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

News and Comments Tuesday 24 Janaury 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:24:00 +0000

SEE PUBLIC LECTURE NOTE BELOW.
THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN DIVISIONS ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING STRONG WINDS AND FLOODING.

24.1.12
YEAR OF THE DRAGON. The Chinese New Year started yesterday with Community leader Dixon Seeto hoping for good developments in business and government, and "urging other races to appreciate their existence as they also have a strong culture and and want to be included in government developments."

ONCE BITTEN TWICE SHY. FijiTV has now apologized for the way it conducted the Personality of the Year poll and offered to refund text messengers. But FijiLive continues with its polls — generally a sports alternating with a political poll. Its current question is "Should Commodore Voqere Bainimarama contest in the 2014 election?" There is no easy way these polls can be conducted fairly or be taken as representative of public opinion. At best they are indicative; at worst they are rigged. But the result so far is Yes 58%, No 42% favouring Bainimarama. Premila was not a contestant!

TWO MINDS WITH BUT A SINGLE THOUGHT. And while still on polls, I see FijiToday is running a poll on what people want from the President. This came only a day after I'd introduced the same topic on one the vital questions needing answers in the new Constitution. My plan had been to invite comments and then use the comments to construct the poll. What are your ideas on the President selection and powers in the new Constitution? I urge you to comment on my Saturday postings (Saturday) and also to vote in the FT poll.

RATU TEVITA MARA'S ACHIEVEMENTS. Even Coupfourpointfive now has doubts. In a recent post, they asked:

1) What has Mara actually achieved? Nothing. There has been no concrete evidence from him on Bainimarama with him maintaining the same lines the blogs have been running for the last four and a half years. It is a clever cut and paste job.

2) Where is he now and does he plan to return to Fiji? His stay in Australia has turned into one of luxury. There is no sign of his 10 point plan. Mara is enjoying the contributions from democracy groups and forgotten his men in Fiji who are suffering because he just calls to get information and no action is forthcoming.

3) Lack of direction and focus. What was he doing in New Zealand in September watching the Rugby World Cup finals when he was supposed to be leading the fight against Bainimarama?
Thanks to Rishab Nair on Facebook's Fiji Economic Forum for bringing this to my attention.

ELECTRONIC VOTER REGISTRATION. Canada-based firm CODE Incorporated has been appointed to conduct electronic voter registration (EVR) in preparation for Fiji's upcoming Parliamentary elections. CODE was chosen based on its experience, accuracy and transparency in assisting developing nations with logistically challenging terrains. EVR "will ensure all segments of the Fijian population are properly registered to vote [and] for the first time in Fiji's history, the 2014 elections will feature true universal suffrage—one person, one vote, one value—and it is critical we get it right." (Attorney General.)

CODE, that has worked in 65 countries on EVR, was chosen following a three month selection process involving four Fiji and seven overseas companies, EVR will cost approximately FJ$4 million. Fiji's projected voter base is approximately 660,000 voters, aged 18 and up.

The Attorney-General says the lowering of the voting age will ensure the young adult population has a say in the upcoming Parliamentary elections. In choosing to use EVR, Fiji is following recommendations made by the European Union's report on Fiji's 2006 elections, which cited (IRREGULARITIES) with voter registration and voting practices, such as 101% voter turnout in one constituency, and the disenfranchisement of certain voter groups. Govt has sent out invitations to the international community to participate in the EVR process by way of financial assistance; however, so far no countries have opted to participate.

PUBLIC NOTICE.

TWO CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS, Professor Yash Ghai and his wife Jill Cottrell, will be giving a public lecture,'Constitutional Review: the Kenyan Experience' on Thursday 6pm at the FNU Campus, Carpenter Street, Raiwai. The lecture will discuss how the development of a new constitution can help to solve persistent problems within a country.a topic of obvious local importance. They will speak on process and substance, setting out the various ways in which the Kenya constitution tried to solve persistent problems of the country: nation building, democratisation/participation by the State, integrity and competence in public life, and social justice.

A rare opportunity to listen to two widely experienced and committed commentators, hosted by the NGO Pacific Dialogue and the Fiji National University.

CCF to Launch Constitution Guide

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:37:00 +0000

The Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) will be launching a book soon to guide citizens as Fiji prepares to engage into constitution consultation.

CCF chief executive Reverend Akuila Yabaki in a statement said the book will assist in generating constructive discussion, debate and dialogue and find ways to reach consensus on the path towards constitutional democracy

Rev Yabaki said the book provides a practical guidance on how to design transparent, nationally owned processes that are also participatory and inclusive.

He said the book will be available to national and international organisations as well as governments involved in post-conflict constitution making.

“It is not through sheer coincidence that this launch comes at a time when those genuinely seeking a legitimate path towards constitutional democracy in Fiji are eager to seek solutions,” he said.

The book will be launched by former Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi on Wednesday.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Obscurity to Opportunity

Isimeli Taqea has been plucked from obscurity to opportunity. I’m sure if we had been having the provincial sevens tournaments we would have been able to spot more young men like him.

Sport is also an investment because not all of us will become teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers and many more. We have lots of young people who are more proficient in sport and they can make a decent living if they had the opportunity.

Fiji is a name in world sports, even though our ranking has fallen somewhat, but we are still there and many of our young sportsmen and women live a comfortable life overseas. The benefit is also found in money sent home to relatives.

We have three universities to be proud of, how many eventually take their BA in commerce, accounting and end up representing Fiji in sport because they could not find a job because there is a glut of people who have graduated in that fielded.

But congratulations to Isimeli and good luck to the Fiji team.

Vital Issues on Constitution Reform: the President

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:58:00 +0000

The extent of the President's powers have been legally challenged twice since 2006. The big question is should the President be the head of state with limited powers as under the 1997 Constitution; with powers a little broader than the 1997 Constitution, or should he or she be the head of government with real powers similar to President Obama?

The next question is should the President be appointed following discussions between the Prime Minister and Leader of Oppostion; or elected by all members of Parliament; or appointed by a small Council of respected citizens (appointed by the PM or some other means); or should the President be elected by the people?

Either way, should the President be the Commander-in-Chief of the RFMF?

How long should the President be appointed or elected for?

Women and Government

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:55:00 +0000

EXTRACT FROM TALKS AND RULES MATTER by Fay Volatabu, General Secretary for the National Council of Women Fiji (Email: secretary@ncwfiji.org or ncwfgs1@gmail.com) published in
the Fiji Times.

Fiji is at the crossroads of our democracy and if there was such a time to voice women's issues this would be it. How could this be done more effectively?

Maybe there should be a gender perspective in all policies and programmes.
Maybe the electoral reform should include the inclusion of women politicians by ensuring at least 30 percent of all parties to field women in popular seats.
Maybe there should be more women ministers, more women permanent secretaries and more women
diplomats (not as support staff but as ambassadors).
Maybe there should be more funds allocated for women in all ministries or at least 30 percent of all positions in leadership in government reserved for women.

If we are to make the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) a reality we should work to eliminate all prejudice and current practices that hinder the full operation of the principles of the social equality of women.

Fiji has ratified CEDAW and we have reputable leaders who will ensure that all the tenets of CEDAW are realised and truly living up to the ideal that tourism Fiji promotes Fiji Me: FIJI IS ME - and for me that is a Fiji that is women friendly, women focused and is truly a first in ensuring that CEDAW is not just a piece of paper nor a rhetoric but a reality

People have become so self-serving and the social norms and customs are no longer enough to govern our
behaviour and sometimes these are exploited to favour a certain section of community. For example, the traditional seeking of forgiveness for a wrong done to a woman was accepted for a while in
Fiji until the Domestic Violence Decree came into effect where all forms of violence against women and children are no longer tolerated and anyone engaged in these activities are liable for prosecution.

Through this process, governments will therefore be accountable to the CEDAW committee as they will have both the State and Shadow report (from non state actors) from which to assess the true nature of CEDAW awareness and compliance in a country.

It is therefore the responsibility of the media, of leaders, of the education system, of policy makers to raise
issues of violations to CEDAW. Article 4 of CEDAW states there should be an adoption of Temporary Special Measures (TSM) aimed at accelerating de-facto equality between men and women - this shall not be considered discriminatory and shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved. In essence, this means that everything should be done to ensure women have equal access, numbers, and opportunities in all spheres of life until such equality is reached and this action should not be deemed discriminatory.

The CEDAW interactive benchmark states TSM should be geared towards women's participation in all segments of society: political, social, cultural or civil arena. It is an essential mechanism, vital to promote the dignity of women and should be directed towards arriving at equilibrium in terms of access, opportunities and benefits between women and men and should be deemed necessary only up to the point that the desired result has already become a reality.

Cherish Our Elderly

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:50:00 +0000

By Fay Volatabu,General Secretary for the National Council of Women Fiji.

Email: secretary@ncwfiji.org or ncwfgs1@gmail.com.

Fay reflects on the joys of the Fijian family, changes and challenges, and Government setting up the Old Peoples; Council.

THE Christmas festivities are done and the New Year has started with all its promises, wonders, visions and challenges. Someone once said how you start your new year depends on how you left the old one.

When I look back at 2011, I can see that towards the end of the last year, I made new friends, made new commitments, laid plans for new programmes and then drew up an annual planner for activities both professionally and personally.

I spent the latter part of last year helping a friend look for a house for her retired dad and back to the village for two days to celebrate my favourite uncle's 80th birthday. In a nutshell, I felt the latter part of last year was spent reminding me of the responsibilities we as young (though that term used on me is debatable) people have towards our parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents. It was also at the latter part of last year that government made plans for the "older people in our country" through the establishment of a decree and a council to look into the needs of our senior citizens.

When the idea was first made public, my initial response was 'why on earth do we need a decree for older persons?' They are the most well-looked after and loved members of our families and to have a separate decree and a council to look into their welfare is frankly quite ridiculous as they enjoy all the spoils in life.
I was brought up on the values that we live in the circle of life and we are looked after by our parents and adults in our lives. Then we start contributing to the family needs in addition to our own needs and when the time comes, we start taking on the responsibilities and eventually start looking after our parents before they leave us.

The movie Benjamin Button starring Brad Pitt symbolises this when Benjamin grows backward. He is born an old man and when he dies he ages back to an actual baby who has no recollection of life itself. If we follow the circle of life, we would not need to have an older people's council but our own younger family members to look after the older generation.

My friend whose dad has lived in the US for more than two decades wants to come back home to retire. His children who are scattered all over the globe came home and were looking for a house to buy for their father to retire peacefully with his relatives around him. He still believes in a Fiji that values the old and that his children would look after him.

My 80-year-old uncle had four generations of the family and neighbouring kinsmen and women together to celebrate his life. As I sat to enjoy the festivities and meet people I never knew I was closely related to, I thought 'wow, this is what Fijian kinship, family and responsibilities are all about'.
Even though the four generations of family members live in Australia and others scattered all over the globe, we were all there to celebrate the life of a senior citizen who has directly or indirectly affected our lives.
I would be so lucky to have that kind of celebration as today Fijians are more "modern" or "western" but does it mean that we have to forget our kin and family in the process of wanting to be like the Jones? Must we or need we forget our older relatives in the process?

Now in Fiji, where we are defined by our kinship. For me, to have an older people's council means losing all sense of moral obligations and respect. The government, seeing how the older people are not cared for, has legalised the care and welfare of our older citizens. It is a commendable act by the government but as a Fijian, I feel so ashamed that we have to resort to decrees and councils to know our responsibilities.
We have conventions to look after our children and that is fair as we were brought up on sticks and corporal punishment as a way of life. The CRC at least ensures that we provide our children a more loving environment to grow up where the stick is not the answer and children are listened to and given a fair chance to grow in a healthy and loving environment.

We have the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to give our women better opportunities, a better chance and legal rights in the acquisition of property and benefits in their advancement. We need that but to have an older persons decree is a shameful act as it defines the way we have lapsed in our responsibilities. The Fijian culture reveres the older generation regardless of their gender and it is an honour to have people with white hair included in any family gatherings. The Bible which most Fijians read as Christians defines having white hair as crowns so our older kinsfolk are likened to kings and queens and that we must honour our parents and older family members.

Yet today, we note some of the responsibilities of the old people's council:

Co-ordinate care and rehabilitation of older persons, formulate policies to ensure services are provided or older persons in Fiji and seek financial assistance to help in the provision of services for older persons;
Organise seminars, workshops relating to problems and needs of older persons, assist in the training of personnel involved in care, training, education and rehabilitation of older persons, create awareness of the problems and the aspirations of older persons though educational and media awareness;
Work towards the elimination of causes of discrimination of older persons and establish a national older persons fund.

These are some of the proposed functions of the council for older persons and again, all I can feel is shame and embarrassment that most or all these activities which are the responsibilities of the family members are now given to government. The government is there for the improvement of life and for the provision of essential services. I thank them for their effort but is looking after our parents a government responsibility? Yes, they need free bus passes or they need free medical services but some responsibilities should be left to family members. Wouldn't it have been better to have a decree which penalises children or young people who disrespect their parents and the older generation.

All the functions above are the functions of a family. If a parent can provide for their children and in some cases they continue to provide even after they are gone, shouldn't we the children or younger generation give back to our parents by looking after them? I know of an old lady who continues to look after her sons, their wives and children to this day. I know of a young wife who chased her mother-in-law out of her house. She was given a tiny bed in the corner of a double storey house. The government should penalise such monsters and the decree should focus on how to make young people be more responsible for their parents and older family members and the penalties or rewards for their action.

Fiji is a culturally-rooted nation with a beautiful value system. I grew up knowing the value and beauty of family and even now I am greatly grieved at the way the older generation are being disrespected by some youth and young professionals. Fiji is also a deeply religious country and in all the religions, respect for the old is a key component of our faith .

Yet, we need a government decree to care for our older generation? Is this what families mean today? Is this what mothers are teaching their children? Is this what schools are teaching our students? Is this what the churches are teaching our congregations? Is this what society thinks of our older generation?
If this is so, then can I be young forever like the movie In time? We are not in a movie or in a story and we need to re-establish the morals and values of our society so that when we enter the circle of life, each man or woman would know what is expected of them. We would not need an older persons decree to define our roles but our conscience dictating us on what is right, what is proper and what is our purpose in life.
This year, can we all look at the older members of our families and treat them with the love, care and more importantly the respect that they deserve?

Have a New Year that is focused on respecting our older generation Fiji!

News and Opinions Friday 20 January 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:00:00 +0000

20.1.12 WEEKEND READINGS. • Allen Lockington Column • Vital Issues on Constitution Reform • Women and Government • Cherish Our Elderly

DAYLIGHT SAVING ENDS IN FIJI THIS SUNDAY JANUARY 22. Put your clock back one hour before youe go to bed on Saturday.

GETTING OUR KNICKERS IN A TWIST. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns! The kerfuffle over FijiTv's Premila v. Voqere popularity poll is in that league. No intelligent person should have been interested in who won. The nation is on the brink of the most important period is its recent history. What happens over the next few months as we dialogue over constitutional — and later over electoral — reforms is likely to determine the sort of country Fiji will be for many years to come. It is vital we get it right. We do not have the luxury to be distracted by "beauty" contests.

In this Weekend Readings readers will find headings and a few brief notes on an issue central to reform such as the Role of the President, the existence of Senate, the role of the Great Council of Chiefs, and the place of the military. As the week progresses, we shall publish other issues. All Fiji citizens need to think hard and long on these issues. Here is an opportunity to express and test your ideas, and compare them with others. Please make full use of this opportunity.

SELF CENSORSHIP. FijiToday says the Fiji press is still exercising self censorship. Of course it is and of course it should. Without restraint there would be no media responsibility, and Fiji readers know how long that has been missing. Think back to the "balanced" reporting of the Fiji Times on the FLP-led Government. The question is not self censorship as such but how much of what is being censored. A trickle of articles have been published in the past few weeks that would not have been published before the lifting of PER. We should welcome this development and seek, by responsible reporting, to turn it into a flood. Ongoing negative comments from the anti-bloggers won't help. If they genuinely want a better Fiji, they should start to publish in a more balanced way. And don't tell me the overseas media is publishing a balanced account of Fiji news. My own experience over the past four years have demonstrated the total lack of balance in the NZ media. They only want news and opinions that support their view of the world. Even the Australian media is better! I am ashamed.

WHERE IS RATU TEVITA MARA? Lesley Opie posted this on Facebook:
Seems that the anti Fijian Government blog, Coup 4.5, are now not happy with Roko Ului Mara (Ratu Tevita Mara) or RUM for short.Wednesday, January 18, 2012 - Disillusioned loyalists urge Mara to 'wake up and hear the cry of the people':"Coupfourpointfive today asks the question that is on a number of people's minds: Where is Roko Ului Mara and what is he doing to deliver on his early promises of 'telling all' about Frank Bainimarama to help liberate the people of Fiji? In the interest of the people who supported him, this blog today questions the credibility of Roko Ului Mara, the former 3FIR leader who last year fled to Tonga after being charged for sedition with fellow RFMF officer, Pita Driti....["Wow!!!]

FROM THE MOUTH OF BABES. Kelera Tallis on Facebook:
"The fourth coup happened in December 2006 when I was fifteen. The army took power. They were very violent times. The soldiers carted everyone that didn’t suit them off. There was torture in the barracks and quite a few deaths. It was terrible. These events affected us young people strongly."

It's great to have young people interested in politics. Bless you Kelera for being so forthright on your
Facebook comments. At a similar age or a little older I was swept away with the left-wing dogma of post war Europe. I believed what my parents believed. I still hold the same basic values but my interpretation of world events have changed. Not all is as it seems and situations can rarely be painted in blacks and whites. Fiji needs people like you — the youth vote will probably determine 2014 election outcomes — but (and it's a big but) dig deeper into your history, and don't believe all you are told when you were 15..

IF THE LAST THREE ANONYMOUS WRITERS think I'll publish their comments, they should think again and try publishing in Coup4.5 which is generally more lenient to insulting, vicious, repetitive and unsubstantiated comments. This blog welcomes thoughtfully critical and helpful comments.

A Bumpy Road

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:00:00 +0000

Anonymous left a comment on the post New Freedoms Awaken Old Protagonists that will reach more readers as a post. I have woven some of my own thoughts into his argument where I though his point was not quite clear. I hope he doesn't mind. --Croz

One needs to understand that at this point in time, the current move of the Bainimarama-led government to democracy will have to take on some bumpy roads. The Public Order (Amendment) Decree 2012 seeks to ensure public safety and and an environment for helpful public discussion. Without the Act, discussions on the Constitution and Electoral Reforms could easily deteriorate into racial and personal mudslinging, and the biased and misleadng media reporting, that previously marked "discussion."The Act is something that we need to understand in this light, rather than negatively critic, as per Peter Waqavonono and his comments.

His concern for human rights education, civic education, etc. is understandable, but not to support personal agendas and grievences. This would set back to Fiji and not help it to move forward. People with personal agendas hinders the positive development and attitude of ordinary citizens.

To expect Fiji to have a democracy identical to other countries is unrealistic. No two countries share the same history and we make our laws and rules to fit our situation.Others may see our way as undemocratic or unrepresentation, but the question is what does one do with level of coup history that Fiji has, led alone our system of corrupt leadership in the past.

We have to expect some rough patches along the way to get to the light at the end of the tunnel, and if our current government sees that introducing certain decrees will lead us down the road to full recovery, then we need to chip in to help and be positive thinkers. We need to be critical where criticism is due but remember that repeated negative criticism is not helpful at this time in our history.

The YPCN: Democrats or 'Ultra Nationalists in Disguise'?

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Preface
Two comments on the post New Freedoms Awaken Old Protagonists (which reported the views of Peter Waqanovanova of the Young Persons Concerned Network and Information Permanent Secretary Sharon Smith Johns' reply) seem worth wider attention and are published here.

Readers will note that Fiji Fan thinks I am "once again ...trying to soften the words of this unelected government" when my main contribution to the article merely stated, "For media freedom to be maintained — and dialogue increased — criticism and suggestions will need to be reasonable, helpful and devoid of self-interest, and government will need to listen to what is being said." The only comment I made on Sharon's reply agreed with Fiji Today — quite the opposite to what Fiji Fan claimed!

Who are the YPCN?
Early last year, on April 18th (see Search facility in right sidebar) I said, "If readers have more information about the YPCN and the role they have played over the past few years, I would be pleased to hear from them. My information is that it's been totally negative. The main questions seem to be: how representative (ethnicity, class, religions, home backgrounds) and extensive is its membership? What are the credentials of its leaders? What influence do they have? Can anything be done to address their concerns and make them more constructive and more helpful to Fiji outcomes?" No one replied.

As dialogue opens up in Fiji, it is important to know who is talking and who they represent. I would be grateful to the YPCN if it would provide readers with this information. I would also be grateful to learn from readers whether John-Come-Lately's accusations have any validity. I hesitated before using his comments but felt justified in doing so in the absence of any other information on YPCN's credentials. Are they the democrats they claim, or are they a junior wing of the old establishment?

Unfortunately, both comments are typical of the confrontational style too often adopted in Fiji and called discussion. I hope we may soon see more helpful and less emotional discussion and dialogue.

Fiji Fan's Comment
Come on, Croz! Sharon's response: "If you do not want to engage in racial or religious vilification or create public disorder then you should not feel threatened..." is a threat in and of itself! It's entirely up to the REGIME what will be considered as racial or religious vilification or public disorder.

Her response was entirely inappropriate and you, once again, are trying to soften the words of this an unelected government.

Alluding to terrorism is a joke. Fiji has no global prominence so any comparison to laws in the United States is just ridiculous.

I'm all for seeing open and honest dialog but your willingness to try and defend and make light of Sharon Smith John's idiotic and uninformed comments is disappointing. How she is still working in that role is anyone's guess. What an embarrassment to the country.

Johnny-Come-Lately's Comment
Peter W's response was to be expected. He is part of the SDL apparatus -- a Manaso Lasaro, Kaitani, Ted Young, Peceli Rinakama protege - a true, ultra nationalist disguised as a rights campaigner. It is not rights and freedoms, but the return of the racist and corrupt SDL, with Qarase as PM, which is Peter and his mates' mission.

Peter is nothing but an SDL stooge. He is no different from other SDL hypocrites like Mere Samisoni who supported the Speight coup but are now pretending to be democrats. The Qarase government embodied ethnic Fijian hegemony. This is what drives the likes of Peter. With the SDL in power Peter and others like him will get back that sense of control and power over the others.

So-called champions of democracy like Peter want to rule over other races, who were being discriminated by Qarase. Back then not a peep was heard from one Peter Waqavonovono. Peter is a younger version of that racist and hater of Fiji Indians, Mere Samisoni. Like Mere, he holds the same values as the racist SDL. That's why he is so pained by SDL's demise.

These people are still smarting from the loss of the sense of power and privileges they enjoyed over other Fiji people. They want the old guard back.

Democracy and freedom are being used a front, because these people never really cared for these ideals before, let alone fight for it. Other races were treated like dirt by the SDL. The rights and feelings of Indians were trampled by one SDL policy after another. Indians were compared to weeds.

I ask, 'where the hell was Peter back them?'

[Abbreviated. The full comment is published as a Comment to the New Freedoms Awaken Old Protagonist posting.]

Environment and Compensation Concerns at Namost, Not Political

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:50:00 +0000

See also Namosi and Back published two days ago, and updated since. Also read comments.

Secretary of the newly formed Namosi Tikina Landowners Committee, Sipiriano Nariva, said they want to have discussions in relation to their concerns about loss of their waterways and forest. They say at least two clans who are members of the committee have also blocked Namosi Joint Venture workers from entering their land for exploration works. They say they want compensation claims to be sorted out first before works continue.

Public consultations continue

Public consultations as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed copper and gold mine in Namosi and Naitasiri provinces will continue at the end of this month.

The environmental assessment also includes a range of studies of flora and fauna, river systems and aquatic life, assessing potential noise and dust, traffic, social and cultural studies including current community health and cultural heritage.

The data collected will be assessed to determine the impacts and how these can be

mitigated. The Namosi Joint Venture or NJV will then decide whether to build and operate a mine, and Government will then determine if a mine can proceed and under what conditions. – Based on Fiji Village report

Heed Pacific's earlier mining disasters

A reader with first hand knowledge of the effects of mining in other Pacific countries hopes the Assessors will give due weight to their experience that is far from reassuring. Opencast copper and gold mining along the Jaba River in Bojugainville (Solomon Islands), the Fly-Ok Tedi river system (Papua New Guinea) and the Ajkwa River (West Papua) has had disastrous consequences for the people who own and live in the areas mined. In no case did the mining companies respect their environmental responsibilities.

The upper reaches of all three river systems became braided streams where once they were deep-cut rapidly-flowing waterways, and their lower reaches silted up so much that they became elevated above the surrounding land and their estuaries needed to be dredged to permit ship access. Village gardens became silted and unusable and were often affected by cyanide leaching.

In the Fly River, the staple food crop sago could no longer be harvested because the billabongs silted up. Annual compensation paid by the mining company has severely and negatively affected the lifestyles of communities: People now eat purchased rice and imported goods instead of their traditional foods with the now well known affects on their health. Many people have been forced to leave the floodplain and now live in Mosbi's and Daru's squatter settlements.

Only two years ago, when the PNG High Court upheld the people's complaint against the PNG government's plan to use the Ramu River for mine tailings, the Government changed the environment laws to permit mining, which showed a flagrant abuse of power and authoritarian disregard for the welfare of their own people.

Industries need copper but there is not good reason why mining cannot be carried out under environmentally secure arrangements, that ensure the minimum environmental damage and reasonable benefits (not brickbats) to the local communities. These aims should be paramount in

the minds of the Fiji Interim Government's negotiators.

Ed. note: Not to mention earlier phosphate mining in Nauru and Banaba which left most of the raised atolls looking like the surface of the moon on a dark night, of little use to their inhabitgants, but of great benefit to Australian and NZ farmers.

New Freedoms Awaken Old Protagonists

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:00:00 +0000

It's early days, but so far the restoration of media freedom has only produced comments from well known opponents of the Bainimarama government, and what they have had to say was altogether predictable. Yesterday it was Mike Beddoes; today it's Peter Waqavonovono of the Young Peoples Concerned Network. Peter's published comments prompted a reply from Permanent Secretary of Information Sharon Smith Johns, who in turn was attacked by the anti-Govermment blog Fiji Today which said her reply was “not a good start to open discussion. Sharon Smith Johns needs to start a dialogue not attack” what Peter said. They have a point but Peter's entirely negative comments did not exactly invite a friendly rejoinder and, surely, the important thing is that both comments were published.

Peter said: “There are a few irregularities in the POAD2012 [Public Order Amendment Decree] and possible clauses that can be taken out of context and force the current regime into a Human Rights Disaster … in the wrong hands, this Amendment Decree can be used to term any individual or organisation as a terrorist, hinder free thought, censor our media, and prevent the participation of citizens in Fiji on the Constitutional and Electoral reform processes that are planned.” He said that the amendment still limited “access of information, movement and gathering of persons, and curtail further the freedom to speak” adding that “human rights violations committed under the POAD2012 cannot be judicially questioned, compensated or challenged is a sign for caution.”

Sharon replied by saying that the YPCN needed a better understanding of Fiji's recent history and Government's aims. They had “misreads [the POAD] either out of a desire to manipulate public sentiment or simply because of ignorance.” She went on to say that with respect to terrorism and extremism the decree was far “more liberal than other countries” including the United States, and the United Nations has urged all nations “to be proactive in taking steps to “prevent and combat” domestic and international terrorist threats in all their forms.”

“To be clear: If you do not want to engage in racial or religious vilification or create public disorder, then you should not feel threatened by the amendment to the Public Order Act. The amendment is an enabling statute—one that creates a safe place for open discussion and critical thinking across Fijian society for

the formation of a true liberal democratic state.

“This is because throughout Fiji’s history demagoguery and religious, racial and ethnic vilification have been used openly to harass and intimidate, and at times hold Fiji for ransom. Politicians and religious leaders have used race and religion, not just to denigrate others but as a political tool of ascendancy. In

the process, they created public disorder, inhibiting true democracy to flourish.

The Bainimarama Government takes seriously the welfare and opinion of Fijian youth, which underscores all of its activities to strengthen the Fijian economy, create jobs, invest in education and technology, and establish the basis for a new future. “

Peter also said he would have “gone further to suggest remedies to the insecurities of the regime , like investment in peace and human rights awareness and education programs, promotion of civic education, demand anti-violence models and culture within all state run agencies and departments (including the Education system), promotion of Inter-cultural awareness and sharing programs, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation type model.”

Ed. Note: It is significant that in Peter's view the problem lies with the “regime”, not with the inherent insecurities, injustices and competition for power in Fiji society that were among the reasons for the 2006 Coup, and which remain problems that Government continues to address.

Much of what he suggests is already happening through workshops, civic education and basic cross-community language skills are now being progressively introduced in schools, and voter education is promised. As for the Truth and Reconciliation, it sounds great except that Qarase sought to use a similar process to absolve the Speight plotters (but with no compensation for his hostages or those who fled in fear from their homesteads) and I suspect Peter's process is more about punishment than either truth or reconciliation.

Government Closed Down Military Schools

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:36:00 +0000

I must say I'm writing this post tongue in cheek but it does seem the anti-Government bloggers have missed a marvellous opportunity to exercise their ever fertile imaginations. A defenceless Education Department defied the might of the military late last year and ordering it to close its schools. .

Why didn't we see headings like:

Military Forced to Back Down

Educatonalists Stand Up to Military Goons

Critics Defy Military Agenda

Media Dares to Publish on Military Rebuff

Dictator's Mob Surrenders

David Defeats Goliath

Unfortunately it's now too late. The military have applied to the Higher Education Commission to permit the reopening of their higher education institutions that were closed because they did not conform to new standards set by the Commission. They will only reopen after the Commission gives them the green light.

The Times They are A-Changing: Let's Keep it That Way

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:00:00 +0000

Fiji Times's publication of these comments by Mick Beddoes provides further evidence that the lifting of PER has resulted in the lifting of media censorship. But before we get too excited, we should acknowledge that the situation is delicate and can easily be reversed. For media freedom to be maintained —and dialogue increased— criticism and suggestions will need to be reasonable, helpful and devoid of self-interest, and government will need to listen to what is being said. Considerable statesmanship will be required over the next few months as Fiji adjusts to the post-PER situation. Knee-jerk reactions must be avoided. I am unsure whether Mick Beddoes' comments meet the needed criteria but if they do not, Government should shrug them off .

Public Order Act nullifies goodwill, says Beddoes

http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=190912

Ioane Burese

Monday, January 16, 2012

FORMER Opposition Leader Mick Beddoes says it is most unfortunate and a disappointing let-down for the people when the regime decided to re-impose restrictions on their short lived hopes and freedom through amendments' to the Public Order Act, effectively nullifying all the goodwill created by their initial decision to remove the PER.

In a statement, Mr Beddoes said in support of the government's move, he was about to write to the leaders of Australia and New Zealand to call on them to lift some restrictions and demonstrate a similar positive response to the government's welcomed move.

However, he said as grateful as he was with the decision to lift the PER, he was not that confident that the desirable level of sincerity was there, so he held off on the letters to see what would happen.

Mr Beddoes said his reading of the government's decision to re-impose restrictions on the people through amendments to the Public Order Act "is more about a lack of confidence of its ability to govern the people in an open and totally free society".

To Namosi and Back

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

UPDATED. READ ON.
Like so many things in Fiji, and elsewhere, it is difficult to get to the bottom of many news stories. My thanks to Tevita Korodrau on Facebook's Fiji Economic Forum for these two stories on the Namosi mining saga. Unfortunately, he provided no links to the stories so I do not know if they were published, and I can provide no links.

The first story is by Noelene Nabulivou, who works for WAC, Women's Action for Change, a respected NGO dealing with a wide range of community issues. The second is by Rachna Lal, a top ranking journalism student at USP, who now works for the Fiji Sun, that some see as a pro-government newspaper. This post concludes with a comment from Epeli Hau'ofa that traces the origins of this project back to Tui Namosi, and a note from Rishab Nair, also on Facebook's Fiji Economic Forum that looks at the price of copper and gold.

Villagers Say 'No Mining.'
Noelene's story concerns a meeting in Waivaka village, Namosi, between villagers and a deputation led by the head of Mineral Resources Department, Malakai Finau. The visitors were met by the community protest banners flying proud and high in their village – ‘NO MINING’, ‘SAVE OUR PARADISE’. The villagers' concern was that the developers had breached their agreement with villagers (we were not told how) and the delegation's concern was that the villagers had blocked road access, pending outstanding grievances against the mining consortium, that have not been resolved for over 12 months. The villagers appear to have taken control of the meeting agenda and the police pointed to the illegality of their action by saying "Lift the ban or be taken to jail." An unwise and senseless bluff that did nothing to reduce tensions.

"The final comment came from the Turaga-ni-Mataqali or the clan headman, an old Methodist catechist:" I am the landowner, are you threatening me? If you want to remove the ban, then you remove it. But hear me today – we are not going to remove the ban and allow access, not today not ever. You want to take us to jail, go ahead and take all of us. You say that what we are doing is illegal – what about what NJV (joint company) is doing to us – their lies, their illegal activities that has breached our agreement; is that legal? Why are you not arresting them, why do you come here to us?’".

The villagers then forsook Fijian protocol and left the meeting paying no further attention to the visitors, who they considered had not answered their questions or addressed their concerns.

What is not clear, though, is whether the villlagers' concerns are limited to the alleged breach of agreement or whether they are saying no to mining under any conditions.

Environmental Impact Assessment
The second story by Rachna Lal provies information on work so far which indicates the development of a mine is not a foregone conclusion, and that NGO and villagers' environment concerns may be premature:

Public consultations on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the billion dollar proposed Waisoi copper and gold mine in Namosi and Naitasiri Provinces will continue at the end of this month. The Waisoi project is currently in the exploration phase.

The project is handled by the Namosi Joint Venture (NJV), a group of three companies assessing potentially mine mineral resources in Namosi and Naitasiri provinces. The venture includes Newcrest (Fiji) Ltd (70%), Mitsubishi Materials Corporation (28%) and Nittetsu Mining Co. Ltd (2%). Newcrest is the operator and manager of the Namosi joint venture.

The purpose of the next round of consultation sessions is to provide information about the proposed mine and seek feedbacks from villagers and other stakeholders.

Information would include what the potential mine may look like, the proposed location of the main components including open pits, tailings dam, power plant and roads, as well as the environmental management plans.

The environment impact assessment will help determine whether a mine can be developed safely and economically and in an environmentally sustainable manner.

It is a requirement of the Fijian Government and is being conducted by Golder Associates, an independent and internationally experienced firm, in conjunction with the Institute of Applied Science at the University of the South Pacific.

The environment impact assessment process includes extensive consultation with nearby villagers and other impacted or interested stakeholders. It also includes a range of studies including environmental studies of flora and fauna, river systems and aquatic life, assessing potential noise and dust, traffic, social and cultural studies including current community health and cultural heritage.

The data collected during the environment impact assessment will be assessed to determine the impacts and how these can be mitigated. The Government will then determine if a mine can proceed and under what conditions. The joint venture will then decide whether to build and operate a mine.

Consultation session locations and dates will be advertised in local papers and radio stations.

Ed. note: Anti-Government blogs have made much of this issue. The protests are not political and they are not against government as such. They revolve around alleged breach of agreement with the mining consortium, government's perceived alliance with the consortium, and with environmental concerns that I share. As earlier reported the PM has now taken charge of the negotiations.

Epeli Hau'ofa posted this is Facebook's Fiji Economic Forum:

Maybe if Dalo Fried Fish & Moli [another commentator] used more energy to call on countries such as AUS and NZ to relax on sanctions and travel bans etc. Fiji may not feel such an economic need to allow mining at Namosi just yet. As far as mining companies' attitudes towards the environment goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs.

Now, let's get one thing straight here. DFFM accuses the regime and foreigners of pushing for this mining project... WRONG!!!!Tui Namosi initiated this from day one.

Indigenous rights are in danger here.... WRONG!!!!
No different from when the chefs decided too sell all of Fiji's Sandalwood in the 1800's this project was initiated through the use of indigenous custom and cultural protocols. The Tui Namosi has simply got to rethink whether mining is in the interests of his people.

Simply put.. The very mining project DFFM is against is a result of the very autocratic culture they want too preserve, yet somehow they also want democracy.... Now that is simply DEMOCRAZY!!!!

Dalo Fried Fish & Moli, stop blaming the government and foreigners. It's only through the very cultural mechanisms you want to preserve that this mining project got started. Seriously! Some of you people overseas simply have no clue. [Slightly amended. Ed.]

Rishab Nair posted in Fiji Economic Forum.

Rishab Nair

10:02pm Jan 16

A Namosi copper mine has been talked about for more than 30 years. Why this sudden burst of activity now?

The price of copper having hovered around US50c between 1997 and 2003, shot up to US$3.50 in 2006, fell to about $1.50 around 2008 and has been rising since then.

It is now above $4 per kg – or eight times higher than 15 years ago. Even if it falls to half this level in the long term, this has the potential to be a very profitable mine.
Gold

There are also reasonable quantities of gold associated with the mineral deposits in Namosi, and gold prices have also had a miraculous rise. From being below US$500 an ounce up till 2003, it has steadily shot up to more than US$1500 per ounce.

There is every indication that the rise in gold prices will not be reversed. There is increasing political uncertainty in the world, the US dollar has declined as a reserve currency for the rest of the world, stock markets are increasingly fragile after the global financial crisis, and there are other fascinating reasons such as the century old love of China and India for gold, boosted by their recent meteoric rise in global international power.

Not only has the Vatukoula Gold Mine became a bonanza, but the gold portion may be the icing on the cake for the Namosi Joint Venture copper mine.

In short, the dramatic rise in copper and gold prices has made the mineral resources in Namosi well worth investing in.

POSTSCRIPT FROM ANONYMOUS 17.1.12

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "To Namosi and Back":

From sources in Namosi villages,

There is one proposal that involves relocating a couple of villages to land near Navua.

I've been told that some villagers have accepted that offer and some have not.

It is still sketchy on what the names of the villages are and the proportion of those accepting relocation and those who not, but one thing is for sure there is some resentment against the Tui Namosi, who has been actively lobbying for the relocation.

What also remains to be covered in-depth, is the compensation package for the relocation and what role and cut did Tui Namosi receive.

Equally concerning about the re-location, was the issue of their traditional plantations, fishing rights in rivers/creeks etc.
Is this similar to Monasavu dealings, when the project was brokered by some high ranking chiefs at the expense of the real landowners.

Censorship Gone or Easing

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 23:00:00 +0000

The following items have been reported in the Fiji media over the past few day. Check out the links to read the full stories. Most were unlikely to be reported under the Public Emergency Regulations.

QARASE SPEAKS UP. Fiji’s ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase welcomes any positive decision made by the Bainimarama government (to lift the emergency regulations) but says things are still restrictive. Speaking to FijiLive Qarase said everything is still restrictive even after the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations (PER).

FIJI LIVE POLL. Do you think the Methodist Church should be given a permit to hold their annual conference? Yes 49%, No 51%.

THE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL FORUM has called for a review of the Public Order Act to encourage public participation without recrimination.

METHODISTS ON PERMIT REFUSAL. Fiji Life reports: "For the first time in the history of the Methodist Church of Fiji a new president will be elected without the annual general meeting. This after the church was forced to breach its own constitution in order to appoint a new president following denials of a permit by government to hold the annual conference."

METHODISTS KEEN TO PARTICIPATE. The Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma is keen to be part of the national consultations for Fiji’s new Constitution. [This is good news. They refused to participate in the People's Charter discussions and told their members to vote against the Charter.

COMMISSIONER of Police Brigadier General Ioane Naivalurua has told his officers in the north to stand up to criticism and negative comments in the media or similar statements made by those living abroad. [Previously, the existence of criticism was rarely acknowledged.]

BUSINESS FORUM DISCUSSES BUDGET. The Fiji Sun reports:"A large number of business affiliates are expected to gather for the 2012 Nadi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Business Forum, scheduled for the 28th of this month. The theme of the forum is Budget 2012 and the Private Sector." Discussion of Government's performance is unavoidable with such a topic.

FIJI'S MOST POPULAR PERSON. I have not been following this story closely but from what I recall FijiTV and Vodafone launched a most popular person poll that closed one day early. At that time Premila Kumar of the Consumer Council was first, the PM was second, several people had voted more than once, and thousands of text messages were still to be counted. There have been accusations of multiple army votes. I would class the poll a fun thing and not worry too much if I were the PM. The Australian PM would be in ecstasy if she were ranked seventh, even in a scientific poll! But the matter is to be investigated by the Commerce Commission to see whether the poll was conducted in "a fair and transparent way." If not, FijiTV may be taken to court.

Namosi Mine Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:05:00 +0000

The PM has responded to villagers concerns about the proposed Namosi mine project with the following press release. I do not know whether or not political agitators took advantage of local concerns as the PM infers, but I do know that when the mining of copper in Namosi was first mooted in the 1970s, very serious environmental concerns were raised by environmental experts. As the project was then planned, discharges into the Namosi river would have had serious environmental consequences, not just for inland Namosi, but for the whole of the coral reef ecosytem at the mouth of the river. The PM needs independent professional advice on this. He is not a geologist.

PRIME MINISTER TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR NAMOSI MINE PROJECT

Prime Minister Bainimarama announced today that he will be taking over responsibility for overseeing talks and negotiations related to the Namosi Joint Venture mining project in Waisoi area. As a result of some people seeking to politicize the project for their own benefit by spreading misinformation, the Prime Minister wants to personally ensure all relevant parties’ voices continue to be heard—in particular those of the landowners. An Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is still being conducted, as are economic impact analyses.

Government is committed to maintaining a pristine environment in Namosi and throughout Fiji. It is imperative to be forward looking to ensure a clean environment for future generations while trying to gain maximum benefit for landowners—as has been done successfully throughout the world.

WEEKEND READING

Allen Lockington Column
Interview with Ambassador Winston Thompson
Khaiyum Answers Australian Unions, but some questions still need clarification
Readers are also urged to read the comments on recent postings

Here's a sample of a sad, unsavoury comment. How low can you go?

Declare her hand has left a new comment on your post "A Rebuff to the Critics":
Croz
If you are speaking for shameem, and she refuses to answer the question then she has implicated herself. And if she doesn't like the heat she can get out of the farking kitchen - as it is going to get much hotter.
Oh, and your side have the guns, and nobody gives a rat's arse, so you and your thugs are the cowards - and will squeal like mongoose when the tide is turned. cowards and hypocrites! like Gaddafi.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

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.

No More Sick Sheet Scams Please

How many sick sheets will have been issued on the second day of 2012? No problem, life is good and people are entitled to the sick sheet, just don’t over do it like some did last year.

I trust the sick sheet scandal will be a thing of the past with people getting sick sheets for sickness and not a day off. Remember the consequences are just too high for the “patient” and for the doctor, just too high.

I remember a very long time ago a friend and his friend going to the doctors in Valelevu to get a sick sheet. They decided to change names. Our friend told the doctor he had a severe head ache and got some APC tablets and two days sick sheet. The friend of mine said he has body aches and his joints were sore. “What did you eat last night,” the doctor asked.

“Fish” was the reply.

“Nurse, prepare a shot.”

My Friend got a penicillin injection for his pains, which left his left leg limp and his bum very sore. They went into the clinic walking and came out with one carrying the other.

My friend never ever got a sick sheet again for about 17 years, until he got really sick.

Interview with Ambassador Winston Thompson (thanks to Coup 4.5)

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:55:00 +0000

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Fiji's ambassador to US Winston Thomson defends regime yet again

Source: Al Jazeera

Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, famously condemned Fiji's first military coup, saying: "Today's events are particularly deplorable as the first military coup against an elected government in the South Pacific."

In the wake of the 1987 coup d'etats, democracy has remained elusive for a post-colonial society deeply divided along racial lines. With further military coups in 2000 and 2006, Suva, Fiji's capital, has become the coup capital of the South Pacific.

The question is whether Fiji can chart a new course and re-establish a stable and enduring democracy. The choice rests with Commodore Frank Bainimarama, the leader of the 2006 coup and current head of government. Without his acquiescence, democracy will not return to Fiji. But, even with it, there are no guarantees. This is the puzzle Fiji faces.

Al Jazeera's foreign correspondent Eddie Walsh spoke with Fiji's Ambassador to the United States, Winston Thompson, to hear his views on what progress has been made towards the restoration of democracy and the country's outlook for 2012.

Eddie Walsh: On Saturday, your country officially lifted the state of martial law that has been in place since 2009. While the move does not restore democracy, it has been hailed as a step in that direction by Commodore Bainimarama. How has the United States responded to the move?

Winston Thompson: I think the US sees the end of the emergency powers as a positive move. While the US has tended to allow Australia to determine the Fiji-US relationship, the US has been increasing its engagement with not only Fiji, but also with the South Pacific. Because Fiji is so pivotal to the South Pacific, there is now a new opportunity for the US to be more forthcoming in terms of facilitating the process back toward[s] a democratic government. Because of the holiday period, we have not had contact with the US State Department yet on these issues. But, I foresee things developing along these lines.

EW: Now that the public emergency regulations have been lifted, do you expect a significant shift in Western foreign policy toward Fiji?

WT: It is too early to see a major change since the announcement was just made. But I would imagine that there would be - because the things that have been changed by the government are the things that have been most objected to by these governments. So, it would be a bit unusual for them to have made this stand all along and do nothing when these changes are brought in.

As you know, there are three pillars to US policy towards Fiji: 1) Implementing Section 7008 sanctions, 2) Protecting and promoting US interests, including maintaining full diplomatic relations in Suva and DC, 3) Doing no harm to the people of Fiji. The US has maintained this position all along.

The US was not very happy about the coup taking place, but they also wanted to make sure that the people of Fiji were not impacted. Although Australia and New Zealand imply that they have a similar "Do No Harm" policy, the impact of their sanctions has had very significant impacts against ordinary Fijians. In the case of the US, they have not imposed their sanctions in the same way.

The US also has welcomed the moves that have been made, including setting up the consultative process for the new constitution. Australia and New Zealand may have welcomed these moves as well, but there appears to be a certain degree of hesitancy and caution in what they say.

EW: Does this move provide a strategic opportunity to fully normalise Fiji-US relations, or do you need to wait for more concrete steps toward democracy?

WT: This is the moment. These moves by the government, in a way, are to conform to what other governments have asked us to do. So, it is an opening that we will certainly take-up. We will operate through the US State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs on this.

EW: The lifting of martial law has been met with great scepticism in some circles, especially in Australia and New Zealand. Critics argue that the speech announcing the move itself indicates the current government is not committed to democratic values. One particular line has has caused a lot of angst: "Public order, protecting the vulnerable, and safeguarding the economy will always be paramount." What was meant by this comment?

WT: For a country like Fiji, democracy is a very fragile thing. It can be tipped over by over exciting certain groups within society and causing turmoil. This has been the concern of the government in maintaining the public emergency regulations. If you allow too much freedom of expression, people are uncontrolled in what they say and you can get very heated emotions being generated, which is not in anybody's interest.

EW: Unfortunately, this can be the same argument given for preserving dictatorships as well. How then do you address sceptics who say that Commodore Bainimarama's lifting of martial law is disingenuous?

WT: We can only wait and see. The public emergency regulations have been lifted. What that line says, if there is an explosion in violence, maybe we will have to look at it again. What the government is asking is for people to be responsible and not get over excited. We have had situations in the past where people have used the race card to demonise others, which has led to political instability. What the prime minister therefore is saying is that this is an issue that we will need to continue to watch.

EW: While the lifting of the public emergency regulations is important, do you think more needs to be done by the government to demonstrate your commitment to democratic values?

WT: On the strategic framework for change announced by the prime minister in 2009, we laid out a timeline for the process of getting to elections in September 2014. That framework said, in the first two years, we would focus on economic and social development. Then, there would be a process to developing and promulgating a constitution. And, finally there would be elections. We have kept to that timeline.

As far as Fiji is concerned, the prime minister has made it very clear that the public emergency relations would be lifted. Next, he will be announcing the setting up of the consultative process for the constitution. By the end of this year, the constitutional review will be fully underway. It will be developed in 2013, explained and promulgated to the people, and then available in 2014 in order to hold the elections.

EW: The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper recently ran a piece with Lieutenant-Colonel Tevita Mara. He argued that the end of emergency rule would make little difference for Fijian hopes for democracy. He also cautioned that Commodore Bainimarama was attempting to clear the domestic political field behind the scenes so that he can run unopposed in the future. What is your reaction to these comments?

WT: Lt Col Mara has been making these comments since he left Fiji. Having been part of the Fijian military at a very high-level, it is a bit incongruous - as if he was not an uninvolved and innocent bystander. When he first started making these statements, he said the lifting of the emergency regulations, the registration of voters using electronic means, and intention to set up a review committee for the constitution would not happen at all. Now that they are happening, he is questioning whether it is genuine. In terms of eliminating the competition for Commodore Bainimarama to have the field all to himself, I think that is a scare tactic that is not realistic.

EW: It would appear counter-intuitive that the government would take one step forward with the lifting of martial law and immediately take one step back with the prosecution of political opposition leaders. Why then is the government suddenly moving forward with charges against Mere Samisoni and other political leaders?

WT: I think it is probably just a coincidence that they are happening at the same time. She is a fairly spirited sort of woman who tends to make overheated, rash statements. These have been overheard and she now will have her day in court. If she was making statements and plotting as are stated in the charges, then she is going to face the legal situation that she has created.

EW: In 2010, your government made a pledge to improve the human rights situation. Almost 18 months later, Human Rights Watch and others continue to publicly admonish Fiji over its human rights record. When you speak of keeping your promises to the international community, do you feel the government has followed through on its human rights pledge?

WT: The lifting of the public emergency regulations has dealt with lot of criticisms related to the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and human rights generally. So, people will be free to make comments, associate and return to a normal life. Now that the decision has been made to the lifting of the emergency regulations, there is a new platform for reviewing the situation in Fiji.

EW: The International Trade Union Confederation has argued that Fiji is prosecuting 'an all-out assault on trade unions in Fiji'. In 2011, there also were increasing calls for Fiji to restore freedom of the press. Now that the public emergency regulations have been lifted, do you expect the government's approach toward trade unions and media to change in 2012?

WT: The fact that the public emergency regulations there prevented their meetings and association, so perhaps the criticism was justified. Now, the unions will be free to meet and do whatever they were doing before.

The Media Industry Development Degree 2010 continues. There has always been a self-regulated organisation where complaints against media were directed. But, the government felt the issue wasn't being taken seriously enough by that body. The government indicated that, unless that body took its job seriously, they would have to pass legislation. So, that legislation came in when it was felt that claims against the media for exaggeration and incorrect reports were not being taken seriously.

With respect to ownership of the media, many countries have laws which restrict offshore ownership. I don't know that ours is particularly different from standard international practice. Because the Fiji Times was wholly owned by News Corporation, they couldn't satisfy local ownership requirements.

The Fiji Times also was, for a long period, very critical of the government who felt it was not very helpful in getting Fiji moved in a positive direction to get back to elections in the proper state. If you continue to criticise and print things that are not correct, you keep the collective mentality in an unsettled state. In the end, the frustration with the ownership and editorial direction of the newspaper meant you had to do something.

EW: The process of demilitarisation is not currently addressed in the strategic framework. Is there a timetable for the troops to return to their barracks?

WT: When the process gets to the stage of preparing for elections, the need to have the military visible will change. At the moment, many military officers man positions in the civilian government. I would imagine they would return to their military positions then.

EW: Your comments would suggest that there is no timetable to address issues which fall outside of the strategic framework. Given that uncertainty over these issues is fuelling doubts over your government's commitment to democracy, do you feel it is now time to broaden or deepen the strategic framework?

WT: The challenge is there. There will be disbelief; there will be scepticism. In the fulfillment of these objectives and as more are announced, including the constitutional review committee, things will fall into place. As people see these things moving along, it will incrementally improve relations. The framework was a broad statement with a very long timelines. As time goes on, there will be a need to be more specific and fitting things into the timeline. In terms of giving greater credibility to the process, maybe we need to be more specific on some of those other points.

EW: We have talked a lot about whether Fiji needs to do more to demonstrate its commitment. But, as a diplomat, you probably have strong views on how the international community could improve its side of the engagement as well. What actions can the international community take to encourage Fiji to move forward on the reforms that they are demanding?

WT: The government has put out a timetable which it has adhered to, but there remains a certain attitude in the international community. Some in the international community have criticised what the government has done in its pathway back to democracy. As a consequence, Fiji has looked to other sources for friends and assistance and developed new partnerships and relationships.

So, I think what has happened over the last five years is that there is a new pattern of relationships which has developed. We have moved away from the traditional ones, which relied on Australia and New Zealand very heavily, as well as the United States and other Western countries to some extent. We have become more associated with other countries. China has always been there. Japan has been much more assisting. New relationships have developed with Indonesia, India, and other non-aligned movement countries, like the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

In some cases, these countries have endorsed what Fiji has done. In others, they have said, what you do is up to you. They have said that we will continue to provide what assistance where we have in the past and you will sort yourself out in good time. Whereas the others have said that you have to do this, that, or the other - regardless of whether Fiji thinks that is the right thing to do. This is the issue with our traditional partners.

EW: One of the arguments made in defence of the coup was that it was necessary to prevent the further politicisation of race in Fiji. How then is the current government working to overcome this issue in the run-up to elections?

WT: The government has systematically removed the issue of race out of the whole society and body politic. That has been there since Fiji was a colony. So long as it was there, it compartmentalised the people. You had a communal look in electing officials to whatever office, not just the parliament. This perpetuated this sense of being separate. Now, all people in Fiji are regarded as a Fijian. Before, this was reserved for just one group of people. The removal of those potential sources of friction has provided a better basis to move on. Over time, hopefully this will leave people less to feel different about. The government also has followed through on recruitment to public service and into the government on a meritorious, non-racial basis. It is going to take time. I am sure with time the information collected by our statistics bureau in government will confirm these trends.

EW: Fiji is not the only country that is forced to deal with deep ethnic cleavages within its society. From your perspective, why then do you think that current government is not being recognised for its efforts to bridge the racial divide?

WT: It is hard to understand for those familiar with the Fiji situation. Tensions can boil over very easily when people are not responsible. Our past history shows that irresponsible actions have tipped the situation over. It's a reality that we have to live with. My view is that others tend to look at this very narrowly in their definition of democracy and freedom. Generally, these attributes have evolved in these countries over many years. They have become entrenched and stabilised and society adheres to them. In the developing countries, these values are not as well entrenched. You have to be more careful or they will unravel.

EW: There are many examples in which the military leadership elects to stand-down prior to a return to democracy. There have been calls for similar moves in Fiji. Do you see widespread support within the current government to remove the military from politics prior to the 2014 elections and is there a timetable for this process?

WT: I am not privy to such talks. That said, the previous coup leader, Sitiveni Rabuka, did stand down, became a political figure, stood for elections, and came back in as the prime minister. In this case, I would imagine that Commodore Bainimarama could follow a similar path.

EW: It is clear that some major challenges remain in Fiji's path to democracy. However, progress also appears to have been made in the past year. Looking ahead at 2012, what are the diplomatic 'wins' that you are trying to achieve and what are the most serious risks facing those efforts?

WT: The basic position that Fiji has, and has been following, is the strategic framework for change to build a better Fiji. We want to make Fiji a more balanced country, first in terms of socio-economic development and then, updating the legal framework and laws. This removes the issues which have been divisive for Fiji. Only then can you move forward with the constitution and elections. In terms of performance along that continuum, the government has followed it. It has not conformed to what some other countries have set out though who want elections immediately.

Fiji has been saying all along that our whole issue is that the basis of the constitution is wrong and must be fixed. But, that is falling on deaf ears. Now, we are at the stage that the public emergency regulations are lifted. We are getting ready for the constitutional review phase, with the economic and social development plans having been fully launched.

The only challenge for us is if we do not follow through on the commitments we have laid out in the strategic framework. Assuming that we continue along that line, we would have to be accepted at face value once these things are done.

Now, the relationships that have been on ice need to be reviewed and normalised with countries like the United States. It has been put that when we have announced a date for elections that things will happen. But, that date has already been set for 2014.

We are comfortable with where we are at on our timeline. We remain open to other countries being part of our development processes, and we are very appreciative of those who have stood by us these past five years. But we are clear on where we are going and will not be dictated to by those who've been less than helpful up to now.

More on the Public Order Ammendment Decree, and the A-G's Response to the ACTU

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:50:00 +0000

New Fiji Rules Put Lid on Freedom is the heading used in a teletext item on Friday. The item continued: "The Fiji military regime is tightneing its grip on power despite lifting emergency regulations only days ago. The military dictatorship has given itself huge powers under a public order decree which cannot be legally challenged. Under the new rules, anyone who takes part in what is considered a meeting with no permit — even if it is in a private home — faces up to five years in prison."

Whoever wrote this has either not read the new public order decree or is so disposed to criticize Fiji that they have allowed their prior opinions to colour their opinions, and their opinions to intrude on what purports to be a factual report. Although, I confess, the part of the new decree that appears to deny appeals to the court, is a source of concern.

What the overseas media ignores is that most provisions in the recent decree are not new. Almost all the powers exercisable under the new decree can be traced back to the Public Order Act Cap 20 (Act No. 19 of 1976, and Ordinance 15 of 1969).*

This early Act defined a meeting as an assembly of three or more persons meeting for a common purpose to discuss matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters”. All such meetings required permits. By definition, a “meeting” is not a school or university, a religious gathering or a dinner party, or afternoon tea at a friend’s house.

Under the earlier Public order Act before the amendments, the appropriate authority was the District Officer. He had to issue a permit unless “satisfied for good reason that such a meeting or procession is likely to prejudice the maintenance of peace or good order”. Marriage ceremonies, funerals, sports, social events, private entertainment, religious gatherings, or charitable events carried out with the permission of the local authority where the event was to take place, were exempt from the requirement of applying for a permit. These provisions remain. The only difference is that permit applications are to be made to the police and not the District Officer, and that meetings held in contravention of the Decree carry smaller penalties than formerly.

Other offences created by the 1969 Act were; Disturbance in a public place ( 3 months imprisonment and/or $100 fine); Malicious acts defined as “maliciously fabricating or knowingly spreading abroad or publishing, whether by writing or word of mouth, any false news or false report tending to create or foster public alarm, public anxiety or disaffection or to result in the detriment of the public or..... Acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or to the peace and good order in any part of Fiji..... Or endeavour[ing] to disturb the public peace by inciting hatred or contempt of any class of person...”; and incitement to violence and disobedience of the law. This last offence was committed when a person without lawful excuse (the burden of proof being on him/her on this issue) utters, spreads or publishes any words or does any act or thing which is calculated to bring death or physical injury to any person or to any class, community or body of persons, or to lead to the damage or destruction of any property, or to prevent the execution of any written law by violence or any other unlawful means. The maximum sentence was 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $1000. This offence was probably the closest offence to terrorism that existed in Fiji’s statutes prior to the Public Order Amendment Decree.

Section 17 of the Public Order Act said that any person, who by words, spoken or written and intended to be heard or read, spread any report or made any statement which was likely to incite racial hatred of any race or community, or to promote feelings of enmity or ill-will between different races or communities, or to prejudice the public peace, or makes intimidating or threatening statements in relation to a community which is likely to spread fear, alarm or insecurity amongst members of that community, or spreads a report or makes a statement which incites people to violence, or counsels people to disobey the law or any lawful order given by the police, prison officers, or members of the armed forces, commits an offence.

These provisions have been a part of Fiji law since 1969, and for some provisions, since 1976.

In summary, under the Act, a permit was always required for a meeting unless the meeting was specifically exempt. A gathering in a house to celebrate Christmas was not a “meeting” under the Act. Nor was a gathering at the temple church or mosque. Hate speeches were an offence. ‘Terrorist’ acts were offences, although acts and speeches had to be “calculated” to bring about death, destruction, damage, or to prevent the execution of any law.

In other words, if an organisation has previously acted in breach of a section 8 permit, or has been refused a permit, or which has previously organised a meeting which has prejudiced public safety and order, or has made hate speeches or has tried to damage Fiji’s economy, a permit can be refused.

The main difference between the earlier and later Public Order Acts is in section 21 of the latter that reads: "no court, tribunal, commission or other adjudicating authority may hear a challenge to the validity, legality or propriety of any decision made under the Public Order Act by the Commissioner of Police, Divisional Police Commander or Minister or any public official. Where any such claim is brought, the file will be taken to the Chief Registrar for termination of the proceedings." It is this section where criticism should be focused, not on the meeting and other provisions that are little changed since 1969. It is also important to watch the use of the Media Decree. Media censorship ceased with the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations budt the Media Decree, if wrongly applied, could still be used to limit media freedom.

* Most of the foregoing is based on Former Judge Nazhat Shameem's article published on Tuesday.

The A-G's statement below may help to clarify matters further:

FIJIAN ATTORNEY-GENERAL RESPONDS TO ACTU

Fijian Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum released the following response today to the Australian Council of Trade Unions:

“The latest missive from Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) President Ged Kearney regarding Fiji’s Public Order (Amendment) Decree betrays the organization’s desperation to score self-serving points against Fiji as we move positively into the future—as it is obvious she has not even read the provision or understand what is going on in Fiji. Her letter is rife with even the most basic inaccuracies.

“She writes that the Fijian government has given itself the abilities of “detention without a warrant…for 16 days.” False. In Fiji, a person can be detained for a maximum of 48 hours, or up to 14 days if warranted and only after the Police Commissioner has convinced the Minister responsible. Further, no one is to be detained beyond 14 days without allowance to go before the court, and none of these provisions apply to any crimes outside those outlined in the Public Order Act, such as robbery. (My underlining. Ed.)

“Indeed, Fiji’s laws pale in comparison to other countries, many of which allow both preventative and indefinite detention in certain circumstances without court appearances. And, unlike Australia, Fiji does not allow tracking devices to be installed on individuals in any situation. Even the United States, under the National Defense Authorization Act, allows the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the U.S., without charge.

“Fiji does not come close to going as far as other countries, yet the ACTU views Fiji in isolation, neglecting both context and historical perspective.

“The Bainimarama Government has approached the Public Order (Amendment) Decree with the utmost transparency and accountability, as it will continue to along with all matters on its path to elections in 2014.

“Just this week, the Fijian Police Commissioner proactively invited the leadership of Fijian unions along with other civil society groups to an open discussion about the repeal of the emergency restrictions and to establish an ongoing dialogue. Many members of the Fijian unions spoke publicly about the positive changes occurring.

“Pramod Rae from the Fiji Bank and Finance Sector Employees Union stated in a television interview: ‘We are very grateful to the Commissioner for his initiative,’ a sentiment echoed by Agni Deo Singh of the Fiji Teachers Union. Attar Singh from FICTU added also in a televised interview: ‘[The police] appreciate that we have an eligible role to play and…they will help facilitate our activities.’ Union members were also provided personal contact information of high-positioned officers to ensure an open-door policy.

“Through incendiary and false claims, the ACTU has proven again how out-of-touch it is with reality, and has confirmed that its interests are only self-serving.”

Ends….

Question: The A-G did not mention that Section 21 of the Decree reads that "no court, tribunal, commission or other adjudicating authority may hear a challenge to the validity, legality or propriety of any decision made under the Public Order Act by the Commissioner of Police, Divisional Police Commander or Minister or any public official. Where any such claim is brought, the file will be taken to the Chief Registrar for termination of the proceedings." How does he reconcile this situation with his statement about detentions and appeals to the court that I have underlined above?

Naz informs me: "The court he is referring to is the magistrates court where the accused has to be presented within 14 days (if the Minister has agreed to detention for up to 14 days) in order to file the charge and set a trial date. If there is no charge filed, the accused will be released as soon as the 14 days are up. In other words, if there is no charge, there can be no detention after a maximum of 48 hours or 14 days with Ministerial sanction.

A Rebuff to the Critics

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:17:00 +0000

There's an old saying: sometimes I sit and think; other times I just sit. And so I may well do in the aftermath of publishing Nazhat Shameem's analysis of the Public Order Decree. For what is the point of thinking when some of those you write for stubbornly refuse to use their own thinking facilities.

No. Naz did not write the decree, as some claimed. No. She did not express her opinions on the decree or indicate that she agreed with its provisions. She wrote a completely objective explanation of the decree, and how it compares with earlier legislation, for the benefit of readers of this blog. Why? Because that is what I asked her to do.

The decree was issued last Friday, one day before lifting of the PER. I was reluctant to comment until I had read the decree and obtained a lawyer's interpretation of its provisions. (Such reluctance, I am sorry to say, was not shared by others who rushed in to make their views known, without even having read the decree.) Naz replied to me on Sunday saying I would have to wait until Monday because she had not seen the decree.

She told me: "This article was written to explain the law, not to defend it. I have done what any lawyer in Fiji should be able to do, and could do. Knowing what the law says and how it has changed, empowers people. Ignorance of the law disempowers people."

But this is not what her detractors claim. One threatened violence against her person when his people are returned to power. Others said she approved of the decree. I do not know how they could possibly have arrived at this conclusion from reading the article. No personal opinion is expressed. She writes: "I did not express my opinion of the Decree deliberately. It was supposed to be a factual analysis and my opinion would have diminished its role of purely informing."

She did, however, point out that many provisions, including the need to obtain a permit to hold a meeting, existed before Bainimarama assumed power, and that most provisions in the Crimes Decree are exactly the same as under the old Penal Code. What seems new is the power given to the police to stop meetings even if a permit was obtained from the District Officer, and powers of arrest for suspected terrorism. The sedition offences in the Crimes Decree are exactly as they were under the Penal Code, and offences of treason do no more than set out the common law definition of treason as was defined earlier by the courts.

These matters should be of no great concern if they are interpreted sensibly but this was also the case under the PER. Interpreted strictly, the need for institutions to obtain permits for meetings, for example, would have applied to all meetings but in many cases meetings went ahead without permits, and permits were easily obtained unless known opponents of the regime were involved. The permits were an irritant more than an obstacle.

It is claimed the Public Order Decree is worse than the PER. It is not. Even section 21 that prevents appeals to the court existed under the PER. And on this Naz, who some readers have painted as a Bainimarama toddy and coup apologist, is most critical. She writes: "Section 21 is an indefensible provision intended to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. It is unfortunate, because the courts are the protectors of civil liberties and this section prevents citizens from challenging, e.g., an unlawful detention in court. We should be able to rely on the judiciary to balance liberty issues with public order concerns. In fact, if the judiciary was really controlled by the government as has been alleged, there would be no need for [this] ouster clause."

"Ouster clauses have been used by governments usually during the time of war or public disorder. They were used to oust the jurisdiction of the British courts during World War II in relation to decisions of the Home Secretary to detain foreign nationals, but they are now rare, and arguably in Fiji, unnecessary."

The lifting of the PER has not brought all we hoped for but its application over the next few weeks will give us a better idea of whether things have improved or are just the same. The monitoring of the media has now become the responsibility of the Media Decree which has many sound provisions, including a code of ethics for journalists and publishers. There are signs that the media is now prepared to publish views other than those of government but it is early days and only time will tell.

Meanwhile, overseas commentators such as former NZ Labour Party leader Phil Goff and NZ Law Society Jonathan Temm should desist in their attempts to frighten NZ tourists out of visiting Fiji. Fiji is not less safe than it was under, and before, the PER, and no less safe than most NZ cities. No tourists have ever been attacked or threatened as a result of the Coup. Jonathan should take up the offer to visit Fiji to see for himself. What he has to say may then have more credence.

The way forward is to latch onto improvements, however small they may seem to be, and build around the positives. Six years of constant negativism has done nothing to improve the situation in Fiji, and it never will.

Peter Williams QC on Fiji

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:31:00 +0000

Peter Wiliams QC is a highly respected NZ lawyer who has on several previous occasions defended members of he ousted Qarase government. He was in Fiji recently on Mere Samisoni's behalf.

In this interview with Radio ZB he comments on the recently passed Public Order Amendment Decree. Listen to

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/Auckland/player/ondemand/249275994-Military-given-more-power-in-Fiji

what he has to say.

My only comments concern his description of the decree as draconian and worse than PER. If fact, the provisions he criticises were in PER so the situation may be as bad, but certainly no worse. And as a reader commented on an earlier post, many such provisions exist in other countries (and most were in Fiji's 1969 Public Oder Act). It is not what is in the decree (which caters for worst case terrorist scenarios) but how it is interpreted and applied. And for that, we have to wait and see. He mislead listeners by saying more than three church members cannot meet without a permit. The decree has no effect on church services. It is the meeting of

church administrators that requires a permit. This is no different than under PER and it came about because some Methodist church leaders (extreme nationalists who had supported the Rabuka and Speight coups) were using the church as a political instrument. Bainimarama's point is that the church should not engage in party politics.

His description of poverty and begging in Suva, as if they are a consequence of Bainimarama government actions, is also misleading. It is probable that poverty has worsened in recent years but it was extensive in the 1970s when I researched urban squatting.

His suggestion that Fiji is an unsafe destination for tourists was also a little guileless. Walking around many places at night is dangerous.I wouldn't recommend it in any downtown NZ city.

Amended Act 'big Leap' from PER, Says Union

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:32:00 +0000

Frederica Elbourne in the Fiji Times
Wednesday, January 11, 2012

THE amended Public Order Act, although amended and perceived as more restrictive than it was, is still a big leap from the Public Emergency Regulations in the positive direction, the Fiji Teachers Union said yesterday following a meeting between the police and union heads.

Union representative Agni Deo Singh said he was hopeful freedom of expression and freedom of association would be fully restored in the face of progress.
Chief operations officer ACP Police Henry Brown confirmed the meeting with members of some 20 unions in Suva. He said the gathering was to discuss processes and procedures of conducting union meetings as governed under the Public Order Act.
He said part of the meeting involved discussions on the shift in authority wherein the Police Commissioner and his divisional commanders have full powers to issue permits and stop union meetings.
Those who attended the meeting which Mr Brown led, included representatives of the Fiji Taxi Union, the Fiji Teachers Union, the Fiji Bank Employees Union, the Fiji Bus Operators Union and the Fiji Nursing Union.
The Suva City Council Staff Association representative and Fiji Taxi Union general secretary Rishi Ram hailed the meeting and said it was a relief to now hold meetings without the need for a permit.
Mr Ram said the only time a permit would be warranted was during annual general meetings or meetings in places, particularly other towns, that did not serve as the union's fixed address.
"There can be no political meetings and if I am to go to Labasa or Lautoka or elsewhere to meet with my union members, I will need a permit," he said.
"And I'm glad they've clarified the matter. Now we know so there really isn't any excuse."

An Analysis of the Public Order Act ...and the Lifting of PER

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:58:00 +0000

Former Justice Nazhat Shameem provides an objective analysis of legal provisions that are now in place following the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations. It is a lengthy article. Impatient readers may care to scroll down to the last few pages for a summary before reading the article in full. But do read it in full!

An Analysis of the Public Order Act, the Public Order (Amendment) Decree, the Criminal Procedure Decree, the Crimes Decree and the Media Industry Development Decree in relation to media rights, assembly and meeting rights and offences.

Nazhat Shameem

The Public Order Act Cap 20 (Act No. 19 of 1976, and Ordinance 15 of 1969)

Under this Act, which has been in place since 1969, an assembly is a gathering of three or more persons assembled for a common purpose. A meeting is defined as an “assembly held for the purpose of discussion on matters of public interest or for the purpose of the expression of views on such matters”. By definition, a “meeting” is not a school or religious gathering therefore. Nor is it a dinner party, or an afternoon tea at a friend’s house. A “public place” is defined as “ (a) any highway, public street, public road, public park, or garden, any sea beach, river, public bridge, wharf, jetty, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage whether a thoroughfare or not.... or (b) land or open space......place or building of public resort....to which for the time being the public have access whether on payment or otherwise.”^¹

The Public Order Act also prohibited the wearing of particular uniforms, the drilling of persons for the purpose of enabling them to use physical force (for instance the training of rebel or alternative militia groups)^² and taking an unlawful oath to commit capital offences. This last was the subject of the prosecution of Ratu Jope Seniloli and Others after the 2000 George Speight coup.

Meetings were and are dealt with under section 8 of the Act. Any person who wishes to organise a meeting or procession in a public place shall first apply for a permit from the appropriate authority. Under the Public order Act before the amendments, the appropriate authority was the District Officer. The District Officer had to issue a permit unless “satisfied for good reason that such a meeting or procession is likely to prejudice the maintenance of peace or good order”. Any permit granted had to specify the routes the procession could take, or the purpose for which, the place at which, and the times of the proposed meeting. The permit also had to be issued in the name or names of a person or persons, who had applied for it.^³ Applications for permits had to be made at least 7 days in advance. Marriage ceremonies, funerals, sports, social events, private entertainment, religious gatherings, or charitable events carried out with the permission of the local authority where the event was to take place, were exempt from the requirement of applying for a permit.^⁴

Section 9 of the Act gave the Minister powers to prohibit all meetings and processions whether in public or private places “in the interests of public safety and the maintenance of public order” or to prohibit the holding of meetings and processions in any area generally or subject to conditions.

Section 10 of the Public Order Act allowed the police to stop any meeting or procession if there was the contravention of any written law, and to order the meeting or procession to disperse. Any person taking part in a meeting without a permit, or in contravention of any condition of the permit, or in breach of any order given by a police officer to stop the meeting and to disperse committed an offence under section 11, and section 13, for which the maximum penalty was 6 months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $200 or both. The organisers of an illegal meeting or procession were guilty of an offence under section 13 (2) and the maximum fine was 1 years imprisonment and/or $400 fine.

Other offences created by the 1969 Act were; Disturbance in a public place ( 3 months imprisonment and/or $100 fine); Malicious acts defined as “maliciously fabricating or knowingly spreading abroad or publishing, whether by writing or word of mouth, any false news or false report tending to create or foster public alarm, public anxiety or disaffection or to result in the detriment of the public or..... Acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or to the peace and good order in any part of Fiji..... Or endeavour[ing] to disturb the public peace by inciting hatred or contempt of any class of person...”^⁵; and incitement to violence and disobedience of the law.^⁶ This last offence was committed when a person without lawful excuse (the burden of proof being on him/her on this issue) utters, spreads or publishes any words or does any act or thing which is calculated to bring death or physical injury to any person or to any class, community or body of persons, or to lead to the damage or destruction of any property, or to prevent the execution of any written law by violence or any other unlawful means. The maximum sentence was 2 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $1000. This offence was probably the closest offence to terrorism that existed in Fiji’s statutes prior to the Public Order Amendment Decree.

Section 17 of the Public Order Act^⁷ said that any person, who by words, spoken or written and intended to be heard or read, spread any report or made any statement which was likely to incite racial hatred of any race or community, or to promote feelings of enmity or ill-will between different races or communities, or to prejudice the public peace, or makes intimidating or threatening statements in relation to a community which is likely to spread fear, alarm or insecurity amongst members of that community, or spreads a report or makes a statement which incites people to violence, or counsels people to disobey the law or any lawful order given by the police, prison officers, or members of the armed forces, commits an offence.^⁸

Section 17 (2) stated that where the newspapers or the FBC merely reported accurately and fairly, a statement likely to prejudice the public peace, an offence was not committed by the relevant media agencies. Persons in possession of statements or documents containing speeches in contravention of section 17 committed an offence unless they had no intention of spreading or circulating the report. The police had a power of arrest without a warrant for any offence under the Public Order Act, and section 20 allowed the Minister to pass Regulations under the Act.

The Schedule to the Act contained a permit for a public meeting/procession, and an application form for a permit.

These provisions have been a part of Fiji law since 1969, and for some provisions, since 1976. In summary, under the Act, a permit was always required for a meeting unless the meeting was specifically exempt. A gathering in a house to celebrate Christmas was not a “meeting” under the Act. Nor was a gathering at the temple church or mosque. Hate speeches were an offence. ‘Terrorist’ acts were offences, although acts and speeches had to be “calculated” to bring about death, destruction, damage, or to prevent the execution of any law.

The Public Order (Amendment) Decree

The new definitions included in the Act after the amendment, include that of “explosive” and “offence against public order”. The latter lists the following as offences to which the Act generally applies;

Terrorism
Treason
Urging political or inter-group force or violence
Sedition
Urging a person to assist the enemy
Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities
Inciting to mutiny
Aiding soldiers or police in act of mutiny
Inducing desertion from the police force or armed forces
Aiding prisoners of war to escape
Genocide
Crimes against humanity (by murder, extermination, enslavement, forcible transfer of population, torture, rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, enforced prostitution, enforced sterilisation, persecution, apartheid, inhumane acts and sexual violence)
Slavery
Sexual servitude
Deceptive recruitment
Human Trafficking
People smuggling
Document Offences in relation to people trafficking
Foreign enlistment
Piracy

Terrorism is specifically defined and covers in particular, any act involving death, serious bodily injury, danger to a person’s life, a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a part of the public, the use of weapons, the introducing into the environment harmful or dangerous substances including toxic chemicals, and any act which involves serious disruption to any critical infrastructure or to the provision of services to communications, banking or financial services. It covers acts intended to or by its nature or context reasonably be regarded as being intended to, intimidate the public, or to compel a government to do something or to refrain to do something. Internet based attacks including acts of large-scale disruption of computer networks for the primary purpose of creating alarm and panic are included in the definition of terrorism. Any of these acts must have been done or the threat made with the intention of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, and must have been done with the intention of coercing or influencing by intimidation the Fiji Government or intimidating the public or a section of it.

The word “appropriate authority” is amended to now mean the Divisional Police Commander. Previously the person issuing the permits was the District Officer.

The definitions of “meeting” and “procession” have remained unchanged. Therefore any meeting held to discuss matters “of public interest”, and any assembly of three or more persons assembled for a common purpose, continue to require permits, as has been the case since 1969.

However the words “racial vilification” are defined as including “conduct that offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, incite 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.”

The words “religious vilification” has a similar meaning.

Section 3 of the Act is amended by increasing the penalty for wearing uniforms, or distinctive dress or bearing a flag, and by empowering the minister to order that the manufacture and sale of flags, emblems and dress be prohibited.

The Act is also amended by inserting sections 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F after section 7.All these sections are to do with the possession of arms and ammunition without a licence, and with the powers of the Police Commissioner to prohibit the buying, selling and dealing in arms and ammunition in any part of Fiji. Section 7B creates the offence of being in possession of arms without a license or ammunition without lawful authority. The maximum penalty is 3 years imprisonment, and/or $5000 fine. There is a statutory obligation to report a suspected offence of carrying arms or ammunition without a licence or lawful authority^⁹ and the burden of proving that the defendant had no opportunity to report to the police, is on the defence^¹⁰.

Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Public Order Act have remained untouched.

Section 8 (the section on the holding of meetings and processions) remains untouched, except that subsection (5) has been repealed. That was the subsection which exempted sporting, recreational, social events, private entertainment, and religious and charitable gatherings from the need to apply for permits. This means that the holding of all such functions now require permits. However if a group of people gather for purposes other than a common purpose, or gather to discuss issues which are not public interest issues, the gathering is not a “meeting” or an “assembly” for the purposes of the Act. This definition has remained unchanged since 1969.

Section 8(5) now reads;

“ The appropriate authority may, in its discretion, refuse to grant a permit under this section to any person or organisation that has on any previous occasion been refused a permit by virtue of any written law, or to any person or organisation that has on any previous occasion failed to comply with any conditions imposed with respect to any meeting or procession or assembly, or any person or organisation which has on any previous occasion organised any meeting or procession or assembly which has prejudiced peace, public safety and good order and/or which has engaged in racial or religious vilification or undermined or sabotaged or attempted to undermine or sabotage the economy or financial integrity of Fiji.”

In other words, if an organisation has previously acted in breach of a section 8 permit, or has been refused a permit, or which has previously organised a meeting which has prejudiced public safety and order, or has made hate speeches or has tried to damage Fiji’s economy, a permit can be refused.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Public Order Act are deleted.^¹¹ Under those sections the Minister could prohibit the holding of meetings^¹². Under those sections the police also had the power to stop and disperse meetings for which no permit had been granted^¹³. In their place, under section 9, the Commissioner of Police or Divisional Police Commander has powers to prohibit and disperse a meeting or assembly or procession even if a permit has been granted. The Commissioner may make such orders as he considers necessary for the securing of public safety or for the maintenance of public order or for maintaining supplies and services to the community, and may exercise these powers if the organisation or person organising or participating in the gathering has previously breached the conditions of the permit or has engaged in hate speeches, or has tried to sabotage Fiji’s economy.

What powers do the police have under this section?

To prohibit a meeting, procession or assembly^¹⁴.
To direct any meeting assembly or procession to disperse^¹⁵.
After due warning, a police officer may use any force he/she deems necessary including the use of arms to disperse the meeting, procession or assembly, and to apprehend any person present.^¹⁶ In such a case the police officer is immune from civil or criminal suit.

These provisions are similar to regulation 3 of the repealed Public Emergency Regulations although there is no longer a power to attend meetings on reasonable suspicion that there will be a breach of the peace^¹⁷. The power to use whatever force is necessary to disperse a riot was previously given to the police under section 90 of the Penal Code. Immunity from civil and criminal suit was also provided under section 90 of the Penal Code. Thus these are old powers.

The new section 10 creates offences of taking part in a meeting held without a permit or in breach of the conditions of a permit. The maximum penalties are 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000. A person who organises a meeting in breach of the Act is liable to the same penalty.

The new section 11 of the Act gives the Commissioner of Police or the person in charge of the police district powers to close roads or to regulate the use of public places in order to secure public safety or to maintain public order. In an emergency a police officer above the rank of inspector can exercise these powers but for only 24 hours or until the order is endorsed by the Commissioner or the officer in charge of the police district^¹⁸. Section 11A, is comparable to section to section 5 of the Public Emergency Regulations, except that one of the grounds on which the Commissioner can act under the Public Order Act is “for ensuring that the economic and financial integrity of Fiji is not undermined or sabotaged”.

The Decree also adds a new Part 3A to the Public Order Act. Section 12A provides that the penalty for an act of terrorism is a maximum of life imprisonment. Section 12B creates an offence of harbouring a person who has committed an act of terrorism. Section 12C creates an offence of knowingly providing or offering to provide a weapon to a group or organisation involved in terrorism. Participating in terrorist groups is an offence under section 12D and recruiting into terrorist groups is an offence under section 12E.

Sections 14, 15, and 16 are left untouched in the Public Order Act except for an increase in the penalties for the offences. Section 17, which is the “hate speech” offence, is amended by adding two further categories of result which is likely to be caused by the report or statement. One is “incite or promote religious, ethnic, or communal hatred or dislike” and the other is “undermine or sabotage or attempt to undermine or sabotage the economy or financial integrity of Fiji’. Further after the word “race” the words “religion, ethnicity, or community” are added wherever “race” appears in the section. Subsection (2) which permitted newspapers to report hate speeches is deleted. The offence is given extra-geographical jurisdiction by the insertion of a new subsection (5). This means that hate speeches made overseas by Fiji citizens and residents can be tried in Fiji by the Fiji courts. The new sentence for hate speeches is now a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and/or $10,000 fine

A new section 17A gives powers of arrest for police officers in relation to public order offences or offences under the Act. These offences include terrorism, racial vilification and trafficking in persons. Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has acted or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the preservation of peace, or is about to commit a public order offence, or on being questioned by the police a person has fails to satisfy the officer as to name or address, or purpose for being in the place where he or she is found, the officer may arrest the person without a warrant. The police may also detain the person for investigations for up to 48 hours. Thereafter the person can be detained for 14 days but only on the authority of the Minister, who must be satisfied that the enquiries cannot be completed within 48 hours. After 48 hours or up to a further 14 days the person must either be released or brought to court.

The Criminal Procedure Decree gives the police powers to detain for enquiries for up to 24 hours, for offences other than murder or treason, and to grant bail after the expiry of 24 hours unless the case is of a serious nature. If the case is serious, then the suspect can be kept in custody and produced in court “as soon as practicable”.^¹⁹

The Public Emergency Regulations allowed the police to detain persons in custody while acting under those Regulations for up to 7 days after the initial 24 hours, with the authority of a magistrate or police officer^²⁰.

Section 17B permits any police officer to use whatever force is necessary to arrest a person suspected of having committed a public order offence. This provision is similar to section 90 of the repealed Penal Code in relation to powers of arrest for riot and unlawful assembly. It is an offence to obstruct officers under the Act^²¹. Section 17C provides that a member of the armed forces, when directed by his/her commanding officer, at the request of or with the concurrence of the Commissioner of Police, to exercise any of the duties or functions of the police or prisons officers.

A new Section 21 is inserted in the Act. It reads that no court, tribunal, commission or other adjudicating authority may hear a challenge to the validity, legality or propriety of any decision made under the Public Order Act by the Commissioner of Police, Divisional Police Commander or Minister or any public official. Where any such claim is brought, the file will be taken to the Chief Registrar for termination of the proceedings.

That is a summary of the provisions of the Public Order Act after the amendments.

The Public Order offences^²²

Are the public order offences, to which the Act now applies new offences? If they are old offences which previously existed under the Penal Code, have they been modified either in the Crimes Decree, or in the Public Order Act itself?

Treason – Under the Penal Code there were several treason offences, defined under sections 50,51, 52, 53 and 54. Treason itself was simply defined as any act which in England would be termed treason. The term was defined in State v. Timoci Silatolu and Josefa Nata [2006] AAU0024/03S .Section 51 of the Penal Code stated that any person who instigated any foreigner to invade Fiji with an armed force was guilty of treason. Section 52 created the offence of misprision of treason^²³ and section 53 of the Penal Code created the offences of “treasonable felonies”. Any person who formed an intention to depose the State or to levy war against it or instigated an armed invasion of the state by foreigners committed treasonable felonies.

The Crimes Decree definitions of treason and related offences are more specific. Levying war against the State is still treason^²⁴, but so is instigating invasion, killing the President or the Prime Minister or engaging in conduct that materially assists another country which is engaged in armed hostilities against Fiji. There is a special offence under section 65(1) of intentionally urging another person to overthrow by force or by violence the Constitution of Fiji, or the Government of Fiji, or the lawful authority of the Government of Fiji. These were not specific offences under the Penal Code, although they could be alleged as overt acts to the offence of treason. Spreading racial or communal hatred or antagonism is a new offence under section 65 (2). However although a new offence, it is very similar to the offence in the Public Order Act of inciting racial antagonism^²⁵which is retained and extended after amendment.

Sedition – now under sections 66 and 67 of the Crimes Decree, the offences of sedition are identical to the old Penal Code definition of sedition under sections 65 and 66. However, Sections 67 and 68 of the Penal Code which allowed the court to suspend the operation of a newspaper found to contain seditious material and to prohibit the circulation of seditious reports are not included in the Crimes Decree. Important safeguards to freedom of speech are set out in the proviso to section 66 of the Crimes Decree^²⁶.

Terrorism – Is made an offence for the first time, although the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2003 made the financing of terrorist activity unlawful and defined terrorism in similar terms to the Public Order Amendment Decree.

Human Trafficking and People Smuggling– Offences created in accordance with the definition of trafficking in the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol were incorporated into our laws for the first time in 2009 when the Crimes Decree was passed. The offences are based on the prohibition on the transportation of people in and out of Fiji, or within Fiji, for the purpose of exploitation, or by deceit.

Genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, sexual servitude and apartheid are all offences from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Fiji was required by her obligations under the Rome Statute to pass laws identical to the Rome Statute laws for international crimes.

Hate speeches and incitement to violence – These are all old offences created by the 1976 edition of the Public Order Act itself. There is a new offence under section 65 (2) of inciting communal antagonism which falls within the ambit of “public order offence” for the purposes of the Public Order Act.

The Media

The provisions in the Public Emergency Regulations permitted the Permanent Secretary to check on stories before publication. The Permanent Secretary no longer has these powers now that the Public Emergency Regulations have been lifted. However the Minister for Information has similar powers under section 80 of the Media Industry Development Decree.

Complaints against the media can be made under section 54 of the Decree, and non-compliance with the code of ethics in the 1^st Schedule is one of the possible grounds for complaint. A complaint may be dismissed summarily or referred to the Media Tribunal for adjudication.

What advice should be given under the Act since it was amended and the Public Emergency Regulations were lifted?

When organising a meeting of three or more persons, you should apply for a permit from the police. This law has remained unchanged since 1969.
When a permit is granted you must adhere to its conditions because failure to do so may lead to a refusal of a permit when you next apply.
The Media is now regulated by the Media Industry Development Decree. Media agencies should be aware of its provisions, and of the powers of the Media Industry Development Authority, The media will be judged ultimately by adherence to the Media Code of Conduct, in the Media Industry Development Decree.
In making statements in public you must not incite racial antagonism. You must not make a report or make a statement that is likely to promote feelings of enmity amongst the different communities, religious groups, or classes of the community. You must not become involved in terrorist activity. You must not cause any harm to others, nor must you make threats of harm to others.
You must not make hate speeches or speeches in contravention of section 17 of the Public Order Act even when you are travelling abroad.
In seeking to promote changes to our laws and constitution, you must not urge the use of force or violence.
In seeking to make changes to the law you must not cause discontent or disaffection amongst the people of Fiji unless you are pointing out factors which cause any such discontent.
When asked for your name and address by the police you must not give a false name and address. When asked you should explain what you are doing in the place where you are being questioned.
When in doubt about the effect of the law on your conduct or proposed conduct, consult a lawyer.

Nazhat Shameem

10^th January 2012

1 Section 2 Public Order Act

2 Section 4 Public Order Act

3 Section 8 (1) (a) (b) and (c)

4 Section 8 (5)

5 Section 15 (a) (b) and (c)

6 Section 16

7 Inserted in 1976 by Act No. 19 of 1976

8 Maximum sentence – 1 years imprisonment and/or $500 fine

9 Section 7F

10 Section 7F(2)

11 These were the sections which empowered the Minister to prohibit assemblies and meetings, empowered the police to stop and disperse meetings and processions, and created a “deeming” provision that a meeting in breach of a permit was deemed to be an unlawful assembly.

12 Section 9 (1) (a) and (b)

13 Section 10 (1) and (2)

14 Section 9 (1) (a)

15 Section 9 (1) (b)

16 Section 9 (3)

17 Formerly Regulation 3(5) of the PER

18 Section 11(2)

19 Section 24 (1) (2) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Decree 2009

20 Regulation 18 of the PER

21 Section 17D

22 As defined in the Public Order Act (Amendment) Decree 2012

23 Defined in State v. Viliame Savu [2002]HAC 010/02S

24 Section 64(1)(d) Crimes Decree

25 Section 17

26 See also DPP v. Afasio Mua and Others (1992) 38 FLR 226

The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away?....

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:39:00 +0000

From a reader:

A brief comment on the lifting of PER and the Amendment to the Public Order Act.

I was hoping that the lifting of the PER would mean that universities in Fiji could carry out their proper functions without further restrictions. However, my understanding is that if we hold lectures that are advertised to the public, under the new regulations we shall still have to obtain a police permit, but this time only from the local community police post.

Does any reader know whether this is the case?

News and Comments Monday 9 January 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Croz Walsh) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

9.1.12
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE AN"EXPERT"?. Former Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, Liberal candidate for Bass, Launceston, Tasmania, an expert on Iraq and Afghanistan, who to my knowledge has no special knowledge on Fiji and has never visited the Republic, says the lifting of PER is "a meaningless gesture, as is the promise of meaningful constitutional consultations." He states that the "return to democracy will "require a coalescence of opposition voices in Fiji - the church and people like Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudry. In the meantime, Australia should stop giving Bainimarama's illegal regime any recognition or praise for these small steps." Good gracious! Advance, please. Australia fair

FEMLINK'S SHARON BHAGWAN ROLLS says it’s crucial that women be able to participate in the consultation process. “Our concern is that you can have a process at the national level but unless communities at the grassroots level, and we’re talking about rural women who live 20-30 kilometres away from a main centre, their local town. How do they get involved?”She hopes the interim government will take into account that it’s not just about inviting people and presenting them with a draft document.

MIKE BEDDOES. The former parliamentary Opposition leader says that "by lifting the PER and with it the media censorship, the PM is creating the positive environment necessary in which these [constitutional] talks can proceed with a fair amount of confidence and sincerity."

NGO NETWORK URGES UNDER-PRIVILEGED PROTECTED IN CONSTITUTION. Fiji largest Child Protection Network is urging Government for nationwide consultation on the drafting of Fiji’s new Constitution that includes unprivileged citizens. Protecting Our Children In Fiji, Coordinator Karishma Kumar said their Network requests Government to ensure that the Constitution Review Committee visits areas that include squatter/informal settlements, remote parts of Fiji, rural areas, orphanage homes and homes for the unprivileged citizens. She added the new constitution can help to alleviate poverty which is multidimensional and create a just, decent and humane society for all in Fiji.

BUSINESSMAN Charan Jeath Singh has won a court declaration that he and one of his companies did not in any way support the 2000 George Speight coup.

AIR PACIFIC POSTS LOSS BUT LESS THAN LAST YEAR. Air Pacific reported an operating loss of $3.6M for the financial year ending March 2011 which is a significant reduction in losses compared to the operating loss of 91.8 million dollars for the previous year. It has been quite challenging according to the Managing Director and CEO of Air Pacific, Dave Pflieger but he said it has also been exciting and action packed so far. He said the main issue was cutting costs and getting ready for competition.

CASSINO BENEFITS, Fiji's first casino is expected to create 800 new jobs and be another stimulant to the tourism industry. The project will include a $290 million, 5-star luxury casino resort on Denarau Island. The first phase will include 190 luxury rooms and suites, three restaurants, and a sports grill, with the second phase to include more accommodation, a nightclub, and other entertainment venues. There will be 500 slot machines and 54 table games at the casino, while the 1500-seat convention centre will feature fully equipped banquet and catering capabilities.

NEW JETTY FOR RABI.The construction of the new $3m Rabi Island jetty is part of the government's plan to help Rabi and neighbouring islands. The jetty and causeway is scheduled to be completed by April. Rabi islanders have a special place in Fiji's history. They are from the formerly rich phosphate island of Banaba that is now part of Kiribati. Royalties from phosphate helped the Banabans set up businesses in the main island but mismanagement and internal discord saw most businesses and investments fail. Rabi Island, located on the S.E. coast of Vanua Levu. is largely self-governing.

Scroll down to check out the weekend reading.

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

News and Comments Tuesday 24 Janaury 2012

CCF to Launch Constitution Guide

The Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) will be launching a book soon to guide citizens as Fiji prepares to engage into constitution consultation.

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

Vital Issues on Constitution Reform: the President

Women and Government

Cherish Our Elderly

News and Opinions Friday 20 January 2012

A Bumpy Road

The YPCN: Democrats or 'Ultra Nationalists in Disguise'?

Environment and Compensation Concerns at Namost, Not Political

New Freedoms Awaken Old Protagonists

Government Closed Down Military Schools

The Times They are A-Changing: Let's Keep it That Way

To Namosi and Back

Censorship Gone or Easing

Namosi Mine Questions

Lockington's Everyday Fiji ... Life Goes On

Interview with Ambassador Winston Thompson (thanks to Coup 4.5)

Coup Four And A Half

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Fiji's ambassador to US Winston Thomson defends regime yet again

More on the Public Order Ammendment Decree, and the A-G's Response to the ACTU

A Rebuff to the Critics

Peter Williams QC on Fiji

Amended Act 'big Leap' from PER, Says Union

An Analysis of the Public Order Act ...and the Lifting of PER

The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away?....

News and Comments Monday 9 January 2012