economic, environmental and social rights.

Whether the draft Constitution 2013 is consistent with the Government’s expressed principles of constitutional governance and with international law.

(i) Elimination of institutionalized racial discrimination

The draft Constitution 2013 provides equal rights for all irrespective of race or ethnicity.

Problem:

The draft does not accord with important 2012 recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination^¹ which Fiji is obliged to follow as a State Party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination.

The CERD Committee recommended to the Fiji Government as follows:

(a) Disaggregated data to be made available on the socio-economic situation of Fiji’s different ethnic groups to show which groups suffer socio-economic disadvantage

(b) Fiji to impose special measures (affirmative action) to improve the participation of minority groups in public administration and politics since, currently, minority groups are disadvantaged in these areas. Any special measures to be based on disaggregated data which should be publicly available.

(c) Fiji to enact specific legislation against racial discrimination- especially law which criminalises racial motives as an aggravating factor in criminal activity.

(d) Fiji to secure the free, prior and informed consent and consultation of the indigenous peoples regarding their permanent rights as a group.

(e) In 2013 Fiji to report back to the Committee on (i) minority participation in public and political life and its affirmative action plans to restore balance in these areas; (ii) disaggregated data on protection of economic, social and cultural rights of minority groups; and (iii) rights of indigenous peoples.

My Recommendations on (i):

that the Fiji Government ensure that the draft 2013 Constitution is consistent with the 2012 recommendations of the CERD Committee so as to eradicate institutionalized racial discrimination in Fiji..

that the Fiji Government declare, in good faith and in adherence to its own theory of constitutional governance, that individuals and groups in Fiji can petition the CERD Committee through the Article 14 procedure of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

Art. 14 CERD: A State Party may at any time declare that it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in this Convention.

Elimination of Corruption and Bad Governance

The draft 2013 Constitution contains the section 141 provision on accountability and transparency of all public officers in the declaration of their assets, liabilities and financial interests.

Whistleblowers will be protected by law.

Problems:

There is a clash between section 141 wide-ranging right of the public to personal information of public officers and the right to personal privacy protected by section 24, as well as the right to security (especially security of family members including children) provided by section 130 (2) of the Constitution.

The removal of the Office of Ombudsman from the draft 2013 Constitution means that the free service previously available for people alleging mal-administration or misconduct by public officers has been eliminated.

My Recommendations on (ii):

Section 141 should contain limitations on the type and extent of public access to personal information

The Ombudsman’s Office as a free (constitutional) public service for investigation of maladministration should be retained in the Constitution (as per the People’s Charter) despite the new section 16 Executive and Administrative Justice which can only be enforced by the courts, thus making it expensive and cumbersome for the ordinary people to access.

(iii) Constitutional protection of all human rights, including economic, environmental and social rights

Additional rights have been formally included in the Government’s draft Constitution, incorporating elements from the Social Justice (Compact) provisions of the 1997 Constitution.

Problems:

(i) The Bill of Rights provisions do not include an important clause to curb absolute state authority – missing is the phrase ..’as long as it (State limitation of rights) is reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society’. This phrase was included in all the relevant provisions of the 1997 Constitution and is a feature of international human rights law.

The phrase means that it is permitted for a State to limit some (not all) fundamental rights as long as those limitations ‘would be reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society’.

This is the most serious flaw in the Government’s draft Constitution and affects the whole Constitution because it allows any government to impose limits on people’s rights even if those limits would not be allowed in a free and democratic society. The lack of justification of state limitations of rights to the courts is not cured by Sections 3 and 7 interpretation sections of the 2013 draft Constitution.

(ii) The definition of human rights is not included in the interpretation section of the Constitution

My Recommendation on (iii)

The phrase ‘…as long as the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society’ should be included in each relevant rights limitation in the Constitution. Without that inclusion, the Government’s draft Constitution 2013 is not fully human rights compliant, contrary to the Government’s statements to the people that their rights are protected by its draft.

In view of the double-entrenchment of the Constitution - because any amendment can only be made by both Parliament and a public referendum with two thirds majority of the registered voters voting for it- it is very important that this phrase is included in the Constitution.

The definition of human rights should be included in the interpretation section of the Constitution.

3. Conclusion

Despite its good points, the Government’s draft constitution 2013 does not represent a ‘social contract’, based on equality between the people of Fiji and the State, which is the fundamental principle of constitutional law.

In important respects it does not follow even its own expressed principles of constitutional governance.

It is an authoritarian constitution where the State’s authority is favoured above people’s rights, as evidenced by the Bill of Rights chapter, despite additional rights being provided.

It also ignores the CERD Committee’s 2012 recommendations on minority group protection.

A proper and informed discussion, rather than the rushed roadshow currently being performed by government, would have allowed the people of Fiji to have a meaningful input into what would be the supreme law directing all their actions in future in their own country.

With its draft 2013 Constitution, the Government seems to have lost a wonderful opportunity to write law in the public interest.

TWO IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) The Government should comply with the recommendations of the CERD Committee; and (ii) the people of Fiji can insist that the phrase ‘…as long as any limitation (of rights) is reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society’ be added to each relevant provision of the Bill of Rights chapter. The inclusion of this phrase will cure many of the shortcomings of the Government’s draft Constitution 2013.

April 2013

1 CERD/C/FJI/CO/18-20

PINA Adddress on World Press Freedom Day 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:06:00 +0000

By Moses Stevens Pacific Islands News Association

Media development in the Pacific is progressing well in terms of infrastructure and human resources indicating or portraying the fact that there needs to be some good attention paid to the sector as a significant player or component in the whole concept of "good governance" in the region.

PINA has always maintained that media being the 'traditional' fourth estate in any democracy, has a significantly important role in nation building in any country; And that as such media needs to be rightfully given its place as one of the components in an open, transparent and accountable governance system.

This year we celebrate the theme "Safe to Speak" to mark World Press Freedom Day on 3 May.

For this, PINA would like to call on the members of the Pacific media family to think beyond their line of duties and the work they do in gathering, compiling and disseminating information as the normal process of informing, educating and entertaining our societies, and think of the part of the people and how this year's theme is relevant to them.

Do our people understand the role of the media? Do they know how to use the media? Do our leaders in our democratic island countries understand the role of the media and are they ready to accept it as a component of good governance?

"Safe to Speak" would be better understood or appreciated only when the above questions are addressed at all levels of our Pacific societies.

At this point PINA would like to call on all governments of the region to help establish, strengthen and empower their national media associations, through their appropriate ministries.

We need strong national media associations in the countries of the Pacific, with their own local and regional journalism code of ethics and self regulatory mechanisms to ensure professionalism among practitioners (mindful of our respective countries' cultural, spiritual and moral values) and to avoid the industry being taken over by investors (who may not be media professionals) who would be more interested in the money making side of the industry.

This is crucial because the quest to make more money often leads to misreporting and or misrepresentation of issues that then leads to governments stepping in, and in some instances causing unwarranted "unsafe" working environment for genuine and professional media practitioners and operators.

The Pacific needs a media free environment through and with which the people, at all levels and status within the society, are guaranteed their safety to speak and to express their views and opinions freely and without fear.

We have and continue to proclaim in our societies that Media Freedom is the people's freedom. But we in the Pacific media and especially the local associations, have a lot yet to do in helping our people understand our work and responsibilities in being their eyes, their ears and their mouthpiece.

To our governments, we are their mirror in which they look to check on their leadership, and the successes and failures/weaknesses in their leadership. From a proactive view, this is important for the governments to be more transparent, accountable and honest to their electorates and the nation as a whole.

Therefore, PINA would like to call on all media companies and organizations to join their national media associations in making this year's celebrations of WPFD the beginning of revisiting their national media bodies, and the need to re-unite in re-building their associations.

PINA also calls on all Pacific governments to take a more proactive approach toward their respective media industries in providing support toward establishing or strengthening their national media associations, through enhanced closer working relationship in exploiting and developing, and protecting their respective media sectors.

Moses Stevens- PINA President (mo.stevens@yahoo.com)

Press Freedom in a Democratic Society

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:02:00 +0000

This speech is particularly valuable at the present time because it deals with contempt of court, hate speech and defamation of character. - Ed.

Nazhat Shameem^¹

Speech at World Press Freedom Day, May 3 2013.

University of the South Pacific School of Journalism,Suva, Fiji

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
― George Orwell

“There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate whereas hate speech incites violence.”
― Newton Lee, Counterterrorism and Cyber security: Total Information Awareness

Introduction

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press sit uneasily with recognised limitations on both freedoms. Perhaps the best way to describe the relationship is to say that we are free to speak, but not when it deprives another of a right or freedom. The balancing of these rights, freedom of speech with rights of privacy, freedom of speech with the rights not to be defamed, freedom of speech with the right not to be made the subject of hate speeches, freedom of speech with the authority and independence of the courts, showcases a difficult area of the law. Even in those countries which have not adopted a constitutional bill of rights, such as Australia, and New Zealand, the judiciary is expected to balance competing laws and freedoms using the common law. In a country which has lived with a constitutional bill of rights at least since 1970, we have become accustomed to a regime which can strike down laws made by Parliament, because they are inconsistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. Important in the 1997 Constitution and the draft 2013 Constitution is the important role of the judiciary and the legal profession in learning to balance these rights in accordance with the rules of interpretation set out in the Constitution. In this paper, I will set out what the law says about the relationship between freedom of the press and the rights and freedoms of others, in three significant areas – the law on defamation of character, the law on hate speeches and the law on contempt of court.

Freedom of the Press

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered freedom of speech as so fundamental to liberty that it said in its Preamble;

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people;”

Article 19 of the Declaration simply set out the right without limitations. It says;

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

A more pragmatic International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provided as follows, accepting that freedom of expression came with “duties and responsibilities” and prohibiting war propaganda and hate speeches^²;

“Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Even more pragmatically the European Convention of Human Rights under Article 10 defines the right to freedom of speech and opinion in this way;

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The European Convention came in to force in 1970, and has been the source of many rights based constitutions since that time. It was clearly the basis of the freedom of expression provision in the 1997 Constitution and in the 2013 draft Constitution. The right which is the right to express speech and writing and encompasses press freedom is, according to jurisprudence, to be broadly interpreted and in a purposive way. In other words, features of journalism such as the protection of sources are seen as being intrinsic to the right itself. Any law which purports to require the disclosure of sources is prima facie in breach of the right, because the protection of sources is an enabling factor for freedom of expression itself. Similarly any attempt to tap telephones of journalists, or to hack in to their emails, would be an impermissible restriction on freedom of expression. The European Court determined the issue, in a case in which a Ukrainian newspaper was sued successfully by a Member of Parliament for defamation of character for publishing amongst other articles this comment;

“ Petro Mykolayovych might be offended by The Day again. In vain. Here a parable has just dawned on me. In bitter weather a little sparrow was frozen while flying and collapsed. A cow was passing by and a cowpat fell directly onto the little sparrow. He warmed up, put his little head out and started chirping, in a gleeful mood. And at this point a cat enters, sneaks up on him and there is no more little sparrow. The moral: if you get into dung, just sit there and do not chirp. And remember, not everyone who excretes on you is your enemy and not everyone who pulls you out of the dung is your friend. I apologise for being so straightforward.”

The newspaper took the issue to the European Court on the basis that the decision of the national court was in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention. The Court held that there was a breach. It said at paragraph 40^³;

“Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed (see Oberschlick v. Austria (No. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 25, § 57). Journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, p. 19, § 38). Subject to Article 10 § 2, the right to impart information freely is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49).”

The Court looked at the facts and answered the questions which all judges now ask in cases of alleged breaches of rights;

1. Was there an interference of the right to freedom of expression?

2. Was the interference justified?

3. Was the interference prescribed by a law?

4. Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim?

5. Was the interference necessary in a democratic society?

6. Was the interference proportionate to the legitimate aim?

The Court found that the newspaper had published articles which were “value judgments” or opinion columns, and that although they had used strong and sarcastic language^⁴, the finding of defamation was disproportionate to the legitimate aim of a law to protect character and reputation.

In another case before the Court^⁵, the Daily Mirror alleged a breach of the Article 10 right in relation to an article which said;

“Supermodel Naomi Campbell is attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in a courageous bid to beat her addiction to drink and drugs.

The 30-year old has been a regular at counselling sessions for three months, often attending twice a day.

Dressed in jeans and baseball cap, she arrived at one of NA’s lunchtime meetings this week. Hours later at a different venue she made a low-key entrance to a women-only gathering of recovered addicts.

Despite her £14 million fortune Naomi is treated as just another addict trying to put her life back together. A source close to her said last night: 'She wants to clean up her life for good. She went into modelling when she was very young and it is easy to be led astray. Drink and drugs are unfortunately widely available in the fashion world. But Naomi has realised she has a problem and has bravely vowed to do something about it. Everyone wishes her well.'

Her spokeswoman at Elite Models declined to comment.”

The newspaper had published the article along with two colour photographs on the front page of the Mirror with the headline – “Naomi – I am a drug addict”. A photograph of Ms Campbell hugging two unidentified persons had been taken by a photographer (who free lanced and had been contracted by the newspaper on this occasion) from inside a parked car. Her lawyer complained about the breach of privacy. The newspaper responded with more articles. One said that; “After years of self-publicity and illegal drug abuse, Naomi Campbell whinges about privacy”.

At a further threat to commence proceedings the newspaper;

“published, under the heading “Fame on you, Ms Campbell”, a further article mocking Ms Campbell's threatened proceedings, referring to the years during which she thrust “her failed projects like the nauseating book Swan and equally appalling record Love and Tears down our throats”, stating that Ms Campbell was not an artist and that she was “about as effective as a chocolate soldier”, implying that her prior campaign against racism in the fashion industry was self-serving publicity and that “the problem is that Naomi doesn't actually “stand” for anything. She can't sing, can't act, can't dance, and can't write.”^⁶

Ms Campbell sued for breach of confidence under the UK Data Protection Act 1998. The High Court found in her favour and awarded her damages for the breach of privacy as well as aggravated damages for the offensive manner in which the newspaper had insulted her. On appeal to the Court of Appeal the newspaper’s appeal was allowed, the Court of Appeal holding that Ms Campbell had courted publicity rather than shunning it, and that the information was of legitimate public interest. The House of Lords disagreed, and allowed Ms Campbell’s appeal. One judge^⁷ held that the right to privacy and freedom of speech had equal weight and value in a democratic society, and that although the media had the freedom to make editorial choices in relation to publication and how articles were to be published, there was no social or political need to report Ms Campbell’s private visits to a rehabilitation clinic. Baroness Hale balanced the rights in this way;

“. Put crudely, it is a prima donna celebrity against a celebrity-exploiting tabloid newspaper. Each in their time has profited from the other. Both are assumed to be grown-ups who know the score. On the one hand is the interest of a woman who wants to give up her dependence on illegal and harmful drugs and wants the peace and space in which to pursue the help which she finds useful. On the other hand is a newspaper which wants to keep its readers informed of the activities of celebrity figures, and to expose their weaknesses, lies, evasions and hypocrisies. This sort of story, especially if it has photographs attached, is just the sort of thing that fills, sells and enhances the reputation of the newspaper which gets it first. One reason why press freedom is so important is that we need newspapers to sell in order to ensure that we still have newspapers at all. It may be said that newspapers should be allowed considerable latitude in their intrusions into private grief so that they can maintain circulation and the rest of us can then continue to enjoy the variety of newspapers and other mass media which are available in this country. It may also be said that newspaper editors often have to make their decisions at great speed and in difficult circumstances, so that to expect too minute an analysis of the position is in itself a restriction on their freedom of expression.”

The appeal was allowed and the High Court decision was restored. The newspaper appealed to the European Court. The Court asked the same questions it had asked in the case of Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine^⁸;

1. Was this an interference with Article 10?

Ans; Yes.

2. Was it prescribed by law?

Ans: Yes (the common law on privacy and the Data Protection Act 1998).

3. Was there a legitimate social aim?

Ans; Yes, the protection of privacy.

4. Was the interference necessary in a democratic society?

Ans; Yes, it involved the publication of information which was private, caused distress, and was covertly obtained with the use of a long range camera.

The Court upheld the decision of the House of Lords on this basis and found no breach of Article 10.

There are many other cases decided by the European Court which show this balancing exercise. What is evident is that the Court will not readily permit restrictions of the right to freedom of expression unless the domestic law has passed a prescribed law which is predictable and foreseeable in its applicability, unless there is a legitimate social aim pursued by the restriction and unless the law is proportionate to the aim. In short, it is easier to rely on the right, than it is to rely on the exception to the right. In Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France ^⁹ the Court said this about the meaning of the words “necessary in a democratic society”;

“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual's self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly.”

Contempt of Court

In 1968 in the case of Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex Parte Blackburn^¹⁰, Lord Denning said that;

“it is the right of every man in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.”

The case itself has been so often referred to, that we often forget what it was about. Mr Quentin Hogg was a Member of Parliament and a Queen’s Counsel in England. A Gaming Act had been passed by Parliament which had attracted some controversy. The Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on provisions of the Act, which prompted Mr Quentin Hogg to write the following in an edition of Punch;

"The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal is a strange example of the blindness which sometimes descends on the best of judges. The legislation of 1960 and thereafter has been rendered virtually unworkable by the unrealistic, contradictory and, in the leading case, erroneous, decisions of the courts, including the Court of Appeal. So what do they do? Apologise for the expense and trouble they have put the police to? Not a bit of it. Lambaste the police for not enforcing the law which they themselves had rendered unworkable and which is now the subject of a Bill, the manifest purpose of which is to alter it. Pronounce an impending dies irae on a series of parties not before them, whose crime it has been to take advantage of the weaknesses in the decisions of their own court. Criticise the lawyers, who have advised their clients. Blame Parliament for passing Acts which they have interpreted so strangely. Everyone, it seems, is out of step, except the courts.... The House of Lords over-ruled the Court of Appeal.... it is to be hoped that the courts will remember the golden rule for judges in the matter of obiter dicta. Silence is always an option."

This was trenchant criticism, and pointed in the extreme. But, said the Court of Appeal, it was not contempt of court. Lord Salmon said of this article that;

“It follows that no criticism of a judgment, however vigorous, can amount to contempt of court, providing it keeps within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith.”

A good guide to journalists is to ask whether the criticism they are publishing is a criticism of the judgment or of the judge. If it is the latter, they may fall into the pot hole of contempt. If it is the former, it is generally a valid criticism of the judgment, even if the criticism is not supported by everyone. However attacks on the judiciary as an institution, or of individual judges are almost always contempt of court. In the case of Parmanandam v Attorney-General (1972) 18 FLR 90 (per Grant C.J), a lawyer attacked the then Chief Justice, the judicial administration, the way in which Court of Appeal judges were appointed, and the policy of promoting magistrates, in a political pamphlet issued on behalf of the National Federation Party. The pamphlet promised to “clean the judiciary once and for all so that in future there would be no need for any further attacks on the judiciary…” He was held to be in contempt of court. And the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court held;

“…There was a clear imputation that the Chief Justice had disregarded basic and elementary principles of justice. It was an imputation both false, and, when coming from an officer of the Court, unworthy. In its judgment now under Appeal the Supreme Court pointed out, quoting R v Dunbabin; Ex parte Williams (1935) [52 CLR 248] that the power to punish for contempt is not for the personal vindication of the judges; the real offence is the wrong done to the public by weakening the authority and influence of a tribunal which exists for the public good alone. It referred also to the difference between freedom of speech and licence; pointing out that while it is open to all to criticise the administration of justice temperately and fairly, criticism which is actuated by malice or which imputes improper motives to those taking part or which is calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt or lower his authority, cannot shelter behind the bulwark of free speech.”

The principles behind the law on contempt of court are now very clear. The law is intended to protect the administration of justice which gets its legitimacy from public confidence in the judiciary. It is intended to protect the authority of the courts from imputations of bias or improper motives, but does not exist for the vindication of individual judges. Indeed, it is an exercise of freedom of speech to criticise judgments as long as the criticism is within the bounds of courtesy and fairness. It is not acceptable to allege the judges are biased, or corrupt, or motivated by political motives or by dishonesty.

In Re Mahendra Pal Chaudhary (Unreported, High Court of Fiji, HBM00003J of 1998, per Fatiaki J), the Secretary-General of the Fiji Labour party presented a pamphlet^¹¹ to a meeting of party delegates in 1997 stating that it was a well known fact that lawyers were receiving agents for magistrates and judges and that a number of lawyers “are known to arrange for them to appear before their preferred magistrates and judges.” The High Court found that the words used were “deliberately chosen and used by the respondent” and that they were “intemperate and inflammatory”. He was convicted of contempt of court. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, the Court finding that the common law offence of scandalising the court involved attacks upon the integrity or impartiality of the courts or of judges, and that “the mischief aimed at being a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice…. must be established beyond reasonable doubt”^¹²

That continues to be the test applied in contempt of court cases in Fiji. The high threshold of a “real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice” generally satisfies the test applied by international human rights courts in deciding whether the limitation to free speech is justifiable in a democratic society. It is the test applied under the 1997 Constitution in Attorney-General v Fiji Times, Rex Gardner and Netani Rika^¹³ and in the subsequent case of Attorney-General v Tai Nicholas ^¹⁴. In the former case, the Fiji Times published a letter which called the Chief Justice and two other judges corrupt and biased, and in the latter, the Fiji Times published an article after the disciplinary proceedings of Doctor M.S. Sahu Khan, an official of the Oceania Football Confederation and of the Fiji Football Association, had been concluded in the Independent Legal Services Commission. The article quoted Tai Nicholas, the General Secretary of the Oceania Football Confederation as saying, in relation to the Commission’s findings;

“You should be aware that with no judiciary there, his case has been reviewed by one Australian judge. It is not a court per se”.

The comment was first published in a newspaper in New Zealand but re-published by the Fiji Times. In both cases the following passage from Attorney General v Times Newspaper Ltd [1973] 3 WLR 298 was cited with approval;

“…in any civilised society it is a function of the government to maintain courts of law to which its citizens can have access for the impartial decision of disputes as to their legal rights and obligations towards one another individually and towards the state as representing society as a whole. The proviso of such a system for the administration of justice by courts of law and the maintenance of public confidence in it are essential if citizens are to live together in peaceful association with one another.”

In both cases there were findings of contempt of court.

Of course there is a danger of the inappropriate use of the contempt jurisdiction of the court. There are two mechanisms to control such conduct. The first is the use of the appeal process and the common law definition of contempt of court law. The second is the use of international jurisprudence on permissible limitations on the right to free speech. The first was used to set aside a criminal contempt conviction of one Herbert Wise^¹⁵ who was heard by a magistrate to yawn very loudly in the corridor of the courthouse. The magistrate called the defendant into the courtroom, and told him to remain there. He refused, and was arrested and taken before another magistrate who convicted him and ordered that he serve two months in prison. On appeal to the High Court, it was held that aggressive, abusive or contemptible conduct towards the judicial officer was capable of constituting disrespect to the court, but that yawning in the court precinct did not.^¹⁶ The conviction was quashed. Sadly for the appellant, he had already served his sentence when the appeal was heard.

Hate speeches

Fiji’s laws have included a prohibition on hate speeches for decades. The Public Order Act had and has a section on racial vilification and the law of sedition under the Penal Code included a mens rea element of intending to “promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different classes of the population of Fiji”. The maximum sentence for sedition was two years imprisonment, and/or $200 fine on a first conviction.^¹⁷ Hate speeches create an area of possible incompatibility with freedom of speech and require careful balancing by journalists and the courts. Is there a right to publish potentially offensive material, even when the material will offend a community? Under the Penal Code, it appeared that there was, and that a speech only became seditious when there was evidence that the speech would promote ill will between communities.. The courts were required to look at this balance, between freedom of speech and sedition in a number of cases which emerged from the events of 1987 and 2000. These cases arose from various activities on the island of Rotuma.

In DPP v Afasio Mua and Others^¹⁸ a group of people in Rotuma made plans to separate Rotuma from Fiji. The Court of Appeal considered the offence of sedition in relation to freedom of speech and expression. It found that because the offence of sedition had available defences of an intention of trying to effect lawful change in the laws or government, the necessary balance was achieved. The Court of Appeal said that;

“The purpose of the offence is to prevent any unlawful attacks on the tranquillity of the State but it is not intended to prevent legitimate political comment. Deeply held political convictions frequently provoke strong emotions, but there is authority to show that even strong or intemperate words or actions may not demonstrate a seditious intention if done with the purpose of expressing legitimate disagreement with the government of the day…..When determining that, the Courts should always be reluctant to extend any inroads on the protected constitutional freedoms. They should look at alleged seditious actions with a free, fair and liberal spirit. The Court should bear in mind that genuine political dissent is often the ground from which democracy grows and always be vigilant that a charge of sedition is not used simply as a means to suppress it.”

In State v Gagaj Rafeok Riogi^¹⁹ a case arising from a decision of a group of people in Rotuma to set up a rival government on Rotuma and to reject the Rotuma Council, the High Court held that even if an idea is unpopular, if all it does is advocate a change in government through lawful means, it is not seditious. It is only when a person advocates change through unlawful means or promotes ill will and hostility between different classes of the population, that a prosecution is justified.

The same offence, with the same statutory defences is included in the 2009 Crimes Decree. A recent conviction under the Crimes Decree section shows that the courts continue to apply the same test. In State –v- Lesuma Batialiva Raicebe, Joveci Namoumou & Avenai Navisalaki [2011]^²⁰ (per Madigan J) the accused were convicted of writing graffiti on various parts of Fiji calling on the military and the President to remove the Prime Minister from office. The Court held that there was clear evidence of a seditious intention. The mischief was the advocating of the use of unlawful means to remove the Prime Minister.

Section 65 of the Crimes Decree creates a new offence of inciting communal discord, for which there is no need to prove an incitement to violence. In this regard, it is comparable to the offence of sedition. The section provides;

“A person commits an indictable offence (which is triable summarily) if the person by any communication whatsoever including electronic communication, or by signs or by visible representation intended by the person to be read or heard—

(a) makes any statement or spreads any report which is likely to—

(i) incite dislike or hatred or antagonism of any community;

(ii) promote feelings of enmity or ill-will between different communities, religious groups or classes of the community; or

(iii) otherwise prejudices the public peace by creating feelings of communal antagonism; or

(b) makes any intimidating or threatening statement in relation to a community or religious group other than the person’s own which is likely to arouse fear, alarm, or insecurity amongst members of that community or religious group.

Penalty— Imprisonment for 10 years.”

This is an interesting section, because it narrows the gap between speeches which are inciteful and discriminatory, and those which are made in bad taste or in breach of good manners. The limitations to freedom of speech are not intended to prevent publishing material of bad taste, only to prevent discrimination or the breaches of the rights of others. Is a homophobic speech a breach of section 65? Is a racist speech about the Chinese community a breach of section 65? Do racist speeches incite dislike or hatred or antagonism of the victim community? In my opinion, all such speeches fall within the perimeters of section 65. There have been no prosecutions in Fiji under section 65, and its provisions are similar to the amended section 17 of the Public Order Act, in relation to which there have similarly been no convictions. The Public Order Act^²¹ makes religious and racial vilification an offence (the maximum penalty is also 10 years imprisonment) and defines racial vilification as “conduct that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of another person or group of people on the grounds of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin”. However the terms of section 2 of the Public Order Act are even wider than the Crimes Decree provision in that conduct which insults or offends or humiliates a person or group is sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. What might be tolerated in another country as merely bad taste or bad manners, could lead to prosecution in Fiji. This is perhaps because of our political history, and it appears that such a broadly defined offence is still consistent with the ICCPR, which requires that: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”.

Thus, the right to prohibit hate speeches is preserved in the ICCPR, and in the European Convention. In the future how will Fiji’s court balance freedom of expression with the right to be protected from hate speeches?

The 2012 Australian Press Freedom Report^²² noted the increasing number of journalists who were subject to complaint under the Racial Discrimination Act. In 2011 the Australian Federal Court found that columnist Andrew Bolt had breached section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act. Nine Aboriginal applicants had brought a class action against Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times for unfairly distinguishing them as “fair-skinned Aborigines” who sought affirmative action by identifying themselves as Aboriginals.

How has the European Court balanced these rights? In Giniewski v France^²³ a newspaper published an article, which (it was claimed) was insulting to those of the Christian faith. The article contained the following;

“The Catholic Church sets itself up as the sole keeper of divine truth ... It strongly proclaims the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, and the superiority of the latter ...

... Many Christians have acknowledged that scriptural anti-Judaism and the doctrine of the 'fulfilment' [accomplissement] of the Old Covenant in the New led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation [accomplissement] of Auschwitz took seed.”

The newspaper and the author were charged under the French criminal law with making racially defamatory statements against the Christian community. They were convicted and also found to be civilly liable for defamation. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in France overturned the convictions. However they were partially restored on further appeal. The matter went before the European Court, which considered the relationship between the speech and Article 10 of the Convention. The Court held that the prosecution of the newspaper and the writer was a restriction on the right to free speech, but that the restriction was in accordance with a prescribed law (the criminal law of France) and for a legitimate purpose, that is to protect religious freedom and to prevent the defamation of a group, namely the Christian community. However the Court held that the proceedings in France were a violation of Article 10. Its reasoning was interesting;

“The Court considers, in particular, that the applicant sought primarily to develop an argument about the scope of a specific doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust. In so doing he had made a contribution, which by definition was open to discussion, to a wide-ranging and ongoing debate……without sparking off any controversy that was gratuitous or detached from the reality of contemporary thought….. By considering the detrimental effects of a particular doctrine, the article in question contributed to a discussion of the various possible reasons behind the extermination of the Jews in Europe, a question of indisputable public interest in a democratic society. In such matters, restrictions on freedom of expression are to be strictly construed. Although the issue raised in the present case concerns a doctrine upheld by the Catholic Church, and hence a religious matter, an analysis of the article in question shows that it does not contain attacks on religious beliefs as such, but a view which the applicant wishes to express as a journalist and historian. In that connection, the Court considers it essential in a democratic society that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity amounting to crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely…..Furthermore, it has already had occasion to note that “it is an integral part of freedom of expression to seek historical truth”, and that “it is not its role to arbitrate” the underlying historical issues….. While the published text, as the applicant himself acknowledges, contains conclusions and phrases which may offend, shock or disturb some people, the Court has reiterated on several occasions that such views do not in themselves preclude the enjoyment of freedom of expression…..Moreover, the article in question is not “gratuitously offensive”, or insulting, and does not incite disrespect or hatred. Nor does it cast doubt in any way on clearly established historical facts…………………….. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the French courts in support of the applicant's conviction cannot be regarded as sufficient to convince the Court that the interference in the exercise of the applicant's right to freedom of expression was “necessary in a democratic society”; in particular, his conviction on a charge of public defamation towards the Christian community did not meet a “pressing social need”.

The question for Fiji is - what is a comment which is “gratuitously offensive” to one or other of its communities? What is insulting? What will incite disrespect or hatred? It would appear from the words used by the European Court, that the terms of section 65 of the Crimes Decree and section 17 of the Public Order Act prima facie do not offend the right to freedom of speech. However all will depend on the words used, and the way in which a publication expresses itself.

Section 17 of the draft Constitution specifically permits restrictions on free speech in respect of hate speeches for;

“the protection or maintenance of the reputation, privacy, dignity, rights or freedoms of other persons, including––

(i) the right to be free from hate speech, whether directed against individuals or group”

And the term “hate speech” is specifically defined in terms of the prohibited ground of discrimination. Section 17(4) provides that;

“In this section, "hate speech" means an expression in whatever form that encourages, or has the effect of encouraging discrimination on a ground listed or prescribed under section 26.”

Two comments can be made about this proposed provision. One is that in linking hate speech with protection from discrimination, this limitation is consistent with what is necessary in a democratic society. The second is that this definition of hate speech is in no way intended to stifle free speech on matters of public interest even if such debate may offend some. It is intended to protect from attacks on privacy, dignity, and rights of others. Any prosecution under section 65 or section 17 will have to satisfy the section 17(2) and (4) requirements of the draft Constitution.

Privacy rights and defamation of character

The law on defamation of character in Fiji is almost identical to the law in England and Wales. Fiji has a Defamation Act, and the issue of whether a person has been defamed as a matter of law and of fact is one for the single judge. In England it is a question for judge and jury. In Vayeshnoi v Fiji Television Limited, Tukaha Mua, Imraz Iqbal, Inoke Bainimarama, and Ahmed Ali^²⁴ the plaintiff was a government minister who had banned Fiji TV reporters from attending a news conference. They entered his office anyway and interviewed him in circumstances which he alleged were humiliating and embarrassing. The plaintiff also claimed that the way in which Fiji Television had covered a story arising out of the visit of the Prime Minister to Rakiraki in which the report alleged that the minister was about to be replaced in a Cabinet reshuffle, was defamatory. The judge held that neither incident was capable of constituting defamation of character. He found that the words complained of by the plaintiff “amount to more than fair comment or criticism of the public acts of a public man.”

Defamation of character is a civil tort. The test is whether a person has said or done something which damages a person’s character in the eyes of reasonable persons in society, decreasing the respect that the person is held in, and damaging the person’s reputation. Public figures are expected to be more resilient than private persons, and fair comment and justification (or truth) is a defence. The law on defamation is expressly saved by the draft Constitution, and was saved under the 1997 Constitution. However under both Constitutions, the test the question the courts will ask is whether the restriction is consistent with what is necessary in a democratic society. This is because of the effect of section 7 of the draft Constitution which provides;

“In addition to complying with section 3, when interpreting and applying this Chapter, a court, tribunal or other authority––

(a) must promote the values that underlie a democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; and

(b) may, if relevant, consider international and foreign law, applicable to the protection of the rights and freedoms in this Chapter.

(2) This Chapter does not deny, or prevent recognition of, any other right or freedom recognised or conferred by common law or written law, except to the extent that it is inconsistent with this Chapter.

(3) A law that limits a right or freedom set out in this Chapter is not invalid solely because the law exceeds the limits imposed by this Chapter if the law is reasonably capable of a more restricted interpretation that does not exceed those limits, and in that case, the law must be construed in accordance with the more restricted interpretation.

(4) When deciding any matter according to common law, a court must apply and, where necessary, develop common law in a manner that respects the rights recognised in this Chapter.

(5) In considering the application of this Chapter to any particular law, a court must interpret this Chapter contextually, having regard to the content and consequences of the law, including its impact upon individuals or groups of individuals.”

Section 43(2) of the 1997 Constitution said that “In interpreting the provisions of this Chapter, the courts must promote the values that underlie a democratic society based on freedom and equality and must, if relevant, have regard to public international law applicable to the protection of rights set out in this Chapter.”

In effect, the balancing exercise used by the European Court of deciding which limitations are justifiable is likely to be adopted by our courts because of the interpretation section in the draft Constitution. This means that defamation actions must be assessed not just in accordance with the common law principles, but also in accordance with the principle of free speech and justifiable limitations.

This also applies to the law on privacy, although the right to privacy has an equal value with the right to free speech. Section 37 of the 1997 Constitution stated that every person has the right to personal privacy, including the right to privacy of personal communications. The right was subject to such limitations which were prescribed by law and were reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Section 27 of the draft Constitution sets out a more detailed right;

“(1) Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right––

(a) to confidentiality of their personal information;

(b) to confidentiality of their communications; and

(c) to respect for their private and family life.

(2) A law may limit, or may authorise the limitation of, the rights set out in subsection (1).”

What is “private”? Does a public figure have a right to privacy? Is the media allowed to use long range lenses to take photographs in the homes of famous film stars? The law on privacy was considered by the Fiji Court of Appeal in the Attorney-General v Alifereti Yaya^²⁵. That was a case in which the Commissioner of Police in 2004 published a photograph of the applicant as one of Fiji’s 10 “most wanted” criminals. In fact there was evidence that the applicant was implicated in pending investigations. He made an application through the Human Rights Commission for constitutional redress, claiming a breach of his right to privacy. The Court of Appeal considered section 37 of the 1997 Constitution, and found that there had been a breach by the Commissioner of Police. The Court defined the right to privacy in this way;

“International human rights law transformed the principles of a breach of privacy tort considerably. Although Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights differs from the wording of section 37 of the Fiji Constitution, the limits of the right, and the way the courts in England and in the Strasbourg court have interpreted the right to privacy are helpful. This is especially because section 43(2) of the Fiji Constitution requires the courts to have regard to public international law in interpreting any provision of the Bill of Rights. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence;(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The balancing exercise applicable in considering what is “reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society” is relevant to the second part of this judgment, that is, to the question of the proportionality of the means in relation to the legitimacy of the ends. For the purposes of deciding what is “private” in the context of section 37(1) of the Fiji Constitution, a fuller explanation of the ambit of the protection in Article 8(1) of the European Convention is helpful. Counsel for the Appellant referred us to the useful decision of the English Court of Appeal in A v. B (a company) and Another EWCA Civ. 337, a case about the imminent publication of the details of the extra-marital affairs of a well-known married footballer. An injunction was granted to prevent publication, and an attempt to set the injunction aside was unsuccessful, the judge holding that the footballer had a right to respect for his private life and there was no public interest consideration to justify publication. The news media agency appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed. In the course of the judgment (delivered by Lord Woolf CJ), the court held that a duty of confidence arose when the party subject to the duty either knew or ought to have known that the other person could reasonably expect his privacy to be protected. The court held that the disclosure of an extra-marital relationship by a party to the relationship was not necessarily “private” such that the courts “should be astute to protect.” It was therefore erroneous to assume that the information was protected, the onus being on the newspaper to prove a legitimate public interest in publishing.”

And at paragraph 27 of the judgment the law on privacy in Fiji was summarised in this way;

“In considering what is private, and what is not this court adopts these principles. Private information which is protected by section 37 of the Constitution is information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The purposive approach to interpreting this right involves an inquiry into whether there has been an intrusion into the private affairs of an individual. There is no exemption for information obtained by public bodies such as the police. Where the police, in the course of investigations, obtain information which the subject reasonably expects will be kept private, there is a duty not to disclose that information to the public unless it is for a purpose which is justifiable in a democratic society.”

It is unlikely that any court interpreting the same right under the draft Constitution would depart from this test, as it is consistent with international jurisprudence. From the point of view of press freedom, intrusions into the private affairs of individuals are usually prohibited in codes of ethics for the media. That is certainly the case in Fiji. Publications of photographs of children, of funerals and of private grief, of dead and mutilated bodies, of people in their own homes enjoying their family life, are all in breach of media ethics. Generally these codes are consistent with the international law on the right to privacy.

Conclusion

It is said that there is a danger that press freedom will be undermined by the law on contempt of court, or the law on privacy or of defamation of character. In my opinion, there is no such risk as long as the media and the public understand that free speech is restricted by the rights and freedoms of others, and as long as we have a judiciary which is willing and able to thoughtfully balance rights in accordance with international jurisprudence. The media is not free to tap telephones of dead girls because the right to personal privacy is of the same value as the right to free speech. The media is not free to publish stories about the courts which attack the character of judges or the judiciary because in doing so they undermine another right, the right of the public to have a judiciary in which they can have confidence. The media is not free to print untruthful stories about members in society which will damage their reputations, because members of society have a right not to be defamed. The balancing of these rights must however require that freedom of speech is a precious right, to be valued and protected in a free and democratic society.

The inherent tension in the interpretation of these rights is that the judiciary is responsible for deciding where the balance lies, when the judiciary may itself be the alleged victim of a story or publication. A responsible media will know what the law says, and will have a clear idea of what may be published and what should not be published. That knowledge now requires a working understanding of the intersection of international and national law on freedom of speech, on the right to privacy, on the right not to be defamed and the need to protect the authority of the judiciary.

1 Legal Practitioner, Fiji

2 Defined in the ICCPR as any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, thus allowing a definition of hate speech which does not necessarily include an incitement to violence

3 Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine Strasbourg 29^th March 2009

4 For example by calling the MP a “scarecrow”!

5 MGN Ltd v. UK Strasbourg 11^th January 2011

6 Paragraph 12 of the judgment

7 Lord Hope of Craighead

8 Ibid at 3

9 21279/02 of the Grand Chamber ECHR 2007

10 [1968] 2 QB 150 at 155B

11 A journalist, Kamal Iyer filed an affidavit setting out the facts of the case

12 The Court of Appeal relied on the test for contempt applied in Solicitor-General v Radio Avon [1978] 1 NZLR 225 at 234

13 High Court of Fiji Action No.124 of 2008, per Hickie J

14 Action No HBC 364 of 2011 per Calanchini J

15 Herbert Wise v State Criminal Appeal No. HAA 015/2012

16 The court also found that examples of disrespect to the court included whistling at jurors (assessors), assaulting court officials, or shouting in court.

17 Sections 65 and 66 of the Penal Code, repealed on the 1^st of February 2010

18 (1992) 38 FLR 226 per Scott J at first instance and reversed by Fiji Court of Appeal per Helsham P Tikaram and Ward JJ. The court at first instance held that the offence required evidence of incitement to violence. The Court of Appeal held that incitement to violence was not an element of the offence.

19 2001 HAA 60/01 per Shameem J

20 HAC 208/11L

21 Public Order Act as amended by the Public Order Act) Amendment) Decree 2012, section 2

22“ Kicking at the Cornerstone of Democracy – The State of Press Freedom in Australia” The Walkley Foundation et al Ed: Jonathon Este

23 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-72216 (last visited 30^th April 2013) ECHR 31^st January 2006

24 [2000] 2 FLR 21, per Scott J

25 ABU Criminal Appeal 37 of 2007 per Byrne, Powell and Shameem JJ

A Free and Independent Media

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:01:00 +0000

By Matai Akauola*

Bula vinaka.

The Vice- Chancellor Prof Rajesh Chandra, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Law and Education, the Head of the School of Language, Arts and Media Journalism, the Acting Head of Media and Journalism, Journalism students, media colleagues, ladies and gentleman.

I am honoured to be given this platform today as we commemorate or celebrate World Press Freedom Day which annually falls on May 3^rd.

The theme for WPFD is: Safe to Speak- Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media.

The following is UNESCO’s focus on this year’s WPFD Celebration:

Ensuring the Safety of Journalists and Media Workers

A free, independent and pluralistic media environment, online and offline, must be one in which journalists, media workers, and social media producers can work safely and independently without the fear of being threatened or even killed. It needs to be an environment where attacks, intimidations, harassments, abductions, arbitrary imprisonments, and threats are the exceptions and not the norm. Journalists (as well as citizen journalists), editors, publishers and online intermediaries alike should not be subjected to political or financial coercion and manipulation. They should especially be protected from threats to the security of themselves and their families.

Securing the safety of journalists and media workers is an urgent matter. More than 600 journalists and media workers had been killed in the last ten years. In other words, every week a journalist loses his or her life for bringing news and information to the public. These statistics highlight the relevance of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, and its specific goal of mobilizing the UN family of agencies as well as other stakeholders including UN Member States, regional human rights bodies, NGO and media houses to collaborate in creating a safer environment for journalists. There is enormous potential in the UN Plan of Action in bringing the full weight of the UN to bear on the challenges, and in being a point of reference for others who share the concern to turn the tide. Already we are seeing the various UN mechanisms moving in the direction that contributes to the UN Plan of Action. In addition to the aforementioned United Nations Human Rights Council resolution in 2012, the 2nd UN Inter-Agency Meeting in Vienna, Austria last year, adopted a concrete global, regional, and national level implementation strategy was adopted for the UN Plan of Action. Four countries (South Sudan, Iraq, Nepal and Pakistan) were identified to be amongst other interested countries where alignment of stakeholders could make a difference. Latin America was specifically acknowledged as a region where good work could be done under auspices of the UN Plan, and where lessons could be shared internationally.

As the UN Plan recognises, promoting the safety of journalists must not be constrained to after-the-fact action. Much more must be done for preventive mechanisms and for actions to address the root causes of violence against journalists and of impunity. This implies the need to deal with issues such as corruption, organized crime and an effective framework for the rule of law. In addition, the existence of laws that can criminalise legitimate journalism (e.g. overly restrictive defamation laws or overly broad national security laws) must be addressed. The challenge is to promote respect for international standards for freedom of expression as well as resolutions such as UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006).

Fundamental to the UN Plan is the insight that the experiences in one country or region can be useful for others trying to improve the safety of journalists. Compilation and sharing of up-to-date information and best practices and conducting international missions and investigations into particular cases can be highly beneficial. However, much work is still needed to achieve an optimum level of information exchange and joint learning, and in adapting good practices to different regional and national contexts.

Points for reflection:

What are the biggest opportunities and threats to the UN Plan of Action?

How do threats to press freedom differ from region to region?

How can various strategies to improve safety be replicated in different regions?

What are the preventive mechanisms to prevent journalists from being harmed in the first place?

How do we ensure that international standards for safety of journalists and combating impunity are respected and adopted in the country context?

How can public awareness be developed to ensure that press freedom is widely cherished and that public opinion at all levels will not tolerate attacks on journalists?

That is what UNESCO has articulated for the focus on this year’s theme ‘Safe to Speak.

Now let me bring it down to our context.

Now we need to link these UN Plans with what we are doing on the ground in Fiji and other Pacific countries.

You’ll remember that when the coup the fourth coup happened in 2006, there were calls for the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) to relocate to another country.

This call was made mostly by non-PINA members.

The PINA AGM’s in 2007 in Honiara, 2009 in Vila and 2012 at Pacific Harbour unanimously agreed that the PINA Secretariat remain in Fiji.

Thank God for Journalism Schools nowadays.

For some of us, we went through the school of hard-knocks. It was either swim or sink and I was fortunate to have been trained and mentored by the likes of household names like Peter Lomas, Nemani Delaibatiki, Jale Moala, Laisa Taga, Torika Tora and the likes at the old Fiji Sun based in Lami. Most of you young journalists were probably not around when I started 32-years ago. The old Fiji Sun closed because of the 1^st military coup in 1987 and by then I was already with FM96 which started in 1985.

In 1987/88, USP introduced the Certificate in Journalism programme and some of us were part of the course with training here and the technical stuff was done at Statham. However, we did not complete the course because our tutor who was funded from Australia had to return home when aid was cut.

USP also went through its difficult days back then with drastic changes.

The various political scenarios in Fiji in the last 26 years have taught us a lot.

It is from this knowledge gained through experience that PINA has approached its dealings with the current Fijian Government.

PINA’s core objectives are: defend and promote media freedom for its members, promote professional training and thirdly building partnership.

The idea of forming a media body like PINA started way back in 1972 and after various meetings, it was decided to officially register PINA in 1986 in Samoa.

So for more than twenty years PINA has been putting out statements against governments that restricted the media from doing its work.

In 2007, the PINA Board decided that we need to take a different approach because we realised it was no-longer one size fits all.

So instead of putting out condemning statements like we’ve done in the past and seeing that it felt on deaf ears we decided to dialogue and find common ground for the safety of our media people first.

We may be doing things differently, but we are not wrong.

One thing that we media people must have is an ‘ear to hear’. A lot of times we’ve come with pre-conceived ideas to the engaging table.

I can recall in a meeting the media and Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama in May of 2008, he called for responsible journalism. It was in this meeting that I raised the issue of safety for journalists which surprised him.

For me I started to reflect and saw that whilst we were harping about Media Freedom we hadn’t worked on cleaning our own backyard.

Most of the experienced journalists had left mainstream media either for greener pastures overseas or other well paid and safer jobs.

We needed to get down to the basics again and get things right the first time.

When you look back through history almost all previous governments in Fiji have at one time or the other tried to control the media.

A fortnight ago, I spoke at the inaugural Pacific Parliamentarians and Political Leaders Forum in the New Zealand Parliament in Wellington and said that safety of Journalists to me was paramount.

I am a firm believer of ‘free and independent media in Fiji.’

In my submission to the Yash Ghai Constitution Review Commission I called for ‘Free and Independent Media in Fiji’ with the entrenchment of the Freedom of Expression into the new Fijian Constitution.

The draft constitution has that and so we need to work from there, taking into consideration the reality on the ground.

In three decades as a Fijian journalist, I have seen governments come and go, those elected and those not. A lot has happened but despite the turmoil and upheaval some of us steadfastly believe there is a lot of goodness and hope in this country.

For me the media has been used and abused by various stakeholders, within and those outside the media. I would like to say that no one is perfect and so is the media.

This is a profession that has suffered in its own way since the first military coup in 1987 and the ensuing coups. Some of my media colleagues have suffered more than others or in varying degrees.

It is from this stark reality and experience that I proposed ‘A Free and Independent Media’ to be upheld in the Fijian Constitution.

From the media’s part we wish to unite in our efforts to raise professional standards and thus strengthen the social standing of journalism. The co-operation between journalists in the field of ethics is also a great training ground for co-operation in demanding our legitimate rights in the Constitution.

However, quality should never be a pre-requisite for freedom. Only a fully free media can be fully responsible.

I see self-regulation and the promotion of quality journalism as additional safeguards of media freedom and even of media power.

In this regard, PINA is willing to work with all media stakeholders and authorities in formulating a ‘Media Self Regulation Guidebook’ that is tailored for Fiji.

It is my hope that this will encourage the further development of media self-regulation, boost the quality segment of journalism, and, hence, help improve the overall media freedom situation in the country.

Media self- regulation will educate on balancing rights and responsibilities.

It will be a joint endeavour by media professionals to set up voluntary editorial guidelines and abide by them in a learning process open to the public. By doing so, the independent media accept their share of responsibility for the quality of public discourse in the nation, while fully preserving their editorial autonomy in shaping it.

Self-regulation is not censorship and not even self-censorship. It is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial freedom on what to report and what opinions to express.

Self- regulation helps the media respond to legitimate complaints, and correct mistakes in a trial-and-error way.

Self- regulation is a pledge by quality-conscious media professionals to maintain dialogue with the public. A complaint mechanism is set up to deal with justified concerns in a rational and autonomous way.

In the media, obviously all media outlets whose journalists, editors and owners seek to produce a responsible press would engage in this dialogue. Self-regulation can be set up both industry-wide and in-house.

Outside the media, political institutions and public figures are usually the main providers of complaints, as reporting and commenting on their activities is an important job for the serious media. But equally interested partners could be civil society’s protagonists such as business and labour, religious and minority organizations, traditional and newly established interest groups, and, of course, individual members of the public.

Since the phone hacking scandal in Great Britain, Media Authorities similar to the one in Fiji are being set up in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Not much has been said by advocates who gone to great lengths to crucify Fiji, maybe these advocates are funded by donors from these countries.

This is why this year’s theme ‘Safe to Speak’ is relevant. Whose agenda are you pushing- donors, governments or other stakeholders.

PINA is independent. It is not donor funded it relies on subscription to its PACNEWS bulletins.

Just yesterday we ran news of Canada wanting to boycott the Commonwealth Heads of Meeting in Sri Lanka later this year in protest against alleged human rights violation.

ABC in Australia reports that a federal labour backbencher has called for Australia to also boycott CHOGM.

A newly released Amnesty International report has accused the Sri Lankan government of intensifying a crackdown on critics through violence and intimidation.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr has said Canada's boycott would be counter-productive and it would be better to stay engaged with Sri Lanka to directly raise concerns.

Is this the same Australian government that does now want to engage with Fiji?

Some organisations sigh away from these sorts of issues because funding could be cut.

Now back to the Fiji situation, I say you are Safe to Speak. The Media Code of Ethics is in the Media Decree.

A lot of people are making an issue about the huge fines but I am saying if you follow the Code of Ethics than you should not have any problem.

Yesterday, the Pacific Regional NGOs met with the Melanesian Spearhead Group Eminent Persons Group and reiterated our call for Free and Independent Media in the MSG countries.

By attending the political forum in New Zealand, I have made connections with parliamentarians from around the region to have regular discussions on how media and governments can work together to understand each other.

In conclusions, let me share this analogy…

There was this gentleman that used to walk his dog every morning. There was no fences erected around USP and he walked from Flagstaff and through the USP compound to Veiuto and back home.

One day USP decides to erect fences like we see today. This poor chap has to walk all around the fence now. If he tried to cross through USP he will be thrown out.

That is what we are faced with here in Fiji, how do we negotiate the fences. We cannot ignore the reality on the ground but negotiate around it and come up with workable strategies.

I thank you and acknowledge the Almighty of for his presence and grace for this opportunity.

Vinaka vakalevu

* Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) Manager & Training Coordinator- Matai Akauola’s speech at the WPFD Celebration at USP

2 May 2013

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Sunday Transport

Bus to Mulomulo

Here is something for the government and the Land Transport Authority. Buses do not run on Sundays in Mulomulo.

A family that goes to church from Mulomulo Secondary school to their church in Nadi hitches rides in passing vehicles. This happens every Sunday. I have picked up many people travelling to the main road on Sundays.

Anyway, last Sunday this family flagged down a passing van and on their way to church was stopped by Land Transport Authority officers and the driver was booked for carrying passengers.

Now, can LTA or other authority provide transport for these people who depend on public transport on a Sunday?

I know that there is a law that prohibits the use of non-PSV vehicles for public transport, what about places where there is no public transport? What is the alternative?

Do they expect them to walk the ten K's to Nadi?

I’m just saying, eh.

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.

News and Comments Thursday 9 May 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Wed, 08 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

AIR PACIFIC PAY OUT. Two years ago this airline was on the verge of bankruptcy and now, two years later, some $600,000 has been paid to employees to mark another profitable year to the end of the fiscal year on March 30. Outgoing CEO David Pflieger said the payout was a reward to the staff for their hard work and commitment to delivering the best possible service as the national carrier.

"Nobody asked for it but it was something I felt I had to do and I got the support of our board of directors," said Mr Pflieger. "Our team is getting rewarded right away and we wanted them to share in the success of the airline. During our restructuring, it was a difficult time and once we addressed those issues we wanted to do something where we were able to give back to our employees."

FLP STATEMENT 'MISLEADING AND INACCURATE'. Nineteen thousand recipients currently assisted under the Family Assistance Program will not be terminated from the welfare programme as claimed by Fiji Labour Party Leader, Mahendra Chaudhry. Social Welfare Minister Dr. Jiko Luveni said this is inaccurate and misleading as this is not happening.

These recipients will be re-certified under the new Poverty Benefit Scheme. Luveni said during this process those whose economic conditions have improved over the years and are now capable of financially supporting their families will be graduated from the program and will be re-programmed for those who need it the most. The Poverty Benefit Scheme with total budget of $22.6 million is expected to assist approximately 13,000 households with a maximum payment of $150 per month and part of this amount consists of $30 food vouchers. Dr. Luveni said that Chaudhry playing on the fears of those who depend on social welfare schemes, for political gain, is irresponsible and unbecoming of a public figure.

THE SOCIAL WELFARE REFORMS. The Minister said Government is currently carrying out major reforms of social welfare programmes that will actually increase coverage of Fiji’s poor population from 3%under the previous system, to about 10% under the new system. “The new system is designed to create the maximum effect with our limited resources. We will target our available resources at those Fijians who need it the most. This will allow Fiji’s social welfare system to better and more widely cover those who meet the criteria and will minimize abuse and fraud."

There are now two main schemes. The Poverty Benefit Scheme, with a total budget of $22.6 million in 2013, will assist up to 13,000 households with a maximum payment of $150 per month. Part of this amount consists of a $30 food voucher. Part of the Poverty Benefit Scheme includes something called the Welfare Graduation Scheme. When assistance is given to a family, the head of the family signs a contract to actively look for income-generating and vocational-training opportunities.

The Poverty Benefit Scheme eliminates the previous vulnerability categories (the elderly, chronically ill and disabled) and directs benefits at the most needy households that will be determined by measures such as property ownership (houses, land), assets and household items.

Government has also established Fiji’s first ever Social Pension Scheme of $30 a month which will benefit more than 9,000 people who are 70 years and over. This scheme will cost $3.2 million in 2013 and enable a significant number of Fiji’s elderly population, who were previously receiving no form of financial support, to live out the remainder of their lives with dignity and respect. To be eligible, individuals must not currently have access to any superannuation or other means of income.

Fijians will also continue to benefit from existing poverty alleviation programmes. One is the Care and Protection Programme, which benefits children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This allowance can be accessed by children up to 18 years, particularly those who come from a single parent family, have a parent in prison, or have foster parents and guardians.

Another scheme is the subsidized bus fare programme, which Government introduced to help ordinary Fijians make ends meet by providing free or subsidized bus fare to school children, the elderly and the disabled. Government has also been providing free text books to school children to help poor families with the cost of education.

MINISTRY STARTS MINIMUM WAGE SURVEY, The Ministry of Labour has started Fiji's first National Minimum Wage Baseline survey. Minister Jone Usamate said the survey would result in the determination and introduction of a national minimum wage, the hourly rate below which all sectoral minimum wage rates must not be allowed to fall. The survey will assess existing wage levels and conditions of employment in the context of the requirements under the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007 (ERP) and the ten current Wages Regulation Orders (WROs) against the backdrop of the economy.

There are 6.706 enterprises with 171,865 workers in the country. Out of these enterprises, 4.065 are covered under the Wages Regulation Orders and 2641 are enterprises where workers are employed through individual bargaining. The survey will be completed by the end of this month.

SEETO EXPLAINS: T.U. ACTION WOULD ONLY HURT WORKERS. Interviewed by Radio Australia, Fiji Hotel and Tourism Association president Dixon Seeto says the current ANZ trade union campaign aimed at the Fiji Government will only hurt workers. “If this campaign were successful, all it would do would be to harm the livelihoods of many, many people in Fiji who work in the industry and who are connected to the industry.”

"We are now governed by … wages councils which stipulate minimum wages for workers. There was a hefty increase recently of approximately almost 10%and that greatly increased the take home pay of many of our workers. The thing is these are the minimum wages ...most of the hotels and resorts [pay their workers] at a much higher rate... The other thing the government has done is [raise] the threshold for tax-free income [to $15,000] so that people, especially the lower income levels don’t pay any taxes."

MELANESIAN SPEARHEAD GROUP. A meeting of MSG trade and economic officials will be discussing trade issues this week and their recommendations will be submitted to the Trade Ministers meeting next week. Permanent Secretary for Industry and Trade Shaheen Ali said member countries will benefit from the free movement of goods and services, and already Fiji’s total trade with Pacific Island countries, especially with the MSG countries, has increased to 4.5% in 2010 compared to less than 1% in 2000.

THIS LEOPARD NEVER CHANGES ITS SPOTS. SODELPA, the old re-named (and overwhelmingly ethnic iTaukei) SDL party that governed Fiji from 2001 to 2006 has appointed former SDL government minister High Chief Ro Teimumu as president. It's the old alliance of the iTaukei elite with one or two non-iTaukei thrown in to make it look multi-racial.

NETWORK COVERAGE. Government intends to have a 100% network coverage and will subsidize telecommunication companies that provide coverage in areas where there is at present little or no coverage.

LIFE JACKETS. I wonder whether Allen Lockington's "Safety at Sea" article re-published at the weekend or the death by drowning of Tui Macuata have prompted the action of the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji to get the price of life jackets down from $60 to $18 so that they are more affordable for small boat owners. MSAF Chief Executive Neal Slack says they’re continuing negotiations with suppliers and government to improve the quality and reduce the price of life jackets. That's good news but why did they allow the price to get to $60 before doing something about it?

" I will not be signing the ACTU’s petition..."

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Wed, 08 May 2013 08:55:00 +0000

Dear Croz,

Along with many other Trade Unionists, I have received a message asking for support of an ACTU campaign which purports to defend human rights in Fiji.

Here is the response I have sent to the ACTU.

All the best,

Scott

Dear Ged,

Unfortunately on this occasion the ACTU has the situation in Fiji wrong. As offensive as all democrats find a military regime, the party and trade union opposition to the Bainimarama government in Fiji does not have clean hands either.

The trade union officials who are, quite rightly, opposed to many of the restrictions imposed by the regime have been mostly supporters of a political party the Fiji Labour Party which is undemocratic, unrepresentative-except of a few cane farmers and long-term party hacks-and definitely not a desirable alternative to the present government. Indeed the FLP is in the process of forming an electoral alliance with the most reactionary ethnic Fijian/itaukei party which includes all `the born to rule’, anti-Indo Fijian chiefs. The alliance is purely opportunistic and represents a return to the past which produced the military regime in the first place.

Since you purport to know `the facts about the real situation’ it is incumbent upon you to provide accurate data. However your figures on the proportion of the population living under the poverty line are dubious, with the figure probably closer to 35-40%. (Establishing poverty estimates in a country where the bulk of the population lives on smallholdings is extremely hard and the accurate poverty figures for Fiji are probably similar to many countries with this demographic feature, including PNG and others in the South Pacific.) There is no evidence that whatever the correct figure is has been brought about by military rule. Increasing poverty has been a feature of Fiji since the early 1990s at least.

It is a pity to see the ACTU, a progressive organisation, simply following the stupid, ineffective and counter-productive foreign policy position adopted by the Australian and New Zealand governments.

Instead of sanctions which is all these governments have managed to implement, the ACTU should try to break from the official position and recognise the need to democratise the regime. Otherwise the ACTU will remain as ineffective as the ANZ governments in influencing what happens in Fiji.

The Bainimarama government has been very successful in establishing international credibility within and outside the region, which should tell the ACTU that its campaign will not succeed. Since the post-election government in Fiji is as likely as not to be dominated by a Bainimarama-led party, the ACTU should now try to work out how to affect this future regime rather than simply opposing and offending its key members.

So I will not be signing the ACTU’s petition and will be doing all I can to tell others whom I know to do likewise.

Regards,

Scott MacWilliam

Peter Conway, You've Got it Wrong!

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Tue, 07 May 2013 07:07:00 +0000

Peter Conway, Secretary NZCTU

This article looks at what some overseas unions are saying about Fiji; what the A-G has to say in reply, and what I say about incorrect claims by Peter Conway, the national secretary of the NZCTU.

As the Fiji Ministry of Labour commences its first national minimum wage baseline survey which will determine new minimum hourly rates and conditions of employment for all economic sectors, the NZ Council of Trade Unions has launched another attack on the country

They are supporting a campaign "to raise awareness among potential tourists of the reality of life in Fiji", says NZCTU secretary Peter Conway, who went on to say, "Sixty percent of people earning a wage are living below the poverty line and workers have been stripped of their human rights... Fiji is a military dictatorship and far from the paradise portrayed in tourism brochures, "says National Secretary Peter Conway

The new campaign is jointly co-ordinated by the ACTU, the International Trade Union Confederation, the NZCTU and Equal Times. The campaign website is www.destinationfiji.org. Conway hopes the campaign will inform people when they are deciding on a tourist destination. If they decide on Fiji, he hopes they will talk to local people to find out "what really is going on."

The campaign also calls on Foreign Affairs Ministers in Australia and New Zealand to demand that Fiji brings its practices into line with international human rights standards, repeals draconian measures that have stripped workers of their fundamental rights, allows the United Nations in to monitor the situation, and commits to genuine transparent and democratic processes in the lead up to the 2014 election.

Conroy is a well-meaning labourite, a prominent member of Oxfam, but we knows little to nothing about Fiji, and how Fiji compares with other Third World countries. His appeal to the Australian and NZ government for action also smacks of neo-colonialism, What give them a special right to dictate to Fiji, especially when they make no complaints about human rights issues in China and South-East Asia? They've long ago lost their opportunity to influence events in Fiji by giving no credit to the Bainimarama's reforms, and giving too much credibility to the claims of his so-called pro-democracy opponents.

The Attorney-General and Tourism Minister Aiyaz Sayed=Khaiyum replied to Conway, not by attacking him or the overseas unions, but by accusing trade unionists in Fiji of being behind a new international campaign to hurt the country’s important tourism industry and those depending on it for a living. He is "confident that our visitors will see this propaganda for what it is – a crude attempt to punish Fiji for its reforms, which are designed, amongst other things, to erode the ability of a handful of elites to use their power to damage the Fijian economy and work against the Fijian people.

“This same hegemony of four or five unionists time and time again continues to demonstrate a disdain for ordinary Fijians by wilfully misrepresenting the situation in Fiji. “Overall, we believe the impact of this petition will be minimal. Our visitors – like the Fijian employees – are smart enough to see through it.”

“For trade union leaders to encourage a tourism boycott – an industry that supports the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Fijian families – is the height of selfishness and irresponsibility. A boycott would not only threaten the livelihoods of those directly employed by the tourism industry and their families, but also the livelihoods of all those who play a supporting role in the industry: the taxi drivers, the airline and airport employees, women and men who produce handicrafts and the list goes on.

“The Bainimarama Government has also provided an unprecedented level of assistance to the tourism industry, which has attracted investment, created jobs and established many opportunities for training and up-skilling at such places as the Fiji National University.

“The Bainimarama Government-led reforms at Air Pacific has created a remarkable turn-around from a more than $90 million annual loss, to a $16 million profit last year. All of these reforms including employer/employee reforms have been achieved without a single job loss. And now, all employees are included in the airline’s first ever profit-sharing scheme. “The draft Fijian constitution further strengthens the rights of ordinary Fijians by including in its bill of rights the right to a just minimum wage, the right to economic participation, as well as a wide range of socio-economic rights. Fiji’s previous constitutions never included such rights, nor for that does matter do Australia’s.

“Lastly but perhaps most importantly all Fijians need to consider, that given these are the same trade unionists who have said that they will form a political party to participate in the 2014 parliamentary elections. Is this really the sort of leaders Fiji wants?,” he said.

My Comments

Peter Conway urges tourists to talk to local people to find out what is really going on. But to my knowledge, he has not been to Fiji for at least six years and his only source of local information is from the Fiji unionists he is supporting — who the A-G thinks are behind this latest move by the ANZ unionists.

More importantly, where does he get information to support his claim that "sixty percent of of people earning a wage are living below the poverty line."? It is the highest figure ever mentioned. Some have talked of 35%, others of 45-50% but these lower guesstimates are about "people" — not "people earning a wage."

"People" is a far more inclusive term. It includes the employed and unemployed, children, old people and rural people in the subsistence sector. If we multiply Conway's 60% with the Ministry of Labour's 171,865 workers in Fiji and then multiple each worker by three (workers plus their dependents), the result is 309,357 people, or about 35% of the estimated population. A far cry from Conway's inflated 60%.

Even more importantly, where does he expect Austrlalian and NZ tourists to go for a cheap holiday, if it is not Fiji?Bali in Indonesia perhaps or Phuket in Thailand? I thought I'd check on how well workers in these countries compare with Fiji.

Assuming a 45-hour week in all cases, and converting Indonesian Rupiah and Thai Baht into Fiji dollars, I came up with these figures:

The national minimum weekly wage in Thailand is F$98.78; in Indonesia F$89.63 and —wait for it— in Fiji the minimum weekly wage for a labourer or waiter in a licensed hotel is F$125.30, a pitiful wage by ANZ standards but more than Thailand or Indonesia. For consistency, shouldn't Mr Conway be also urging a ANZ boycott Indonesia and Thailand. (The value of the Fiji dollar is 66 cents NZ and 55 cents Australian.)

I have no way of comparing human rights abuses between the three countries, but I'm reasonably confident worker employment rights in Fiji would compare favourably. Our hotel labourer, for example, is protected by the Government Wage Regulation Order of October 2012 that guarantees him his minimum wage, 1½ times overtime pay (and double on Sunday and national holidays) and $7 for a meal if he works overtime. He has guaranteed annual holidays, a night shift allowance of 20 cents an hour, up to ten days sick leave a year; and three days bereavement leave a year. And all premises are checked for safety and health.

Peter Conway sympathies with working people are unquestionable but in complex situations such as Fiji, it is not enough. He must check his sources, question the motivation of his Fiji associates, and consider the political alternatives. The record of the Bainimarama government is not perfect (I have repeatedly criticized its Essential Industries Decree) but neither is that of the Fiji trade unionists (who two years ago appealed to overseas unionists to call for boycotts on the Fiji tourism industry).

To call, even obliquely, for a boycott on Fiji's major employer, the tourism industry, will have little effect on government policies and actions (except to make them even less sympathetic to the Fiji trade unionists!) but, if it were successful, it would have a massive effect on tens of thousands of ordinary Fijians. Surely, this is not what he and his colleagues want.

-- Crosbie Walsh

Even Government Supporters Did not Want This

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Sat, 04 May 2013 07:31:00 +0000

More than one government supporter has told me the last thing they wanted was for Rev Akuila Yabaki and the CCF to be found guilty, but the judiciary, independent as it is, could only rule according to the letter of the law. We can now only hope that the man who for many years people have thought of as the most honest voice of constitutional democracy in Fiji is not jailed.

CCF Media Release
High Court Finds CCF Guilty of Contempt of Court

The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum and its Chief Executive Officer Reverend Akuila Yabaki have been found guilty of contempt of court by High Court Judge Justice William Calanchini this afternoon.

Justice Calanchini also refused the Recusal application filed by CCF.

CCF is currently analyzing the 30 page judgment with legal counsel, Munro Leys. Following the analysis and further consultations, CCF will announce its next course of action.

The matter has been adjourned to June 17th, 2013 for mitigation and pre-sentence hearing.

A copy of the judgment is available on the CCF website www.ccf.org.fj and on the CCF Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/177335582880/?fref=ts
…
…………………….
Reverend Akuila Yabaki
CEO - CCF
Website: www.ccf.org.fj

Commonwealth, ANZ Hypocrisy on Sri Lanka, Relevance to Fiji

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 03 May 2013 21:05:00 +0000

By Rod Ewins

The Canadian Government has put the Australian government AND HM Loyal Opposition (a.k.a. Opposition Coalition) to shame by seizing the high moral ground on the issue of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting being held in Sri Lanka this year. Canada is boycotting the meeting on the grounds of the ongoing egregious violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, and is calling on other Commonwealth countries to do the same. Both sides of politics in Australia have rejected this call and say it is important for Aus to attend CHOGM.

That serious abuses and reportedly murders continue in Sri Lanka is not just a rumour. It has been reported by a number of human rights groups, and by individuals who have suffered at the hands of the government's torturers there, as recently as a few weeks ago. A man on a visa in Australia had to return there recently, and was grabbed by the "police" and tortured, including criss-cross branding all over his back with red-hot metal bars. He was interviewed on television and showed the still-0livid evidence on his back. He was only released and allowed to return to Australia when his uncle paid a large bribe. However his injuries are such that he can no longer work, and faces the likelihood of - wait for it - deportation back to Sri Lanka!! The Sri Lankan ambassador to Australia accused him of fabricating his claims, while the political line from both sides here is that these things may have occurred once but not now, where all things in SL are onward and upward and it is a perfectly safe place to send refugees back to.

So why is the evidence being ignored by the Commonwealth and Australia in such a wilfully perverse manner? In the case of Australia, the answer seems pretty obvious: because of the number of refugees from SL who continue relentlessly to land in Australia seeking safe haven, and the bipartisan policy of sending a large number of them right back where they came from. To admit the true nature of the regime there would mean Australia would have to admit it has been, and continues to, knowingly send innocent people into terrible peril, made more pressing by the fact that they have dared to try and escape it, and the vengeance this is likely to elicit from the regime. And to STOP sending them back to God knows what awaits them in SL, would make the official figures on refugees (so-called "illegal immigrants") look even worse than they already are in such times of war and upheaval in SL and Afghanistan. All only months out from an election where each side is jockeying to see who can seem tougher on these "boat people." In the case of the Commonwealth, the logic is more difficult to figure out. Perhaps it is simply that they cannot contemplate admitting that the atrocities continue to occur in a country they have made not the slightest attempt to expel from their ranks, something they were quick to do to Fiji.

Which is of course why I am writing about this to a group interested in Fiji. The sheer hypocrisy of the political stance of both toward Fiji, while showing bipartisan support for the imagined "liberalisation" putatively occurring in the SL regime, beggars belief. I in no way support the abuses and murders that have occurred in Fiji since the Bainimarama Coup. I have commented in writing on a number of occasions that it is the most serious blot on VB's record, that he has not condemned and aggressively pursued the perpetrators. But whatever has occurred in Fiji seems trifling compared with what is now emerging about the manner in which the SL regime finally put down the rebellion in that country, with thousands of deaths, and the ongoing total disregard for values that any civilised society should hold as essential.

So this is just the latest glaring hypocrisy in Australia's and the Commonwealth's attitude to Fiji. Again, it is motivated largely by an inability to admit that they have been wrong all along - even though in this case, the main result would be a loss of face and having to eat crow, a dish they, more than most, seem to find totally unpalatable. Disgustedly, I have therefore not the slightest expectation that the politicians in London or in Canberra will have a change of heart on either Sri Lanka or Fiji.

The Status of Teachers in Fiji’s Emerging Democracy1

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 03 May 2013 21:03:00 +0000

Biman Prasad, Professor of Economics and Chair of the Oceania Development Network

Address to the Fiji Teachers' Union, April 2013

The Honourable Minister for Education, Mr. Filipe Bole, The General Secretary of the Fiji Teachers Union, Mr. Agni Deo Singh, President of the FTU Suva, Branch, Permanent Secretary of Education, Dr. Brij Lal, Excellencies and Members of the Diplomatic corps, Members and Executive Committee, Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen

I feel very privileged and honoured to address the members of the Fiji Teachers Union this morning. I have vivid memories of my primary and secondary school days and of my teachers, who were members of the Fiji Teachers Union and Fijian Teachers Association. Memories of little words of encouragement, of learning moral values, of the right to express oneself, the need to respect others rights, the freedom to play, have fun and enjoy school life are just some of those. Opportunities provided to become class, house and school prefects were all very uplifting experiences in the formative years of my life

Today I want to remember those teachers, many of whom are still around, but some who have left us. I want to especially salute all the primary school teachers present here for their dedication and hard-work – you are all doing a great service to our country by teaching our young ones and laying the foundation for their future development. You deserve praise and commendation.

The theme of your convention “The Status of Teachers in Fiji’s Emerging Democracy” is appropriate and timely as we struggle to move towards representative democracy in our country and improve the status of our teachers.

First, let me make some remarks about Fiji’s emerging democracy before I talk about the status of teachers in Fiji.

Democracy in Fiji

The excitement of a new nation being built on the strength of diversity, harmony and shared vision in 1970 was overwhelmingly uplifting for our people and our leaders. In the first decade of independence, we engaged in building our country through development of our economic and social infrastructure. We achieved an average economic growth rate of about 5.5% and we were on a growth trajectory for a long and sustained period of growth and prosperity. However, this growth trajectory was interrupted in 1987, and since then we have continued to struggle and muddle through a poor economy and an unstable democratic path. The abrogation of the 1970 Constitution set us on a path of struggle. We moved away from democratic ideals on which our country was founded when we adopted the discriminatory 1990 Constitution.

The 1997 Constitution which enshrined multiracialism put us back on track, but on May 2000 we fell off the tracks once again. Additionally, the 1997 Constitution was abrogated in 2009 after the military coup of 2006. We now have a new Ghai Draft Constitution and Government 2013 Draft Constitution. The provisions relating to the changes to the new Government draft Constitution requires a 75% majority in parliament and a 75% majority in a national referendum. The change through negotiation based on this requirement appears next to impossible. The only way might be a change through force in the future. If that happens again, we will slide further into a political quagmire and maintain the vicious circle in this country.

However, we must note and take into account that democracies have not been built overnight. The great democracies of the world went through a process of a virtuous circle. Constitutions were changed peacefully and progressively, and improved through negotiations and discussion, NOT by force. Forced changes do not last. Democracies evolve and move in the right direction through natural process. Force is unnatural to democracy.

Many former colonial countries and now emerging democracies have suffered because they have interrupted the evolutionary process that is important for democracy. They used force, including military coups. They ended up in a worse position than before.

Democracy is not an absolute concept, but it is still an ideal worth aspiring. Democracy no matter, how bad, is often better than autocracy. As Sir Winston Churchill said: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947 British politician and Prime Minister (1874 - 1965).

Any semblance of democracy must be measured through a number of criteria and these should include (1) government’s responsiveness to the popular will and people’s input in whatever decisions are made; (2) respect for human rights and freedom of expression must be upheld at all times and clearly enshrined in the constitution; (3) civil society and media organisations must be respected and supported; (4) the rule of law to be respected in all circumstances, especially when the decision of a court is against the state; (5) free and fair elections, and (6) allowing an effective opposition to exist at all times.

Fiji’s 1970 Constitution had provisions for a review. In fact a review was conducted under the Street Commission, which recommended a move towards a more open and less communal electoral system. Leaders at that time, shirked away from their responsibilities in terms of making those progressive changes. Had they acted boldly, we might have been in a better place as a country today. The leaders after the 1994 General election had more foresight and achieved a change in the 1990 Constitution through dialogue and discussion, an example we should try and emulate.

Countries pass through critical junctures. These junctures always provide us an opportunity to make good or bad decisions. Fiji has faced several critical junctures in past. We have not always used these critical junctures to create a virtuous circle of improvement and prosperity. Instead, at every critical juncture, we have gone back into a vicious circle of instability and decline.

In the past, we have heard such phrases as democracy is a “foreign flower”, that we need time to have democracy, that we need good democracy, and so on. Today, we still hear from some of our leaders, religious leaders, businessmen and I can say some academics and teachers as well, that democracy can be postponed. One thing that we have not understood in this country since 1987 is that political instability has led to the gutting of Fiji of skills, investment, economic growth and prosperity.

The link between political instability, democracy and economic growth is an important institutional determinant to explain the differences in growth amongst countries. There is plenty of evidence in the literature that democracy may be the best form of government when it comes to providing stability and certainty regarding economic policies. Generally speaking, democracy is also good for developing inclusive economic institutions.

Fiji has recorded on average a growth rate of just about 2 percent in the last twenty five years because of continuous political instability and lack of inclusive political and economic institutions. Countries like Mauritius have spectacularly outperformed Fiji, growing at a sustained rate of more than 5 percent in the same period. Fiji has languished in poverty, unemployment, with a declining quality of public services and an increasing loss of talent through migration. On the other hand, Mauritius has continued to prosper. 87 percent of Mauritians own their own homes; there are free medical facilities for all, including heart surgery, and free education from pre-school to the tertiary level. Mauritius achieved independence from the British in 1968, two years before Fiji. Like Fiji, Mauritius depended on the sugar industry as its key driver for economic growth after independence. However, Mauritius chose not to have a military force. Instead of a coup culture it has built a stable and prosperous democracy.

One of the key elements for the Mauritian success story is that it saw its people as strength. Fiji, on the other hand, saw some of the best talents migrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America. The proud record of Fiji’s civil service before the 1987 coup was destroyed at all levels, with promotions and appointments generally reserved for indigenous Fijians. The policy of positive discrimination and indigenization of the civil service continued under the subsequent governments and it was most pronounced in the provision of scholarships and educational opportunities.

While the Bainimarama government has put in a lot of effort to improve the performance of the civil service by advocating merit based appointments, it has not been too successful because of the culture of entrenched racism and provincialism that still exists.

We are passing through a critical juncture in our history and this is an opportunity for all of to redefine how we do build this country. There are many elements in the government today who continue to paddle the culture of racism and mediocrity despite the governments stated intention. Equally there are many in the group who are pushing for democracy yet they continue to paddle a racist view. It will be tragic if this continues. Now is the time to build and an inclusive and a non-racist democratic Fiji.

Democracy in the schools and classrooms

Let me now turn to democracy in schools and class rooms.

None of us as parents would want to send our children to a school where they cannot freely express themselves through debate and discussion as this would be counterproductive to their development.

We all expect our children to do well in the school. Whether, we are rich, poor, literate or illiterate. Parents want their children to stay away from drugs, crime and other social ills. I believe that while we may not have a democratic government right now, our society dreams of a democracy for its children. We want our children to grow up in a free, open, and transparent democratic framework.

Last year when I spoke at the Fijian Teachers Association annual convention, I talked about the need for creativity and innovation in education and how it can be promoted through democratic teaching and learning.

When we talk about creativity and innovation, we need to be aware of the context and environment in which this can happen. The literature on creativity recognizes the paradox about the process of creativity. One aspect is that it requires both introversion and extroversion. It has been established through research over so many years that a creative person must have autonomy. He or she must be connected to the wider society, both locally and internationally, for ideas. He or she must develop a delicate balance between obedience and disobedience.

Therefore the environment in which our children study can determine whether they become conformist or creative and productive. Teachers have an important role in creating a school environment to fit the different needs of our children so that they can think for themselves and ask questions to enhance their understanding of the issues that affect them and that will matter in their lives. Questions like Why do you think your viewpoint is better than mine? How do we know? What is the evidence? What are the alternatives that will promote a better and engaged learning environment, and in their own way promote democratic values? By creating such a school environment we will avoid creating a ‘nation of sheep’ in the future.

As Gandhi once said “Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep. Under democracy individual liberty of opinion and action is jealously guarded” Teachers have an important responsibility in this regard.

Since 1987, we have experienced a culture of fear and favour based on ethnicity. More recently we are increasingly experiencing dictatorial attitudes amongst leaders and managers in all sectors of our society; in the civil service, statutory organisations and in some non-governmental organisations and institutions. It is our responsibility to guard against that kind of environment.

Teachers unions must promote a culture of meritocracy and performance when it comes to promotions within the school system. Our societies and communities which run schools continue to perpetuate the ethnic dimensions in the school system. Here, I wish to congratulate Minister Filipe Bole and the Bainimarama government for at least symbolically removing the ethnic dimensions in the naming of the schools and introducing zoning of the schools. If we want quality, creativity and innovation in education we need to move towards a culture and identity of excellence in our teachers and students.

Creativity and innovation also require a free and democratic environment. School administrators, teachers and students need that academic freedom to articulate different views, engage in free discourse, and debate important issues affecting the country and those beyond the national borders.

So what can teachers do to facilitate and educate our children so that when they grow up, they understand the expectations of living in a democratic society? Within the existing structure, teachers can encourage more democratic values amongst students. For example, schools should have elections for school prefects, including head prefects. This will help students at an early age to understand the process of elections and of the value of choosing their own leaders.

Status of teachers

Let me now make some remarks on the status of teachers. Classroom is an important democratic space. Teachers play a crucial role in the cultivation of democratic imagination.

Like every country, Fiji operates its educational system in a way that is defined and underpinned by international and normative principles. The World Declaration on Education for all (EFA) emphasizes the role of the teachers and in our current context it is very relevant to make reference to it. I quote

“The preeminent role of teachers as well as of other educational personnel in providing quality basic education needs to be recognized and developed to optimize their contribution. This must entail measures to respect teachers’ trade union rights and professional freedoms, and to improve their working conditions and status, notably in respect to their recruitment, initial and in-service training, renumeration and career development possibilities, as well as to allow teachers to fulfill their aspirations, social obligations and ethical responsibilities” (World conference on Education For All: Framework for Action, 5-9 March, 1990, Jomitien, Thailand, article 1.6, Para 33, pp.58)

The way in which we perceive the status of teachers depends on a combination of factors and it is relative. The 1996 ILO/ UNESCO defined the status of teachers as follows and I quote

“The expression ‘status’ as used in relation to teachers means both the standing or regard accorded to them, as evidenced by the level of appreciation of the importance of their function and of their competence in performing it, and the working conditions, remuneration and other material benefits accorded to them relative to other professional groups”

In Fiji we can safely say that as a country we have been able to continuously improve our educational objectives, policies, programmes, curricula, text books, physical infrastructure and generally improved facilities for our children. However, teachers remain the single most important factor in determining the quality of teaching. The ability to attract highly motivated, skilled and committed individuals and retaining them in the profession is absolutely vital for improving the quality of education in the increasingly challenging global environment.

The question we need to ask is: are we doing enough to attract and retain skilled and motivated teachers? I think we can accept that the academic and professional status of our teachers is good but there is a need for improvement. We need to move towards a degree requirement for all teachers, whether primary or secondary. This will enhance their academic and professional status.

Secondly, the social status of teachers is also important. The social status of teachers in Fiji in the 1970s and 1980s was very high. There was public recognition and acceptance of teachers as leaders and leading opinion makers in society. They were respected by students and communities alike as promoting moral and ethical standards in society. That status is less evident today, and it may be because of the erosion of professional pride and professional commitment. It is also due to the deteriorating moral and ethical standards amongst of some of our teachers. And parents must also take some responsibility in not helping enhance the status of teachers by not meeting their obligations for the provision of quality education. The Fiji Teachers Union and the Fijian Teachers Association must also take some responsibility for the decline in the social status of the teachers.

Thirdly, the economic status of teachers is also very important. While the pay in some categories of the civil service is commensurate with teachers’ pay, they do not commensurate with the expected role and commitment expected from the teachers.

In 2012, the starting salary of primary school teachers was $13,504, which was less than the annual wage of electricians and plumbers. This means that the starting salary of primary school teachers close to the poverty line income of about $10,000 per year. This does not contribute to the status of the primary school teachers, and can be remedied only by an increase in salary. I understand that the 2003 Job Review Exercise has not been implemented for teachers. We need to raise the status of teachers by recruiting high performing graduates and training them and paying them more.

Indeed, it has been established that in countries such as Korea, Singapore and Finland, teaching is considered a high status job.

By contrast, in Fiji there is a tendency to characterize teaching as an easy job, with short hours and long holidays. However, I know that many successful and dedicated teachers in this country work long hours with little pay. Recently, President Obama, speaking about teachers, said: “In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders and I think it’s time we treated our teachers with the same level of respect.” In Fiji, we need to ask the same set of questions: do we treat our teachers with respect? Are we providing them the tools and the environment for them to achieve the status they deserve in our society? Are they paid well? Do our rural schools have the same facilities and provisions for our teachers and students? Are our Ministry of Education senior officials supporting the work of teachers and administrators? Are they fair? Do they deal with their concerns expeditiously?

The status of teachers has also been affected negatively in an environment of political instability and uncertainty. This has been the case since 1987 and there is no end in sight as yet. Many experienced teachers and school administrators had to leave the service abruptly to migrate as a result of the discrimination they perceived in the civil service. Teacher training, remuneration and working conditions remain static and have hardly improved over the last twenty-five years. To make matters worse, the Bainimarama government implemented an ill-conceived retirement policy, which effectively shuts out productive and experienced teachers after the age of 55. This policy has now been included in the draft Constitution, and will thus commit all future governments to retire teachers at 55. This can surely be questioned: retirement age is a policy matter and NOT a constitutional matter.

Role of Teacher Trade Unions in a democracy

Let me now make few remarks about the role of trades unions in safeguarding the rights of workers which includes teachers as well. The decree restricting trade union rights is a regressive move and it is not in the long-term interest of workers or democracy. The government should remove those and other restrictions on the trade unions in the country. It is unfortunate that the Bainimarama government has engaged in an unnecessary process of union bashing. Additionally, the provisions in the political party decree and now included in the Government 2013 draft Constitution are thoroughly undemocratic features.

The Fiji Teachers Union has a proud history and has been led by prominent teachers who became effective politicians. The FTU has been a good training ground for leaders and indeed over the years they have produce many good leaders including our friend Mr. Krishna Datt. I know that FTU runs a very successful credit union and a medical insurance scheme and this is commendable. I do, however, feel that many of your members are now shying away from community leadership roles and active engagement. This is a role that they should accept. Communities are expecting a great deal from you.

Union movement world-wide is faced with dwindling memberships and it is becoming more difficult to organise and attract members. Members of unions are increasingly demanding returns to their membership. They are demanding better rights, wages, salaries and working conditions, and unions are finding it difficult to provide these. The changing structure of the economy from agriculture and manufacturing to services is also a factor. Service workers are mobile, often on short contracts, and are reluctant to join unions. However, the good news is that unions in some part of the world are adapting to these new challenges. They are seeing their union members as customers. They are providing more services to their members. The union movement in Fiji must look at some of the new business models to see how they can adapt to the changing times.

Let me also say that while some trade unions and their leaders have not always been principled, this should not be used to penalize the whole union movement. At this point I want to make this call again and say that the Union movement in Fiji must unite. Leaders have to set aside their differences now and work towards a common goal of restoring democracy and worker’s rights in this country. Some union leaders have made terrible mistakes in this country by pursuing their personal agendas and compromising their principles after the 2006 coup. This is a critical juncture for the union movement and they can either waste this opportunity or grab this opportunity to unite. If they don’t unite now, they are unlikely to unite in the future. Even, after we have a democratically elected government, unions are likely to remain weak and fragmented. This is the time to do so - and this time will pass sooner than later.

Concluding Comments

There is no doubt that the aspirations of all Fijians are generally the same. Whether we like the Bainimarama government or not, whether we are aligned to his government or not, whether one is a soldier, civilian, Christian, Hindu or Muslim, rich or poor, we all want peace, prosperity and freedom. It is generally believed that “a successful nation has three attributes: politically it is free and democratic, economically it is prosperous and equitable; and socially, it is peaceful and cohesive”². We are at a juncture in our history where our economic, social and political problems have become chronic and are no longer temporary. Our economic problems have become structural not cyclical. We have a deteriorating infrastructure, and lack investment and confidence, all of which adds up to poor economic growth.

Our growth rate in the last 25 years has been poor but, especially in the last 7 years, it has been dismal. The average growth rate has been only 0.6 percent of GDP and with this level of growth we can hardly achieve acceptable levels of services and facilities for our people and generate enough jobs for them. Formal sector employment has not grown in the last six years. Much of the employment created has been mainly in the informal sector. Indeed, close to 40% of those employed are in the informal sector, where wages are very low. While the 2013 budget has increased the tax threshold, it is not going to address the concerns of those employed in the informal sector and in some of the lower paid private sectors. The failure of the wages council to address the appropriate wage rise for those workers in these sectors will continue to keep many families in the poverty trap. Indeed, the immediate prospect for employment looks bleak. The National Employment Centre (NEC) data show that since 2010 a total of 26,000 unemployed persons have registered but only a small number – around 1,400 - have been able to secure full time employment. More challenging is the high level of youth unemployment. 12,000 out of the total of 26,000 are between the age of 15-24 and of these more than 6,000 are females.

Some estimates suggest that probably 18-20 thousand women have left being full-time housewives to try and make ends meet within the households. Additionally, we see more and more underemployment where people are idle and working for few hours. Wages and salaries have not risen much in the last six years and, if we take inflation into account, real incomes of most households have deteriorated. The incidence of national poverty has increased and it is definitely more than 31% in 2008-2009. Some estimates now put that to 45% and it could be approaching 50%. While it makes sense for government to borrow to finance infrastructure it should be careful about the total national debt, which has increased from $2 billion in 2006 to more than $4 billion in 2012.

What we need more than ever is a national and collective leadership to address the chronic problem of low growth, low employment, low confidence levels and low investment. This can come through inclusive political and economic institutions for all our people and these can be achieved through inclusive political dialogue.

In a recent paper I said the following and I think I was very generous:

In the area of economic policy, the Bainimarama government has done some ‘cleaning up’. This includes dismantling the telecom monopoly and not pandering to powerful indigenous Fijian interest in land and other natural resources, and also dealing firmly with powerful business interests. On the negative side, the overall thrust of looking inward to consider import-substitution strategies may be a regressive step.

Commodore Frank Bainimarama, notwithstanding the many controversial decisions on issues since the military coup of 2006, has the best chance as a Fijian leader to leave a legacy of good economic and political institutions for the future generations. Commodore Bainimarama and his government is probably at a stage where it needs support and probably better advice on its strategy in moving the process of building confidence and national reconciliation in a sustainable manner. It is also incumbent on Commodore Bainimarama to deal with the issue of the Fiji military – its size, its role in future and how to prevent more coups.

However, it is now extremely disappointing to see the twists and turns with respect to the planned adoption of the new Constitution and the proposed elections. Any Constitution and Election imposed against the will of the people will not be sustainable. The Bainimarama government can leave a legacy if it adopts a principled approach towards the formulation of the new Constitution and provides an environment for free and fair elections in 2014. It is not too late for the government to form a Constituent Assembly to debate both the Ghai draft and the Government 2013 Draft and arrive at Constitution which could have broad support in the country. However, if we continue with the twists and turns and do not adopt an inclusive and transparent process to implement a new constitution and have free and fair elections, we will not be able to restore confidence in this country in the short to medium term. Our economic woes are likely to continue.

As far as our teachers are concerned they deserve courtesy, respect and dignity. They are a powerful force for nation building. They must be rewarded accordingly and their salary structure should be reviewed so that their economic status is further improved. Teachers, however, must also play their part. More than ever, we need teachers who can be passionate about teaching, providing community leadership, and encouraging creativity and innovation amongst our children.

While the Ministry of Education has undertaken some commendable reforms and policy intervention, senior officials working with teachers and school administrators must ensure that they are efficient, that they are compassionate, that they understand the concerns of teachers and deal with their problems in an amicable and collegial manner. Additionally, they must ensure that the reforms are adequately resourced.

Our children are our future and we all have a responsibility to support them so that they grow up to become good citizens. I will leave you with the thoughts of Nelson Mandela (as quoted in Reginald McKnight's Wisdom of the African World, New World Library, 1996.

"Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mine worker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farm workers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another"

I thank you for the invitation once again and wish you all the best in your deliberations in the next few days. It is a pleasure to declare your convention open.

1 Keynote Address delivered at the Annual Fiji Teachers Union Convention on 30 April, 2013, at the Khastriya Hall, Suva,

2 See Gurucharan Dass (2002) “The Elephant Paradigm” Penguin Books.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 03 May 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Safety at Sea

I was stationed in Levuka in the 80s as a Customs officer. The then Customs Department also looked after the work of the Marine Department. One of the important aspects of the Marine Departments work was to see that no vessels that depart the wharf were overloaded.

We had 28 footer fisheries fishing boats departing everyday and it was always an issue to go to an overloaded boat and tell the captain that his boat was overloaded. I was always told
politely that they had been doing that for many years and I shouldn’t worry too much.

These 28 footers had a loading limit as follows – when they were going outside the reef the limit was two people and inside the reef the limit was four.. During my days in Levuka I saw a boat come in from the outer islands with 29 people. Yes, 29 and I am not joking. The vessel I am referring to is similar to the one that drifted and ended up in the Solomon Islands.

Overloading usually happens during the beginning of the school holidays and the start of school.

Most of these boats didn’t have life jackets and the ones that did had only two and in many instances they were old and in need of replacement.

One time when a 28-footer was about to leave the Levuka wharf with 18 people and a chest of drawers and I intervened. Even though I told the captain not to leave I was told not to worry. The boat left and about one hour later I heard people saying that a boat was drifting past the Natubari light house (The entrance to the Levuka harbor). Luckily the fishing vessel Independence captained by the late Mr. Gordon Elliot was in port and he went out and towed the boat in. I confronted the captain and he just looked sheepishly at me and shrugged. I have many other similar stories to tell but will end here.

We need to seriously tell our people that safety is paramount. A life lost, costs more than a $300 life jacket.

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.

Note from Croz. Allen, Perhaps we also need to know why a life jacket costs so much. Cost must be a major reason why skippers don't carry them. If they are overseas-made, I'm sure they could be made locally using local skills and materials. What's your opinion on the use of rafts, bouys, and inflated tyres, and the use of polystyrene and a sealed compartment in the boat itself?

# THE “BATTLE OF IDEAS” BEGINS

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 03 May 2013 07:43:00 +0000

# THE “BATTLE OF IDEAS” BEGINS

News and Comments Friday 3 May 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 03 May 2013 00:58:00 +0000

Note the large section on land issues in this posting, and check out the Weekend Readings over the weekend.

TEACHERS NEED SUPPORT, NOT ATTACKS. The PM hit out at teachers last week for wanting a pay increase when rural children lack basic school needs. The accusation may seem sound at first glance, and it's certainly in step with his claim that many of his opponents are greedy and self-seeking. But there is no direct causal link between teacher salaries and poor rural school facilities — unless, of course, the PM was saying that it they halved their salaries he would double rural education expenditure. It's also a bit rich for someone on the PM's salary to question the motives of professional people on much lower salaries.

What Fiji needs is better teachers, and it needs to make up for the longstanding and ongoing exodus of many highly qualified teachers overseas. Static, depressed wages and attacks on teachers certainly will not help. Higher salaries and better working conditions may persuade more highly qualified young people to join the teaching profession and more to stay in Fiji. The quality of an education system is determined far more by the quality of its teachers than the physical infrastructure of schools, important as this may also be.

Flashback. Lack of interest by teachers is an identified reason why 47 schools failed to get a 50% pass rate in the 2011 Fiji School Leaving Certificate examination according to the Ministry of Education.

PM ON INLAND NAITASIRI EDUCATION. Speaking at remote Wainimala in inland Naitasiri, almost in the hilly centre of Viti Levu, the PM said government was continuing with initiatives such as the free bus fare and free textbooks schemes to assist all Fijians in accessing education. “A cornerstone of my government is that education should be accessible to all Fijians. An educated younger generation with knowledge and access to resources is a key to Fiji’s future success and prosperity.”

He told parents and guardians of Wainimala Secondary School and Ratu Alipate Primary School government was commitment to building new classrooms for Classes 1 – 3. “Government is concerned with these children – at such a young age, leaving home and staying away from their parents to go to boarding school,” The work includes the construction of additional teachers quarters, building of more classroom blocks and renovating and upgrading the laboratories, student hostels and ablution blocks. Wainimala Secondary School has a roll of 165 students and caters for villagers from Udu, Laselevu, Nasalia, Nawaisomo and Lutu.

OLD PARTIES REGISTERED. The Registrar for Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, announced today that the National Federation Party (NFP), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) have been registered under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree, and will now be able to operate, function, represent and hold themselves out to be political parties. He was satisfied that all applications contained over 5,000 valid signatures. The anomalous names would be referred to the relevant authorities for investigation and further action.These parties now have thirty days to submit to the Registrar a written declaration giving details of all assets and expenditure including, all contributions, donations or pledges of contributions or donations, whether in cash or in kind, made or to be made to the initial assets of the political party.Party officials and – in the future – party candidates will also have to disclose personal incomes, assets, business connections, directorships, gifts, and liabilities.

Land

ITAUKEI LAND OWNERSHIP SECURE. Much has been made of the fact that the government draft constitution does not specifically entrench iTaukai ownership of land the 91% of Fiji's land areas that is held in native title. The PM says this is unnecessary because " no one has the power to come and take the land from the i-taukei people." Constitutional lawyer Anthony Regan, however, says there is no guidance to the Parliament on what the land legislation should say and there is no protection
of existing land legislation from getting amended. The PM thinks the issue "has been brought up by former politicians who will try and create racial differences ... land ownership is well protected."

He also noted that the equal distribution of land lease payments has started for all the members of the landowning units compared to the previous system where the chiefs would get the majority of the lease payment, and that the administrative cost of managing leases by the i-taukei Land Trust Board, or the poundage fees has been reduced to 15 percent from 25 percent. and it is expected to be further reduced to 10 percent later this year. Previously, the 25% was deducted from rental moneys paid.

Earlier, the PM said many iTaukei chiefs were misleading their people by saying that their land ownership was insecure. “Some are interpreting that now we’re all ‘Fijians’, this will later be transferred to land ownership. I have said it and I will repeat it today; that the land ownership system will remain as it is and native title of lands will not be converted to any other form of ownership.” He said he was sad that some chiefs had again tried to politicise the land. Past politicians and chiefs had politicised the land for their own gain and this was a major cause of the political upheavals the nation had experienced. “We should learn from these upheavals as chiefs used the people for their own agendas.

He said more land needs to be made available for productive use. More potential needs to be developed for agriculture, industry, commerce, infrastructure development, and social projects. The PM assured iTaukei landowners that it would ensure they get a fair return on their land when they lease it, and that that the distribution of the lease monies was carried out on an equitable basis so that all iTaukei benefit, not just a select few.

He PM also said that many chiefs and politicians are saying that the abolition of the Great Council of Chiefs is the end of the chiefly system. "This was a totally wrong interpretation.The GCC was an unelected body but had a lot of authority in making decisions about the iTaukei people. He said the chiefly system was intact and abolishing the GCC would never ever affect the chiefly system.

LEADERSHIP VACUUM IN LANDOWNING UNIT. If land is so important, why, one must ask, are so many mataqali and yavusa positions vacant? There are 2,279 heads of mataqali (landowning unit) positions that are still vacant, according to latest report from the Native Land Commission. Commission chairman Ratu Vananalagi Vesikula said the government was concerned with the high number of those vacant traditional positions.

And he said there were 569 vacant positions for the head of yavusa that were yet to be filled in villages in the 14 provinces. He said this was a worrying trend because the people were being left alone with no leadership and guidance while continuing with their daily lives in the village.
"Ni sega ni vakatawani na i tutu oqo, era sa na qai liutaki vakacava," Ratu Vananalagi said.
(When these positions are vacant, then who will lead these people?). "Ni sega ni vakatawani na i tutu ni liuliu ni mataqali se yavusa, ena tubu cake na vakau nona, era na vakayaco lomadra tu ga ni sega ni tiko e dua na i liuliu". (When positions of head of mataqali or yavusa are not filled, there will be a rise in cases of people doing whatever they want to do because there is no leader).

He urged respective landowning units to appoint leaders because this would create stability and prosperity for the 14 provinces.

A-G SPOT ON. I hear that a clause protecting iTaukei land will be included in the Government draft constition. This is a wise move because it removes one of the opposition's claim that govenrment wants to take iTaukei land. But, of course, it will not be enough. The "they are stealing your land" hoax has been used successfully to keep grassroots iTaukei in check for many years, and it will not stop with its protection in the constitution. It was constitutionally protected before but that did not stop the Rabuka and Speight coups. The A-G, in signalling the change to the draft, also pointed out that that there is no way iTaukei land could be taken without their permission. The draft Bill of Rights protects the land by protecting each of Fiji's cultures, and this right cannot be removed withour amending the constitution, a daunting task that would require approval by 75% of MPs and a referendum with 75% approval. The main issue in Fiji is not the ownership of iTaukeki land but its under use and the low returns obtained by owners when their land is leased. The A-G is right in saying previous lease arrangements to hotels and resorts have focused only on money —the rents paid— when landowners should also have been negotiating for shares in the companies and membership on company boards.

QARESE TACKLES 'LIAR KHAIYUM'. Former PM Laisenia Qarase has challenged the A-G's claim that the draft constitution provides better protection than the 1997 constitution, and he may well be correct. But it offers no less protection, and that is the substantial point.

"This is simply not true and it is a blatant lie", he says, citing entrenched provisions, support in Parliament and particularly the control of Senate by the Great Council of Chiefs. He said, "If any amendment is passed it would mean that the amendment has the support of the great majority of the people of Fiji." Which is also not quite the truth. It would be impolite to call it a blatant lie but the chiefs in Senate are not the people of Fiji.

NEW GUIDELINES FOR TENANTS AND LANDLORDS will be released soon by the Commerce Commission Chairperson Dr Mahendra Reddy says the decision to write up the guideline was prompted by the increase in complaints received by both tenants and landlords. "There are examples of bonds being not refunded, there are examples of property damage by the tenants, there are examples of receipts not issued for rent paid, there are examples of non existence of any kind of tenancy agreement.

News and Comments Thursday 2 May 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:29:00 +0000

HOW STRONG THE MEDIA RESTRICTIONS? Accusations about restrictions on the Fiji media continue with this from the Citizens Constitution Forum's Programme Manager Rodney Yee talking about CCF's Analysis of the Government Draft Constitution on Close Up. But Yee was interviewed on Close Up for all of Fiji to hear and the opposition, doubts and questions on the Government Draft Constitution seem to be widely published, for example, this by Mereoni Chung of the Fiji Youth for Democracy movement. I've no doubt a degree of self-censorship exists but the situation is far better than it was under PER and not nearly as restrictive as some would have us believe. Australian and NZ readers may also think back to the last time they heard a favourable,. or even a neutral comment, in their media about the Bainimarama government!

SUPPORT FOR FIJI'S "PROGRESS." Meanwhile, USA Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs deputy assistant secretary Edgard Kagan has told Fiji Ambassador Winston Thomson “The US Government stands ready to provide further assistance on jointly identified areas in which they have expertise to offer to assist Fiji return to democracy,” PNG Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, has pledged 50m kina (F$40million) to assist Fiji’s electoral process, and Singapore's ambassador at large, Justice (Rtd) Rubin,says he is impressed with Fiji's progress and PM Bainimarama's vision for the country.

THE BEDDOES v. KHAIYUM PING PONG GAME. Earlier, former UPP head Mick Beddoes, on Radio Australia attempted to discredit the support of the Melanesian counties for Fiji by calling them “unstable” countries that had “embraced dictatorship” through their support for Fiji and promised, “a newly-elected democratic government in Fiji would “review its relations” with the PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, and reconsider Fiji's future participation in the MSG. He presumes, of course, that he will be a member of a future government, and that's still a very long call.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum called Beddoes' remarks irresponsible and unfortunate. “Here we are trying to expand Fiji’s economic interests, create new investment and sustain and create Fijian jobs and develop Fiji’s regional partnerships and this person clearly sets out to sabotage that effort for his selfish political agenda. Insulting our Pacific and Melanesian partners in the manner he did is very unfortunate,"

He also branded as a “lie”, Mr Beddoes’s claims in the interview that Fijians were intimidated and afraid to attend public meetings and that media restrictions meant that the local media was one-sided. “There are no restrictions on anybody attending public meetings, either the current consultations on the Draft Constitution – which have been a huge success – or to meetings conducted by these old politicians. Neither are there restrictions on the media, which is free to cover those meetings and has done so. The fact is that ordinary Fijians and the media are seeing through these old politicians and their blatant self interest, double standards, fear mongering, and inability to focus on the future creating a modern, prosperous and just Fiji. That is why the ordinary Fijians are turning their backs on the politics of old and not turning up to their meetings,” he said.

Sahba Supports Government Draft, and Party Update

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:29:00 +0000

The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji has commended government for proposing a Constitution that should move the country forward.

Sabha trustee Pt Kamlesh Arya in a statement said the Council of Advisors of the Sabha met and gave a thorough attention to the provisions of the Draft and appreciated its contents which to them are inclusive, uniting and accepting.

Pt Arya said they support the idea of Fiji being Secular and of equal citizenry and appreciated the Bill of Rights provisions. They also acknowledge and appreciate the provisions of Freedom of Religion, Right to education and right to privacy and the removal of the race based politics and reducing the size of the Parliament to 45 representatives. The Independence of the Judiciary and provisions of the Right to equality and Freedom from Discrimination and the provision of the Constitutional authority to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption have also been welcomed.

The Sabha also notes the non electable position of the President and strongly submits that this provision be reviewed with a view of making the Office of the President electable by the general populace rather than limiting it to the Parliament. “The President holds the highest office in the country and as such ought to carry the mandate of the people rather than the elected representatives. The level of ownership in the proposed draft for the position of the President of the new Republic of Fiji is seriously compromised,” said Pt Arya.

On the issue of the Commander in Chief of the Military is vested in the Prime Minister rather than the President, Pt Arya said the authority of the Commander in Chief of the Military continues to be vested in the office of the President as has been the case so far. He said the shift seems to be entrenching too much of political and executive authority into the office of the Prime Minister. He added that declaration of interests be mandated by the Constitution and elected representatives should declare their interests and personal assets. The Sabha also supports the Bainimarama government’s stance on same sex marriages. The consultations on the draft Constitution will come to an end tomorrow. Source: Fiji Live

Other political news
The Fiji Teachers Union is meeting today to discuss "The Status of Teachers in an Evolving Democracy:. Secretary Agni Deo Singh said the union has major concerns with the Political Parties Decree which prevents unions from forming political parties.

USP Land Management assistant lecturer Paula Raqeukai told Radio Australia any Fiji constitution must recognize indigenous rights, especially in land matters. He said if the constitution does not recognise indigenous rights then it will fail.

Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has repeatedly said landowner’s rights are well protected and government is not going to take land away. Sayed-Khaiyum said the new State Lands (Amendment) Decree 2013 would safeguard iTaukei land ownership and prevent previous practices that were not transparent and used by previous Governments to profit at the expense of iTaukei landowners. He also said landowner’s permission was a priority for government and their approval is always sort first before using the land.

Ed. note. I cannot understand why Government does not include a constitutional provision protecting iTaukai land. It may be unnecessary, as Sayed-Khaiyum says, but its inclusion would remove doubts that are being used by Government opponents to generate opposition to the draft, and to Government itself.

Similarly, I can understand the positions of both Government and the trade unions on the Political Parties Decree and, indeed, the Essential Industries Decree. Some union leaders have been consistently anti-government but government has made the relationship worse by effectively cutting their links to workers at work places. This legislation is arguably necessary until the political situation cools but it should be seen as a temporary measure to be reviewed when an elected government is formed. Government conveys the impression the legislation will be there for all time.

Meanwhile, the old parties are waiting to hear from the Registrar of Political Parties on whether their applications have been accepted. Bernadette Round Ganilau's small Green party seems a non starter. She says they are "monitoring the big parties for now" but for what purpose is unclear.

Many people in Fiji are crossing their fingers and hoping that the old parties, if re-registered, have learnt something from the past six years and are now genuine about multi-racialism and a fairer Fiji. Others doubt there will be any genuine change, and pin their hopes on the now likely PM's party, in the belief that it will remain true to its vision for a better Fiji, but with some doubts about some decrees and the future role of the military. Others hope that new political parties will be formed so that they do not have to make a choice between the old parties and Bainimarama's party. There is time for this yet but the formation of a new political party that has the resources to be effective and to win votes still seems a long way away. Whatever the final outcome, no one party seems likely to win a majority of seats in the new parliament.

FIJI NEWS Ganilau yet to make party application April 29, 2013 02:11:38 PM A+ A- | print | email | mobile Bookmark and Share 0 inShare Follow @ Twitter Former politician Bernadette Rounds Ganilau is yet to apply to register a party for the 2014 general elections. “We are monitoring the big parties for now and have not decided on making an application to form a party yet," Ganilau told FijiLive. “A lot of them have submitted their applications, however we will not be doing anything soon except to just stand on the sideline and observe,” she said. She also confirmed that she will not be joining any proposed political parties soon. Ganilau’s former party Green Party of Fiji was dissolved after the introduction of the new Political Parties’ Decree earlier this year. Ganilau has previously served as former Minister for Labour, Minister for Tourism, Industrial Relations, Productivity and Environment.

Read more at: http://www.fijilive.com/news/2013/04/ganilau-yet-to-make-party-application/53725.Fijilive
Copyright 2013 © Fijilive.com

Any Constitution in Fiji has to recognise indigenous rights and this especially includes land, says University of the South Pacific’s Land Management Assistant Lecturer Paula Raqeukai. Raqeukai in his submission on the draft Constitution called for the protection of indigenous rights to land, culture and language, while balancing that with meeting the needs of other communities. In an interview with Radio Australia he said if the constitution does not recognise indigenous rights then it will fail. Meanwhile, Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum while responding to queries about I-taukei land issues said the landowner’s rights are well protected with regards to their land and government is not going to take land away. Sayed-Khaiyum said the new State Lands (Amendment) Decree 2013 would safeguard iTaukei land ownership and do away with previous practices which was not transparent and used by previous Governments to profit at the expense of iTaukei landowners. He also said landowner’s permission was a priority for government and their approval is always sort first before using the land.

Read more at: http://www.fijilive.com/news/2013/04/constitution-should-recognise-indigenous-rights-academic/53730.Fijilive
Copyright 2013 © Fijilive.com

It Takes Guts, But More than Guts is Needed

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:57:00 +0000

By Crosbie Walsh

Jagath Karunaratne

I take my hat off to Jagath Karunaratne. named after the Buddhist concept of compassion. He is a courageous man who attacks Government and then accidentally exposes the ineptness of its political opponents — and his own political preferences. .

Accused and convicted last year along with another three others for spraying political graffiti at several locations around Suva calling for violent action against the Bainimarama government, he faced up to the Attorney-General at a public consultation at Rishikul last week and asked very blunt and, at first glance, reasonable questions on immunity, the Ghai draft constitution and the elections.

Asked to elaborate by Coup 4.5, he said he cannot accept the Bainimarama Government because it is illegal. His focus seems to be on what he sees as infringements that limit political participation. He seems unconcerned about the positive things Government has done with which, in other circumstances, he may agree. He wants to believe in free and fair elections but doubts this is likely given the "hindrances placed placed by way of law on political parties." He wants broader participation in the political process, and questions Government's claim that it has nationwide support for its reforms, but then, curiously, he asks which "NGOs, religious groups and others" support Government.

This, of course, is the major obstacle to public participation, and indeed to democracy, in Fiji. Most of the people and organizations that speak out against Government represent the views of the old Fiji, with its racial divisions and personal agendas. Indeed, Jagath concedes as much in his statement to Coup 4.5:

"While they [the political parties] are struggling to bring out the truth [sic!] to the public due to the prevailing conditions in Fiji today and the obstacles placed upon political parties, they are finding it difficult to play their usual role [sic!] as political leaders" (my emphasis).

It is here that we have the first inkling that Jagath's call for action is not all that it may seem to be. He is not calling for new political parties or new leaders with a different vision for Fiji or offering to personally be a part of new approaches, though he does question the tactics of the old politicians.

"What are our (sic!) leaders doing, he asks:

"We currently have the political leaders who are issuing statements every other day screaming for democracy, claiming the current administration is not legitimate while abiding to every single decree thrown at them which is clearly confusing the general public."

He looks to these old leaders for a "vision and plan for the people of Fiji in the event they succeed in overthrowing (sic!) the current administration."

Here he is again. Back to his old graffiti days in 2011, calling for violence. He goes on to say he wants a "principled approach to address all the issues which you yourselves as traditional leaders are raising.." But it is unclear what the principles are.

All he calls for is a change of tactics: Stop playing the Government's game, he says. In calling for a referendum on the draft constitution (and possibly on the future prime minister) you are accepting the illegal government's process. And what happens if the public vote in support of government?

He continues:

"Aren’t we [the leaders] going to become a laughing stock? Most of all a scenario as such goes ahead with a referendum and any possible win by the current administration will make their whole process legitimate and firm as a rock."

Aha! A possible win? So the Government must have some support.

But we should be grateful to him for exposing the total lack of direction by the old leadership other than returning things to how they were, as has been commented upon several times in this blog:

"As political leaders you need to change your game plan, come up with a road map for new Fiji, how are you going to remove the current administration and adapt your road map, how is it going to affect the people in Fiji as a whole, how are you planning to address their issues and most of all who are proposing as the next possible administration whether it is interim or otherwise. This is where you confuse the people and also show them that you do not have a plan A or B or C.

"If you are unable to come up with a road map for Fiji, then we as people of Fiji would accept the known devil than the unknown angel as the only leadership we can see with at least some plans. If you do not have a clear roadmap then how are you going to get the international community on your side as by the looks of things the only thing they care now is elections? They are eagerly waiting to the current administration to be legitimized to join hands openly and go on their usual business."

I need not go on. Jagath presents himself a reasonable man though something of a martyr for the cause. And, as you read though his article in Coup 4.5, it is increasingly clear what this cause is. Free elections, yes, but with the old politicians and chiefs back in power again.. Not free elections and any whiff of a Government victory.

No wonder Coup 4.5 asked him to elaborate on the opinions he expressed to the Attorney-General — and no wonder the A-G dismissed them, prior warned by Jagath's behaviour of his deeper purposes. Forward to the past, by any means.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:00:00 +0000

Best Value Under the Sun?
(Not to Rotuma)

I read somewhere on the web the wonderful slogan for our domestic airline Pacific Sun as 'Best Value Under The Sun'.

Pacific Sun management and bosses are urged to treat their patrons and the islanders of Rotuma with more dignity and be more responsible and be more sympathetic and in the caring manner you run their air services from Fiji to Rotuma.

Yesterday 19th April 2013 at least 12 passengers left their homes as early as 12.30am from Suva and made confirmed holiday plans from as far as Hawaii to visit their exotic, incomparable island paradise.

A traditional island welcome was organised on the island to excitedly welcome the arrival of a new member of a family. A lot of preparations went into welcoming a kainaga who now makes his return to the island after 30 forlon years. Not far behind was a father excitedly looked forward to meeting up with his daughter and niece with friends from Fiji on the island who are there for three months for the first time. And he is going back after 28 years since his school days. A group of five were greatly anticipated by their friends and brothers in Rotuma.

One should have been at Nadi Airport to see the smiling beaming faces braving the cool morning, happily queued up amongst the group with baggage prepared with much love and care for their island kinsfolk.

And then we got the "Best Value Under the Sun". Of the 12 but maybe more passengers (too dejected to count) that turned up and had called Pacific Sun a day earlier and were confirmed as booked to fly were shot by the sacrificial lamb behind the counter when he said they would only take four passengers.

Months of preparation and anticipation, fares paid at least two months in advance of $632 one way. At least Pacific Sun got the Best value on bank interest under the sun.

We urge Pacific Sun please,to do justice to your air service to Rotuma. With the many economic investments going into Rotuma you need to allow a wider neck for your bottle. Investors and peoples time is important and patrons plan their holidays and events months and months well in advance.

Help the island grow its economy and have in place a regular, reliable and trustworthy service.

Should a flight get cancelled for bad weather or over booked cargo, can you consider running a supplementary flight for people as soon as possible, if not on the same day?

The people of Rotuma support Pacific Sun well by putting up with airfares that can take them two return trips to overseas destinations.

One of our nieces travelled to Rotuma three weeks ago and the same incident was experienced at Nadi Airport. She was called three times to go to the airport with three cancellations. We understand this is an ever going problem with Pacific Sun and their flight to Rotuma.

We too want the 'Best Value Under The Sun' for the Rotuma air service.

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.

Fiji Military in Our New Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Crosbie Walsh) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:58:00 +0000

By Subhash Appana

The hottest topic in the country right now, despite the resounding political-economic and diplomatic successes of Commodore Bainimarama in PNG, is the new constitution. On the other hand, the most troubling thought in people’s minds is the role of the Fiji military and the spectre of coups that has dogged the country ever since it was decided in 1987 that a coup was not only needed, but acceptable for the country in order to ensure that “democracy was alive and well” in this our blessed country.

The reason why people think of coups in connection with the Fiji Military Forces is because each of Fiji’s coups has either been directly executed by the FMF or been backed by the same. In May 1987, even though Rabuka was the number three within the then RFMF, he had the backing of both the numbers within the force as well as the Fijian establishment – that helped legitimize and enforce that coup. The same happened in September 1987 after the Deuba Accord – between Ratu Mara, Ratu Penaia and Doctor Bavadra - displeased certain sections of the Fijian establishment.

In 2000, the Speight Coup was executed by a band of opportunists who had among them highly trained military personnel. This however, was only the first layer of the narrative. Ensuing layers showed chiefs, disaffected politicians, irate pastors, ambitious bureaucrats and threatened businessmen. The support structure for that coup however, did not end there - there was a direct military link. The CRW soldiers who ramrodded Speight’s siege of parliament for 56 days were an elite part of the FMF. Later they were joined by other soldiers led by Major Jo Savua.

The 2006 coup was both planned and executed by the FMF after a prolonged face-off with the SDL government extending to the installation of Qarase as interim-PM in July 2000. At that point in time, the FMF ruled within a framework of national emergency and Qarase was given the headship of the government executive by Commodore Bainimarama who had elicited an undertaking from the former banker that no coup-tainted persons would become part of government. This was later defied by an increasingly slick and pro-2000 coup Qarase. That was what led to the 2006 coup.

It can be seen from the brief history of coups outlined above that all of Fiji’s coups had military involvement. Thus it should be abundantly clear that only the FMF can successfully execute coups in Fiji. And by the same token, only the FMF can prevent coups in the country. This clearly spells that the FMF must have a role in the upcoming framework of government being proposed by the Bainimarama government. Just what that role would be, is not clear as we’ll see shortly.

It is with this in mind that a concerned Taveuni villager, Sevanaia Watekini, recently asked the AG if there were any provisions in the draft constitution that would guarantee there wouldn’t be any more coups in Fiji (FT 18/4/13). Mr. Sayed-Khaiyum’s response is interesting as he mentioned that indeed the draft constitution did have mechanisms to address this. Firstly, he referred to Section 130 (3) which states: The Prime Minister must appoint a Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, who shall be responsible for exercising military executive command of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.

In the above proviso, the PM acts as Commander-in-Chief of the FMF. It needs to be noted that in earlier constitutions, the President was the Commander-in-Chief, but this did not prevent coups even though those Presidents were highly respected and loved (one might add). So how can the public be assured that by making the PM Commander-in-Chief, Fiji would re-bottle the coup genie? Sure, with Commodore Bainimarama as PM, we have an assurance. But what happens when he is no more?

The second explanation that the AG gave in Taveuni was that development is being carried to undeveloped rural areas of Fiji. He used the example of Naitasiri, implying that if that province had been assisted and developed adequately, the Naitasiri support for Speight’s coup would not have materialized. Sure, but didn’t the Qaranivalu play a role in galvanizing Naitasiri support? Is the chief no longer a force of influence within the traditional Fijian system? And how much assistance is enough to pre-empt coups?

It is obvious from the above that more thought needs to be given to the issue of the role of the Fiji Military Forces and coups. In fact, this appeared to also have crossed the AG’s mind when like a true lawyer he added, "I don't think any government around the world can guarantee to stop a coup but there have been mechanisms put in place to prevent a coup." It is these “mechanisms” that I wish to talk about next.

The draft constitution says: 130 (2) It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all its residents. This however, becomes meaningless when a coup is executed by the FMF. The conundrum that arises is: can the military be given a constitutional role vis-à-vis government and coups? Two additional questions arise as corollaries: Can coups be prevented in Fiji? And what do we do in the event of a coup?

One possible proposal arises from the concept of “Guarded Democracy”. If the FMF were to be constitutionally established as the “guards” of democracy in Fiji, they would have the legal means to execute a coup to ensure that democracy delivers and is not hijacked as was the case that led to the 2006 coup. In other words, a coup of the type executed by Commodore Bainimarama would no longer be a coup as it would involve the military simply executing its role as the guards of democracy within constitutional provisos.

Fiji would then accept the coups (as has always happened) and we would find a constitutional path back to democratic governance while the military would return to barracks within the confines of the constitution. No international outcry from indignant, inadequately informed neighbours, no legal wrangles, no sanctions, less uncertainty, and most importantly an extremely cautious new government fully committed to the ideals of true democracy. Just think about it!

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 24/4/13