Friday, September 8, 2006

Do We Need a Qoliqoli Trust Board?

<>By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political Editor
www.sun.com.fj - 8 September 2006

The call by the Viti Land and Resources Owners Association for the Native Land Trust Board not to be involved in the Qoliqoli Bill is a twist in the whole submission. This is a slap in the face for the NLTB, especially when it comes from an indigenous organisation that claims to have the support of all Fijian chiefs. Be mindful of the fact that the NLTB was established under the Native Land Trust Act of 1940. It comprises the President of Fiji as president, the Minister for Fijian Affairs as chairman and a 10-member board of trustees. The board may delegate some of its powers to the general manager who with other officers carries out the board's plans and instructions. VRLOA president Ratu Osea Gavidi said in his submission to the joint parliamentary select committee on Economic Services and Natural Resources chaired by government backbencher Mitieli Bulanauca, that the NLTB lacked the capability to look after Fijian food resources (i kanakana)"The qoliqoli (fishing grounds) itself is a great revenue earner and qoliqoli owners are not ready to fully place it in the hands of the NLTB," said Ratu Osea.
He said the NLTB had not been able to successfully deal with Fijian land. It is sad that a group that is supposed to protect this Fijian institution had critically attacked the NLTB. But let's not forget that this group is practising its right enshrined under the 1997 Constitution. Ratu Osea's group has come up with a proposal to have a Qoliqoli Trust Board."We support the general idea of the Bill but we don't agree with the NLTB," Ratu Osea said."But we would want to make a recommendation to have a separate board to look after the interest of the qoliqoli owners." The VLROA says it just can't sit and watch the handover of a resource that is worth trillions of dollars to the NLTB. The NLTB, Ratu Osea says in the submission, cannot even collect land debt worth millions of dollars and this is a clear indication it cannot manage the land. We have to ask the VLORA whether it has lost all its confidence in how the NLTB operates. The primary role of the board is to administer native land for the benefit of the indigenous landowners.
As custodian of Fijian owned land, Native Land Trust Board recognises its responsibility to the indigenous landowners and the nation to ensure that land and natural resources are used and managed in a wise and sustainable manner. The board must also ensure that unique and important features of the Fijians' natural and cultural heritage are set aside and protected for the benefit of the current and future generations. Landowners can rest assured that the Native Land Trust Board is an institution specifically established for them.The NLTB had played its role since its establishment but the call by the VLROA should not be overlooked. However, the establishment of a Qoliqoli Trust Board will surely call for new legislation. The NLTB is established under the Native Land Trust Act. It seems the group is not happy with the benefits the qoliqoli owners will receive from the proposed legislation. Let us have a look at the protection benefits to the qoliqoli owners under the Bill.
According to the Minister for Fijian Affairs, Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu: l The financial benefits that will flow to the qoliqoli owners include all fishing licences, all monies payable to qoliqoli owners for non-fisheries commercial operation within the qoliqoli areas, all monies paid in respect of damages to or the use of the qoliqoli areas whether as a result of reclamation, commercial operation, or otherwise, and all other monies received or payable for the benefit of qoliqoli owners. l The Bill will establish Qoliqoli Trust Funds where all monies will be deposited and withdrawals strictly complying with the Regulations. The Trust Funds will be audited annually and Statement of Qoliqoli Funds will be published in the Na Mata, the Fijian publication annually. l In brief, the onus on accountability, transparency and responsibilities of funds will under the proposed Bill be entrusted to the qoliqoli owners themselves. This is a major shift from the current management of funds by institutions.
Landowners through the assistance of the Fijian Administration machinery, will be expected to consult with each other, draw up their development plans and link these to the use of their qoliqoli funds. l In another major shift the qoliqoli owners will be expected to take the leading role in the conservation of their fisheries resources.
The restriction on the use of fisheries resources will also apply to the qoliqoli owners themselves. That is, they are expected to prescribe quotas of fisheries resources for personal or home consumption, which can be taken from their qoliqoli areas, and such limitations set out by laws shall also be applied to qoliqoli owners themselves. Surely the benefits are well protected. Many are querying why the qoliqoli is to be administered by the NLTB when it is not part of the land. The minister says the legal position on the proprietary ownership of the land or sea-bed in qoliqoli areas is based on the English common law principal that the State's ownership of the foreshore up to the high water mark is vested in the Crown. This principle of English common law is codified in Fiji under section 2 of the Crown Lands Act which provides that:" 'Crown Land' means all public lands, including the foreshore and the soil under the waters in Fiji, which are for the time being subject to the control of Her Majesty by virtue of any treaty, cession or agreement.. ……"
Section 13(1) of the Fisheries Act, Cap. 158, confirms the usage rights already owned by qoliqoli owners as follows -
".. it shall be an offence for any person to take fish on any reef or any kai (cockle) or other shellfish bed in any area in respect of which the right of any Mataqali or other division or subdivision of the Fijian people have been registered by the Native Fisheries Commission in the Register of Native Customary Fishing Rights unless he shall be a member of such Mataqali, division or subdivision of the Fijian people who does not require a licence….".
It is clear in law then that two rights co-exist in respect of Fijian customary fishing areas: the State under section 2 of the Crown Lands Act enjoy the rights of ownership of the foreshores, reefs and the seabed; and the Fijians enjoy merely the right of usage as confirmed in section 13(I) of the Fisheries Act. Fijians continue to claim ownership of the reefs and foreshores as proclaimed by Governor William Des Voeux's statement at Nailaga, Ba in 1881. The NLTB has established the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission. Now a Qoliqoli Trust Board would be a financial burden to the Government. It will mean that the country will have another institution with its entire staff paid by the taxpayers. The proposed legislation will confer on qoliqoli owners proprietary ownership rights and interests in land within qoliqoli areas by transferring such rights and interests from the State to qoliqoli owners. It will reconfirm the ownership of usage rights previously enjoyed by qoliqoli owners over their respective qoliqoli areas. It will vest with the NLTB the power and functions to control all dealings in land over qoliqoli areas, in consultation with qoliqoli owners and the Qoliqoli Commission. It will reconstitute the Native Fisheries Commission (NFC) established under the Fisheries Act in terms of -
a) its composition;
b) its status as a Government Department as opposed to being a statutory body;
c) its powers, functions and procedures, to ensure that the new Commission should not be a means of reopening the inquiries already completed and adjudicated upon by the NFC; and,
d) its name which is to be changed to Qoliqoli Commission.
The Qoliqoli Commission will complete the survey and registration of the ownership and boundaries of qoliqoli areas. The Commission will have an appeals system from parties aggrieved by the decisions of the Qoliqoli Commission. Surely we have already a system in place within the NLTB to look after qoliqoli We have yet to know of how the Qoliqoli Trust Board will operate and look after the 410-qoliqoli areas throughout Fiji. The VLROA should also be mindful of the fact that the Bill has the support of the 14 provinces and the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and they have full confidence in the NLTB.

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Qoliqoli Bill - Hoteliers Told Not To Be Greedy

<>By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political Editor
www.sun.com.fj - 06 September 2006

The threat by the Fiji Islands Hotel Association (FIHA) I must admit is totally against the bid by government to help resource owners. It is a fact that this threat is linked to efforts to destabilise the nation. In its submission to the joint parliamentary sector committee (JPSC) on Natural Resources, FIHA chairman Dick Smith and president, Senator Dixon Seeto, said the Bill if passed would make foreign investors in the hotel industry leave the country.
“Foreign investors in the hotel industry would be the first to seize investment and services top the country should the Bill in its present form come into effect,” Mr Smith said. In fact FIHA was making a threat not only to the resource owners but the nation as a whole. Hoteliers have gained millions of dollars and have enjoyed and taken advantage of the open heartedness and friendliness of the indigenous people who are the resource owners.
It is a fact that these people had been victimised for so long and it is time that they are paid their dues. The Laisenia Qarase-led multi party government sees the Qoliqoli Bill as an avenue where qoliqoli owners will be paid their dues. The threat by the FIHA does not go well with the Prime Minister and he had given a stern warning to the hoteliers“Stop making threats and give landowners what is due to them,” a disturbed Prime Minister said.
Surely there is a group that is campaigning against the Bill here and abroad.“We should all be disturbed by the determined and almost fanatical efforts by a very small group of misguided individuals to stop the Qoliqoli Bill. In their view, the legislation is evil and a threat to security. Yes, that is how they describe this sincere, legitimate and responsible attempt to correct something that has been unresolved for all these long years.” the Prime Minister said in one of his addresses to the business community on the Bill.
“I have reason to believe that money, with a foreign connection, was provided to buy political support for the defeat of the legislation. Watch the election campaign carefully for signs of this influence at work. We must all be united against these attempts to obstruct the just fulfillment of the wishes of the Fijian chiefs and people on this issue.”
Ownership of qoliqoli, which for centuries had belonged to the chiefs and people, was transferred to the State by the colonial authorities. The desire for this to be corrected was raised on numerous occasions. No final resolution was reached. There was some progress in 1941 when it was decided to inquire into and establish boundaries and ownerships of customary fishing areas.
In May 1978, the Council of Chiefs appointed a committee to consider the issue. It recommended that the Government be requested to produce new legislation to declare definitively that the reefs and the foreshores belonged to the Fijians on a proprietary basis. In 1982, the GCC concluded again that the existing laws were not in line with the undertakings given to the Fijians. It decided to ask the Government to amend and enact legislation.
Under the present laws, the Fijians only have rights of usage. This does not entitle them to receive the full benefit from qoliqoli, at a time when there is increasing commercial use of them by others. It is the view of the government of the day that the Qoliqoli Bill will strengthen the investment climate by removing misunderstanding and improving co-operation between qoliqoli owners and other groups, especially tourism operators. It of course, it will honour the wishes of the Fijian chiefs and people.
The Bill follows the call of the constitution for a more equitable sharing of economic and commercial power. It fulfils the constitution’s requirements for parliament to have regard to the customs, traditions, usages, values and aspirations of the indigenous people. According to Turtle Island Resort owner, Richard Evanson, “The Qoliqoli Bill is seen by some as a piece of legislation - if passed - as beneficial only to certain landowners.”
He made his opposition known at last week’s Fijian Indigenous Business Council meeting. Mr Evanson said the Bill would be a disastrous piece of legislation for the indigenous Fijians.“Right now there are 410 qoliqoli owners in Fiji and only 50 of them that have tourism development so that means the vast majority - 360 of the 410 - receive no potential benefit whatsoever on this Bill. Under the government’s proposed Bill - even if it’s proven to be constitutional - which I don’t think it is - I think the Bill is unconstitutional - because what its doing is taking a national asset and giving it to one group of the population”.
Hoteliers should be reminded that their interests are protected in the Bill. The Minister for Fijian Affairs, Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu when tabling the Bill in parliament said government was aware there were some, especially from the tourism industry, who were concerned that the commercial benefits they had derived in the past from unlimited use of foreshores would be adversely affected by the new legislation. The extremists amongst these are even threatening to challenge the Bill in court if it is enacted on the ground that they have invested a lot of capital into their business ventures relying on the unlimited use of the foreshores around their project sites. The restrictions imposed by the Bill will unjustly erode their right to rely on those beneficial effects of unlimited use of the foreshores.
However, it is heartening to see that there is also a significant group in the tourism sector who are keen to arrive at an agreement under the framework of the Bill, which will be of mutual benefit to them, and the Qoliqoli owners. The view that the Bill completely removes the rights of tourism operators is false because under Clause 20[1] of the Bill, the Native Land Trust Board may approve a commercial operation including a hotelier the use of a qoliqoli provided that it shall consult with the Commission, and the Qoliqoli owners.
Clause 20(6) also allows them to negotiate with Qoliqoli owners to agree to specific restrictions or otherwise on there Qoliqoli rights. Therefore, through mutual understanding, trust and goodwill, the Bill provides for establishing a mutually agreed framework between commercial operators including hoteliers and the Qoliqoli owners and the Commission. Such arrangements should also foster better relationships between the Qoliqoli owners and hoteliers. The Minister said hoteliers should give the support to the Bill as they also benefit from it.
The onus gives the freedom to the commercial operations including hoteliers and the Qoliqoli owners to negotiate and reach agreement on the terms and conditions including compensation for the use of the qoliqoli. The Tavarua Island Lease Resort, Momi Bay Development to name a few; are some examples where the Qoliqoli and the Resort owners have reached an amicable agreement on the use of the Qoliqoli.
The Bill is not only for qoliqoli areas affecting the Tourism Industry, which totals about 14per cent of the total area of over 17,000 square miles of recognized qoliqoli areas in Fiji. It is a fact that the hoteliers are divided on the Bill and the threat posed by Mr Smith is actually from only a few. It is a fact that new hotel investors are coming into the country and are to work with the landowners who are also the qoliqoli owners.
The tourism industry has continued grow. Rooms and Beds available for Quarter 1, 2006 increased by 6.1per cent and 0.9per cent respectively compared to quarter 1 2005. Room Occupancy rate and Bed Occupancy rate decreased by 4.8 percentage points and 2.9 percentage points when compared to quarter 1 2005. Takings from Accommodation, sale of food, liquor, telephone and other miscellaneous charges recorded an increase of 0.5% bringing the total hotel turnover to $FJ100.1 million for Quarter 1 2006. Paid employment in the hotel sector also increased by 8.8per cent when compared to quarter 1 2005. Rooms and Beds available for Quarter 1, 2006 increased by 6.1per cent and 0.9per cent respectively compared to quarter 1 2005.

Saturday, September 2, 2006

Rabuka says "There's no other way"

SITIVENI RABUKA - www.fijitimes.com

Sunday, September 03, 2006

EVER since the new government came into being, it has been plagued by the internal Fiji Labour Party conflict between Mahendra Chaudhry and his Cabinet nominees (except for Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi).

It is very important for us to understand what this internal party matter means to the nation. Any disruption to the multi-party Cabinet that is in place now means that this great opportunity of the two races working in concert to address some of the vital issues for national growth will come to naught.

Let us look at how we got to be where we are now. Politics in Fiji is racially bi-polar but not because of race or religion.

The bi-polarity of our national politics is the product of social factors that have emanated from the inward migration of non-indigenous people, the colonisation of these islands, western influence in the colonial era, and the nature of our economy which is heavily dependent on overseas sources and markets. Let me highlight a few of these factors:

Land ownership and tenure

At Cession, 17 per cent of all land in Fiji had been alienated by sale to non-indigenous freeholders.

q 83 per cent of the land was registered as native land;

q With registered and recognised tribal ownership;

q Acknowledged as having belonged to tribes that were extinct by the time of registration, or

q Not specifically claimed by native landowners.

Land under the last two categories was placed under the Crown as ultumus haeres.

These were commonly known as Crown Schedule A and Crown Schedule B land.

Fiji politics is affected by the ownership and availability of land. The landowners are mostly the indigenous Fijians who believe they are not getting an equitable return for the use of their land by tenant farmers and other users.

Their view of "inequitable" return may not be totally factual, as other unrelated factors create this perception.

The land user may, by good husbandry and prudent investment, build a very good life for his family on his leased land and his income and general standard of living perceived by the landowner much better than his share of the 6 per cent of Unimproved Capital Value that the tenant pays as rent to NLTB.

The land rent paid by tenants is reduced by 15 per cent taken by NLTB as poundage to help pay for their administering the native land, while the remaining 85 per cent goes to the land-owning unit to be divided according to the formula, not only to the landowners but also to their chiefs.

Population distribution

Of the 69 per cent of the population still living in the rural areas, a very large majority is indigenous Fijian who have remained in their tribal villages and subsistence agriculture areas of the pre-immigrant races era.

The immigrant races initially settled around trade areas for group security and convenience and these areas have grown to be the main commercial centres of modern Fiji.

Because of the commercial nature and the revenue generating capabilities of these centres, the development of infrastructure was speedy and returns assuring. Population concentration also ensured better social development of schools, medical facilities and government administration.

When the indentured labourers arrived, it was a case of objectivised immigration.

All the immigrants were settled in the sugar industry areas they were indentured to work for. They immediately set up their Indian socio-cultural infrastructure like temples, crematoriums and rudimentary schools for education and culture preservation.

These became permanent features once the indenture period ended and the immigrants stayed of their own free will on renewed contracts.

By that time, free settlers had also come to set up businesses and take advantage of the specific needs of the growing Indian population.

The socio-cultural infrastructure became more enhanced when they were subsequently developed in co-operative ventures with religious and government organisations.

Meanwhile, the indigenous Fijians continued to live in their villages under the codified native administrative system of districts, and provinces as government administered indigenous societies.

These were placed under the central administration's administrative districts under District Officers, and administrative divisions under Divisional Commissioners.

While these administrative arrangements were made to decentralise administrative functions and localise decision making to suit the locality, district or division, it resulted in the wide but very thin spread of the national budget to the rural areas compared to focussed and economically allocated portions given for the urban and demographically concentrated areas inhabited mostly by immigrant races.

One of the results of the rural/urban polarity in population and the main racial composition of the two major races has been the apparent imbalance in the development and provision of good facilities in schools.

The urban schools get more in the per-capita allocation because of their bigger rolls.

All the money they get goes to school buildings, the development of library and laboratory facilities and none on boarding or staff accommodation because all students and teachers travel from home.

On a per-capita grant basis, the rural schools would get less because of their smaller rolls and the amount they get would be further dissipated because it will also be used to fund student and staff accommodation leaving a negligible amount for the libraries and laboratories, vital to ensure quality passes in external examinations.

Because of the better facilities available in urban schools, their results tend to be better ensuring better scholarship opportunities for their students enhancing their chances of better academic results, and thus the professions tend to be heavily populated by urbanites/non-indigenes.

This has produced the misconception of a disparity in academic abilities between the Fijians and the other races favouring the latter.

Control of industry

As a feature of developing countries, the public service and public enterprises are the main providers of employment. Fortunately for Fiji, this employment opportunity has absorbed many indigenous workers, who may not have the same fortunes in the private sector where most employers are the immigrant races and multi or trans-national enterprises.

Although many senior executives are indigenous Fijians, most of them are the products of affirmative action in the civil service and private sector scholarship awards.

Some have also benefitted from the mass migration of non-indigenous skilled and professional workers because of the uncertainties created by indigenous-driven nationalism in our national politics.

Fijian administration institutions such as the Native Land Trust Board and the Ministry of Fijian Affairs are almost totally staffed by Fijians and Rotumans. While the police provide employment on a 50/50 basis to indigenous and non-indigenous members, indigenous service personnel staff the military to more than 90 per cent of their establishment.

While neutralising the effect of the distribution of the population into rural and urban will soften the perceived disparity in employment opportunities, an increase in the indigenous investments will afford more employment opportunities for indigenous Fijians in Fijian controlled enterprise.

Communalism vs individualism.

The colonial hangover of protecting the indigenous society by codifying its communal life and culture has been a double-edged factor of this nation's development.

While it has successfully protected the villages and other traditional communities from the ravages of immigrant intrusion, it has also prevented successful individual enterprise in a village or tribal setting.

In the mid-1990s the government, understanding the pressures of traditional, religious and family obligations on the indigenous people, decided that the cost of administration in the provinces that used to be funded by provincial levies, was to be borne by the Government. Any levy charged by the provinces onto the members was then to be used purely for provincial commercial development.

Much of the village development has been shouldered by the members of the villages through village fund raising using both the village and urban communities from these villages.

Such schemes as piped water, electrification, water-borne toilets, seawalls, community halls and churches tax the villagers a lot every year. The circulation of the "opening" of the Methodist Church fundraising bazaars, like we witnessed recently in Nausori, has also become an added annual burden for the "volunteering" province.

For the urban dwellers, much of the infrastructure development is government funded and the users only pay rates and their usage bill. This is perceived as very unfair on the village dwellers who have to fund the installation of their infrastructure, and then maintain it through their own efforts or, at best, on a one third-two third cost sharing basis of initial costs with government.

In which case most have to stand in long queues because of the limited rural development (now Provincial Development) budget from whence the government's two-third contribution would come.

In view of the foregoing, I reiterate that racial and religious undertones in Fiji's political problems are results of some of the social factors, and not a colour and creed problem.

Any attempts to bridge the resultant gaps that remain like festering wounds in our nation must include attempts to address the factors I have discussed as follows:

1. Land

The solution to the land-based jealousies must be based on a satisfactory solution to the perceived disparities in the wealth equity accruing out of land and its ownership and tenure system, and a tenure that is secure not only in terms of law but long enough to allow for generational planning for both the tenant and landowning unit.

2. Rural/Urban Distribution

In trying to address the disparities that result from the urban/rural distribution of the population, government must address the accessibility of socio-economic infrastructure.

Such measures to ensure equal accessibility to equal standard of education, health facilities and commercial opportunities are essential in alleviating the disparities real or perceived.

3. Control of Industry

Government must strive to neutralise the adverse effect of having industry control in one community, by enhancing the participation of the non-participating segment, who are the indigenous people.

4. Communalism verses Individualism

Government must devise policies that will, while enhancing village development, be beneficial to village development financiers.

Such programs as tax incentives for village development, similar to those offered to South Pacific Games sponsors and major sports sponsors will have all-round benefit to all the participants.

I have chosen to highlight our national situation to illustrate our difficulties which are not peculiar to Fiji but common in pluralistic societies. Fiji is a rich pluralistic society because of the diverse ethnicity and cultures now co-existing here.

We have been enriched by the various entities, with the diverse cultural, religious and business acumen each has brought into the nation, and the distinct and rich group cultures of the two major groups now living together, but not totally comfortably as one nation.

Fiji is a much better nation because of pluralism.

Some of our Pacific neighbours apart from Australia and New Zealand are mostly homogeneous with their own indigenous people.

They feel that the volatile situation we have is the result of having two major races that are almost equal in numbers.

The Fijian and Indian races are two noble races that have very strong and positive culture characters.

Each has a very distinct history of achievements that have developed and evolved into contemporary values of today.

Our difference in religious beliefs has caused a lot of misunderstandings that have given rise to some unfortunate incidents of religious intolerance leading to sacrilege.

Our economy is much more vibrant than our neighbours' despite the political stability they claim to enjoy more of than us. And, because our economy is stronger, our infrastructure, facilities and amenities are better, thanks to our pluralistic composition.

While we may be seen to have a race-related instability, our casualties in the political upheavals of 1987 and 2000 combined is nowhere near the casualties recorded in the intra-ethnic struggles of our Melanesian neighbours of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and the Vanuatu Independence struggle.

The military coups of 1987 and the civilian coup attempt of 2000 are testimonies to our failure as a nation to take advantage of the strong characters of our ethnicity and mould them together to create a strong nation of one people the product of many peoples' strengths giving rise to a unified people benefitting from divergent backgrounds accepting a common position and vision for the future.

There are a lot of obstacles still hindering our progress as a nation. With these obstacles in place, we cannot realise our full potential.

We deserve better than what we now have, and the only way to aspire to better things for us as a nation is to work together towards that goal.

Because both races see each other with tinted glasses, it is imperative that we first establish a united front on which to tackle these obstacles.

Every single obstacle land, qoliqoli, poverty, crime, unemployment, HIV/AIDS, national morale reflected in below par performance in sports everything, needs to be addressed by our leaders standing on a united platform. That platform is the multi-party Cabinet, and multi-party government.

It has not been easy to divest ourselves of centuries-old views, pride and prejudices.

It has not been easy to erase negative falsehoods that produce inter-racial and inter-religious bigotry. It has not been easy to do right when right is perceived to be wrong. It has not been easy to do the right thing when your own can disown you as a traitor to the cause. It is not easy to do the right thing when you know that people have already prejudged you because of your past.

But if we are prepared to accept these challenges because of our conviction that we are doing what we believe is in the best interest of the people or the cause we promote, then, I say we go for it, or as is more familiar to Mr Chaudhry, "Press on regardless".

All must ensure the multi-party Cabinet survives the internal FLP struggle.

There is no other way.

Bau - An island full of history and grace beyond its size

<>By VASEMACA RARABICI
- www.sun.com.fj 3 September 2006.

Mention Bau island and I picture Ratu Seru Cakobau’s long white beard, thatched Fijian homes and a long list of traditional protocols and taboos. It must be those history classes in primary school that made it hard for me to think of the island as anything but one with a lot of history and political importance beyond its size. But I’ve been told that Bau island has changed rapidly over the years, losing its historic identity to western influence. I wanted to see for myself. As our boat made its way through choppy waters to the island, early this week, I wondered if there was still much to see and write about.
About 400 metres from the shoreline, the island became clearly visible. I could see the hill with lush vegetation in the middle, the white oval roof of the church and hundreds of homes squashed together by the waterfront. We landed in front of the Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi’s home, a big wooden home by the waterfront. I quickly noticed two things - the cleanliness of the village and the absence of children and animals.
I assume they had been taken elsewhere so that they were not in the way of the Methodist Church conference which the island was hosting. The village green or rara still looked much the same size ten years ago with the oldest Methodist Church in the country standing proudly on one end and Vatanitawake (traditional meeting house) on the other. The number of houses on the island has increased almost three times. They are packed like sardines on the waterfront, right around the island. You could possibly touch the walls of two homes if you walked through with both arms stretched out wide. There are no more thatched bure’s just fancy homes with modern designs complete with statellite dishes, telephones, electricity and flush toilets. It was like walking through the up market residential area at Namadi Heights or Nasese in Suva. It took me about 15 to 20 minutes to walk right around the island which included walking through Mataiwelagi, the residential compound of the Cakobau family.
As I entered the gates, I noticed there were four buildings in the compound - an old yellow shed and the residential home on the other end. In the middle was the meeting hall called Vunirara and a simple structured house built on a raised stone foundation called Delalasakau. Vunirara is a big Fijian bure with walls made of timber and the roof of corrugated iron instead of the usual thatched leaves. Built in 1974 Vunirara used to be the home of the late Vunivalu of Bau, Ratu George Cakobau until he passed away in 1989. A year later it was damaged by Cyclone Kina but repaired by the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei government following a motion put forward in parliament by the late AD Patel. Ratu George’s son Ratu Epenisa said that over the years the Government had donated funds to maintain Vunirara which they now use as a meeting hall. Today Vunirara sits tall on a raised foundation with a polished wooden floor, expensive timber walls, a high roof with mahogany posts adorning the inside.
Towards the sea sits Delalasakau built in 1982 to accommodate Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to the island.
It looks simple from the outside but the inside looks like a 5-star suite with the kitchen and dining area on one end of the room and a huge comfy bed and a sofa on the other. A small washroom separates the two and on the outside a small veranda with chairs and a table is overshadowed by swaying palm trees. The home looks cosy with traditional ornaments, handicrafts and several pictures of the queen - one on top of a cabinet, one on the dressing drawer and another on the table. A portrait of Ratu Seru Cakobau greets you as you walk through the main entrance and to the left is a dark round mahogany table with a paper weight that looks like an elephants tusk. Ratu Epenisa said the table and the paper weight were used during the signing of the papers when Fiji was ceded to Britain in 1874. He said the home was always vacant unless there was a special guest on the island like the President of the Methodist Church, Laisiasa Ratabacaca, who was on the island this week to attend the church conference.
The Cakobau residential home looks like a mansion and is looked after by Ratu Epenisa. It is also home to his brothers and sisters who live on the mainland or overseas except for Adi Litia Kaunilotuma who has her own home a few metres from the entrance to Mataiwelagi. Beside her home is a track climbing up a small hill and on top of the hill is Na Sau ni Tabua (sacred burial ground) where bodies are kept in an air-tight bure-like structure with concrete walls and a tall roof totally made of marble. Beside it is the Methodist pastor’s home looking down on the village. Ratu Epenisa said the position of the home on the hill indicated the people’s high regard for their Christian faith. Directly below the home is the church and leading down to it is a concrete stairway with safety railings on one side. A few metres down the stairway a footpath branches to the left leading to Bau District School, an L-shaped building with a small lawn the size of a netball court.
If you stand in front of the building you can clearly see the Tailevu east coast with Viwa island to the north and Ovalau to the west. After walking downhill, I sat down under a tree by the waterfront to rest my feet. I realised there were no white beaches just huge black stones packed in mesh wires and stacked against the coastline to prevent soil erosion. Ratu Epenisa said the island was slowly being eaten away by the raging tide and huge waves crashing on the shoreline. He said it was the island’s next big project to dredge the waterfront, reclaim land and built a sea wall. If this was not done, Ratu Epenisa said Bau island could disappear in 100 years considering its small size and vulnerable coastline.To my left there was a pond filled with a green slimy liquid. According to the villagers the pond never runs dry and is often used for bathing when there is a water shortage on the island.
There were hundreds of people in the village that day attending the conference yet you could hardly hear a noise except for the speakers in the middle of the ground. I noticed how the women wore long attire reaching the soles of their feet; all men wore pocket sulu’s and bags were held by hand instead of being carried on the shoulder. I also noticed how elderly visitors would walk around the village with both hands cupped tightly in front of them or held to their backs. It was a solemn sight indeed which clearly indicated the respect people still have for the island and the chiefly family even though there was very little left in its history to talk about, Ratu Epenisa said.

The sau tabu (the sacred burial place)

Bau children enjoying a bath in the green pond that never runs dry.

A portrait of Ratu Seru Cakobau

In search of a warlord

The island of Bau may be small in size but it is home to the Vunivalu of Bau who is the paramount chief of the Kubuna Confederacy. The title - which means warlord of Bau - is generally considered the highest chiefly title in Fiji overlooking five provinces - Naitasiri, Tailevu, Lomaiviti, Ra and part of Ba. The title is not strictly hereditary but belongs to the Tui Kaba clan based on the island. Since the last Vunivalu, Ratu George Cakobau, passed away in 1989, the title has been vacant through recently moves began to find a successor. On June 9, 2005, Ratu George Cakobau Junior announced that the chiefs of the Matanitu o Bau (the traditional chiefly government of Bau) had selected four chiefly candidates to be submitted to the Tui Kaba clan which will be asked to select one as the next Vunivalu.
The Matanitu o Bau consists of the Roko Tui Cautata, Tui Viwa, Roko Tui Kiuva, Tui Drau from Dravo, Komai Nausori and the Roko Tui Veikau from Namara, Roko Tui Namata and Tora ni Bati from Buretu.
The four candidates selected were Ratu George Cakobau Junior, Ratu Epenisa, Ratu George Kadavulevu Naulivou and former Vice President Ratu Jope Seniloli. A second meeting held a week later tentatively proposed Ratu George as the new Vunivalu. Adi Finau Tabakaucoro, a member of the Tui Kaba clan, complained on 27 June that proper procedures were not being followed. She said the Vunivalu should be elected by the whole clan rather than chosen by a few elders. She thought it was wrong to exclude from the list of candidates the name of Adi Samanunu because she was the eldest daughter of the last Vunivalu. However, Ratu Epenisa said the title of the Vunivalu has always been given to a male member of the family and therefore they would not consider any female.
He said their next meeting which will be amongst the Cakobau brothers should confirm the next Vunivalu. The first Vunivalu of Bau was Ratu Tanoa Visawaqa who was succeeded by his son Ratu Seru Cakobau in 1852. It was during Ratu Seru’s leadership that Bau island became a dominant force on Fiji’s history and political front. The history books state that Ratu Seru was a chief and warlord who united his country’s warring tribes under his leadership and reigned as Tui Viti (King of Fiji) from June 1871 to October 1874, when he ceded Fiji to Britain. Claiming that Bau had suzerainty over the remainder of Fiji, Ratu Seru asserted that he was in fact the King of Fiji. However, his claim was not accepted by other chiefs, who regarded him as merely the first among equals, if that, and he engaged in constant warfare for almost 19 years to unify the islands under his authority. In 1865 a Confederacy of Independent Kingdoms of Viti was established, with Ratu Seru as chairman of the General Assembly. Two years later, however, the confederacy split into the Kingdom of Bau and the Confederation of Lau, with Ratu Seru assuming kingship of the former.
Supported by foreign settlers, he finally succeeded in creating a united Fijian kingdom in 1871 and established Levuka as his capital. He decided to set up a constitutional monarchy, and the first legislative assembly met in November of that year. Both the legislature and the cabinet were dominated by foreigners. The United States government had recognized Ratu Seru’s claim to kingship over a united Fijian nation long before his claims were accepted by his fellow chiefs. In the long term, however, this was not to count in his favour. The American government held him responsible for an arson attack against the Nukulau home of John Brown William, the American consul, in 1849 (before Cakobau was even the Vunivalu, let alone King), and demanded $44,000 compensation. Unable to pay the debt caused by the Rewan chiefs, and fearing an American invasion and annexation, Cakobau decided to cede the islands to Britain. He was also motivated partly by the hope that British rule would bring civilisation and Christianity to Fiji. Ratu Seru, a former cannibal, had himself converted to Christianity and renounced
cannibalism in 1854. He retained his position as Vunivalu of Bau and lived quietly until his death in 1883. The Cakobau name is an honoured one in Fiji today. Many of the country’s leading figures have been direct descendants of Ratu Seru Cakobau, the first Fijian chief and warlord (Vunivalu) to unite all of Fiji’s disparate tribe under his leadership and was crowned Tui Viti (King of Fiji) in 1871. His great-grandson, Ratu George Cakobau also held the Vunivalu title and served as Fiji’s first native-born Governor General from 1973 to 1983.
Ratu George’s daughter Adi Samanunu, is a former diplomat and now the Minister in the Prime Ministers Office; while his son Ratu Tanoa Visawaqa is the president of the Alliance Conservative Party and Ratu George Cakobau Junior a former Senator. Another descendant, from the female line of Adi Litia Cakobau, is Ratu Epeli Nailatikau the former Speaker of the House. The former late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara is also a descendant of the Cakobau’s, though not through the male line. The Vice President, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, and the former Vice President, Ratu Jope Seniloli, are both from Bau and are closely related to the Cakobau family. Ratu George Cakobau Senior has five sons - Ratu Savenaca who lives in Yasawa, Ratu George Junior who lives in Mokani, Ratu Josefa Celua who lives in America, Ratu Epenisa who lives on Bau island and Ratu Tanoa who lives in Suva. His three daughters are Adi Litia Samanunu, Adi Litia Cakobau and Adi Litia Kaunilotuma.

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Indo-Fijian Label in Fiji

<>Sun.com.fj, 8 August 2006
<>By MAIKA BOLATIKI
<> Political Editor

The call by the Minister of State for National Planning, Jone Vakamocea, for the Speaker, Pita Nacuva, to rule on the use of the term “Indo Fijians” in the House of Representatives borders on racism. The call comes at a time when the nation wants to move forward under the multi-party Cabinet policy.
“I would like to raise my concern and if you could make a ruling in this august House to discourage the use of ‘Indo Fijians’ in the House or in any report or document or correspondence to be tabled in this House since it is not legally prescribed under the Constitution,” said Mr Vakamocea. “The use of Indo Fijians is not defined in the Constitution but has been propagated by Indian academics at the University of the South Pacific to Fijianise their Indian identity.”
The constitution is silent on this issue.
It clearly states that all citizens of Fiji are known as Fiji Islanders and the indigenous people are called Fijians. Mr Vakamocea prefers the use of Indian to describe an Indian of Indian origin or ethnicity and Fijians to be described as indigenous Fijian. Should we continue to call Fiji Indians, Indo Fijians? Why is it that Mr Vakamocea calls for a ruling from the Speaker? Indians are all over the world and something that needs to be mentioned is that their contribution to the economic welfare of the nations they dwell in is enormous.
A non-resident Indian (NRI) is an Indian citizen who has migrated to another country. For tax and other official purposes the Government of India considers any Indian national away from India for more than 180 days in a year an NRI. In common usage, this often includes Indian-born individuals who have taken the citizenship of other countries. A Person of Indian Origin (PIO) is literally, simply a person of Indian origin who is not a citizen of India. For the purposes of issuing a PIO Card, the Indian Government considers anyone of Indian origin up to four generations removed, to be a PIO.
There is a huge NRI and PIO population across the world, estimated at about 25 million. Here in Fiji, Indo-Fijians are people born in Fiji, but who are ethnically Indian. The constitution of Fiji defines “Indian” as anybody who can trace, through either the male or the female line, their ancestry back to anywhere on the Indian subcontinent. They are mostly descended from indentured labourers brought to the islands by Fiji’s British colonial rulers between 1879 and 1916 to work on Fiji’s sugar plantations. These were complemented by the later arrival of Gujarati and Punjabi immigrants.
Indo-Fijians are concentrated in the so-called sugar belt and in cities and towns on the northern and western coasts of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu; their numbers are much scarcer in the south and inland areas. The majority of Indo-Fijians are Hindi speakers, with large minorities speaking Bhojpuri, Urdu, Tamil, Bihari, Gujarati, and Punjabi, among others. Almost all Indo-Fijians are also fluent in English, and in the younger generation, English appears to be gradually replacing Indian languages.
The Indian communities in other countries identify themselves as Indo and the name of the country follows to identify their citizenship like: Indo-Caribbean, Indo-Fijian, Indo-Guyanese, Indo-Mauritian, Indo-Canadian, Indo-Trinidadian Indians in Trinidad call themselves Indo-Trinidadians. They are people of South Asian descent who are citizens or nationals of Trinidad and Tobago. They are also referred to simply as Indians or East Indians.
Like many Indo-Caribbeans, many are also descended from all over the Indian subcontinent. Indo-Caribbean people or Indo Caribbeans are people of South Asian origin who live in the Caribbean, or the descendants of such people. Today, Indo-Caribbeans form a large part of the population in Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad. Smaller groups of Indo-Caribbeans live elsewhere in the Caribbean, especially Barbados, Jamaica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Many Indo-Caribbean people have migrated to the United States of America, Canada, The Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom.
Indo-Canadians are Canadians whose origin traces back to the nation of India. The term Indian is not commonly used to describe people of ancestral origin from India since it has been used in the past and present to refer to the Aboriginals of Canada. The term East Indian is also used to distinguish people of ancestral origin from India from people from the Caribbean, since they are sometimes referred to as West Indian. Most Indo-Canadians prefer, and many times will refer to themselves, as Indians more than East Indians.
This is partially because many of them are immigrants who are used to being referred to as the internationally used term. However, because the term East Indian is not pejorative and is in widespread use in Canada, this term is accepted by Indo-Canadians. Another term, NRI (non-resident Indian), is used by Indians in India to refer to Indians abroad, including Canada. According to Statistics Canada in 2001, there were 713,330 people who considered themselves as being Indo-Canadians.
The main concentration of the Indo-Canadian population is centred in the Greater Vancouver Area and the Greater Toronto Area, however there are growing communities in Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal. Below is an approximation of the NRI population in various territories in the world. Middle East: Saudi Arabia 1,400,000; United Arab Emirates 1,200,000; Kuwait 500,000; Oman 350,000; Qatar 175,000; Bahrain 140,000; Yemen 100,000; and Jordan 4,100 South East Asia: Malaysia 2,300,000; Singapore 400,000; and Philippines 125,000. South America and the Caribbean: Guyana 326,782; Suriname 162,113; Trinidad 473,735; as well as nominal communities in Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Africa: South Africa 1,200,000; Mauritius 800,000; Reunion 250,000; Kenya 70,000; Uganda 60,000; Tanzania 50,000; Madagascar 30,000; Mozambique 21,000; Zambia 20,000; and Zimbabwe 20,000. Europe: United Kingdom 1,500,000; Netherlands 300,000; and France 70,000. North America: United States 2,500,000; and Canada 713,330 (2001). Oceania: Fiji 350,000; Australia 150,000; and New Zealand 70,000.
Indians in the USA are one of the largest among the groups of Indian diaspora, numbering about 1.7 million, and probably the one of the most well off - their median income is 1.5 times that of the host country. They are well represented in all walks of life, but particularly so in academia, information technology and medicine. There were over 4,000 PIO professors and 33,000 Indian-born students in American universities in 1997-98. The American Association of the Physicians of Indian Origin boasts a membership of 35,000. In 2000, Fortune magazine estimated the wealth generated by Indian Silicon Valley entrepreneurs at about $250 billion.
Here in Fiji the Indo Fijian community controls the business sector and contributes massively to the economic development of the nation. By using the name Indo Fijian, it clearly differentiates them from the Fijian race. The Constitution does stop the use of the name Indo Fijian. Under the constitution we are all Fiji Islanders and the indigenous people are called the Fijians. This not the first time that this call had been made in parliament as in 2004 Senator Adi Litia Cakobau raised the matter.
In her contribution to the Senate in the form of an adjournment motion the Bau chief said the use of the expression ‘Indo-Fijian’ should be criminalised because it was diluting the word “Fijian”. She said Indians who were born in Fiji had their registered ethnicity at birth as Indian. “They are identified as Indians in all census counts,” she said. “They are Indians in the Electoral Act. They have social, economic, political and ideological contact with India. Their political party receives cash and other forms of help from India.
“They listen, speak, read, write and worship in Hindi. They eat Indian food, watch Indian movies and listen to Hindi music” This was part of Adi Litia’s speech as part of her adjournment motion in 2004. Adi Litia said “the constant usage of this ‘Indo-Fijian’ coinage, bullies the mind of the unsuspecting and unwary Fijian into accepting it without question. Thus a blatant lie is being subtly injected into the collective Fijian, national and international consciousness”. She said her motives in making the statement were not racial or political.”
One thing that should be clarified is the fact that the name Indo Fijian does not include the Fiji Indians as Fijians. It is clear that a Fijian is registered in the Vola ni Kawa Bula (VKB). Why should we bother about the name? Surely the name Indo Fijian identifies Fiji born Indians. The name is not going to cause division and I believe it should remain. Mr Vakamocea is expressing his right but the constitution is silent on the matter. We are all Fiji Islanders but an Indo Fijian is a Fiji born Indian and is also a citizen.

Sunday, August 6, 2006

Blueprint Review Next Year


Fijilive.com, Monday August 07, 2006

The Fiji Prime Minister’s Office says a comprehensive review of the Government’s Affirmative Action programme will be undertaken next year and not this year as earlier planned.

The chief executive in the PM’s Office Joji Kotobalavu said at the Government was currently monitoring the 29 Affirmative Action programmes or Blueprint on a monthly basis.

FBCL reports the PM’s Office is also the coordinating agency for the Government in the monitoring of all Affirmative Action programmes.

Kotobalavu said this was why the multi party Government established a cabinet sub committee on Equal Opportunities and Human Rights to undertake the comprehensive review.

This Cabinet sub committee is going to be chaired by the PM and the review will be undertaken in the course of the coming year.

"Now in the context of this comprehensive review, the recent report by the Human Rights Commission on the Government’s Affirmative Action programme will be an important input.

"But the Cabinet sub committee itself will ensure that in this review they will be wide participation by the people in general because under the Constitution there is a requirement that Government resources drawn from the Budget for the implementation of the Affirmative Action programmes must be based on a board understanding by all the communities in Fiji.

"So that in general is the purpose of this comprehensive review," Kotobalavu said.

The Fiji Human Rights Commission has termed all of the Government’s "race-based" affirmative action policies as "unconstitutional" and called for affirmative action policies to be based on needs not race.

The report was prepared after a complaint last year by the Fiji Labour Party, the Citizens Constitutional Forum and the Fiji Teachers' Union on the various race-based programmes.

At the recent Asia Pacific Human Rights Forum, Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi said the Affirmative Action programme should be audited to determine the efficacy and legitimate expenditure of funds as it involved taxpayers’ monies.

Saturday, August 5, 2006

Copy of Letters to Fiji Times Editor

Subject: Pita Driti -January 6, 2007


I have a message for army officer Pita Driti from a relative of Laisa Vulakoro.
He as the Land Force Commander gave orders for innocent and courageous Fijians to be picked up and taken to the army camp for questioning. He and his superiors are nothing but cowards because they hide behind the guns they have.

They have now won themselves the title of "women bashers".

They have disgraced the institution that Laisa's uncle and Fiji's sole Victoria Cross recipient, Sefanaia Sukanaivalu, died preserving. Driti should ask himself whether he had remotely done anything to uphold the proud tradition of the Fiji military he and his misguided and deranged superiors have now bastardised?

History only records heroes and not the likes of Bainimarama, Driti, Kean, Teleni and Leweni.

Driti should know that as long as he walks this earth, the people of Yacata in Cakaudrove will always despise him and his bullies for what they did to Laisa Vulakoro.

PM Be Firm - 10 November 2006

Sir

The PM must never bow to the illegal, illegitimate and nonsensical demands by the Military to withdraw any of the Bills his government is currently navigating through parliament. He has the support of all indigenous Fijians minus the brainwashed lackeys of the Military Commander who he labels as his "silent majority". The BLV has upheld the legality of his government and the paramountcy of parliament to make laws. I suggest he has again the mandate and endorsement of this body and he should go ahead and implement the policies.

Has the Commander ever thought of the generational impact on Fijians if these legislation are not enacted? As in other nations, when natives' interest get positively addressed in a significant manner, the country's progress often flourishes because the discourse then moves on to developmental and not "rights" based entitlement. I will tell the Commander that what the PM is striving to achieve for indigenous Fijians in Fiji is the envy of similar indigenous groups in other Pacific nations with a large European population.

The real issue with the Military and Commander's position is the very low regard they have of the average Fijian who they keep believing as not being smart enough to discern the implications of these legislations. I would suggest it is perhaps an assessment more suitably directed at the Military leadership, than Fijians who have and will in generations to come, never rest until they have back their entitlements and birthrights.

Military Officers - 4 November 2006

Sir

Fiji's PM deserve to be congratulated for confronting the Fiji military for their illegal posturing to oust a democratically mandated government. The same for Fiji's Police Commissioner for his courage and common sense to stand up to this dumb posturing by the military commander just because he has the ammunition and weapon to brandish around.

Police should go ahead and arrest the Commander and blacklist him as an international fugitive if he wants to defy Police authority to do so. Then let us see what he and his lackeys and yes people under him resort to in response.

What is obvious in all this sad development is the lack of steel and loyalty in the officer corp in the Fiji military to the institution, instead blindly pledging their loyalty to the Commander. The officer corp should wake up to the folly of this and be counted to redirect the Fiji military back to its rightful and proud place as an agent of the state and people of Fiji that is under civilian control.

History often remembers only those who stand up to do the right thing for their country and not for an individual who happen to hold sway for only a period in time. Let Fiji record in its history those officers in Fiji's current military who will decide to take such a step. Fiji and the vanua eagerly awaits.

Subject: Army's Outburst - 16 October 2006

Sir
As an obvious apologist for the military in Fiji, Iliesa Cewanivavalagi (FT 15 October) is displaying a dismal lack of understanding of the organisationa and machinery of government.

There is nothing wrong in the military alerting government to implications of any intended policy, but it has to do this within the processes set out for government agencies and not as an added arm of the state. The military is an agent of government and subject to its decision making and policies. It is therefore odd for the military to be opposing government policies let alone publicly advocating against it. Sadly, this appears to be conveniently ignored by Cewanivavalagi.

It indicates bad leadership and smacks of hypocrisy when you expect your subordinates to tow the line while not applying the same principle to those who are your superiors and who are legitimately mandated through the electoral process. This in essence is what is
fundamentally wrong about the Miitary's outburst in Fiji. Anyone blind to this is refuting the indefensible and belittles the excellent work and reputation of the military built up over the years, especially by those of our forebears who spllied their blood upholding this and similar principles.

Those of us who have retained our Fiji citizenship while working away for the time being, feel very keenly the lost opportunities the perceived instability such a confusion is creating offshore. To that end I would be taking every opportunity, such as at my upcoming Bose ni Yasana on my island, to table and discuss the topic with others.

Perhaps Cewanivavalagi could do something similar, and outside his immediate circles, if he really cares for the military in Fiji.


Subject: Indigenous Partnerships - 15 October 2006


Sir

The just completed Melanesian Arts and Cultural Festival in Suva emphasised the value and pride that can be harnessed when indigenous peoples come together for a cause that is founded on their values and beliefs.

In the area of public policy, it is this same ingredient that is critical, yet lacking, in seeking to move indigenous groups up the economic value chain. But the political environment in which this has to be pursued do not often place a high regard on those values. Value conflict is the very basis of problem solving and the need for governments. Even worse when approaches to solving those problems in government are often derived from a monocultural and largely Eurocentric base.

One way to capitalise on this value based approach is increased partnerships among and between indigenous peoples in the Pacific. For Fiji this could involve pairing up the 14 Fijian provinces with Maori tribes in New Zealand on the basis of similar asset base to learn of each other. A Maori tribe with a large coastal fishing enterprise such as Ngai Tahu in South Island, could pair up with a province in Fiji with similar asset and likewise for ecotourism and forestry enterprises.

What would be unique in this partnership is the need to not only learn from each other on how to develop and obtain a commercial return from their natural assets, but also to gain an understanding of each other’s history, myths, arts and culture as indigenous people. These are areas in which a common understanding based on peoples’ values and beliefs could be used as levers to drive other opportunities such as economic and business development.

It is simply about applying and utilising human and cultural capital to realise economic outcomes. It is founded on affirming who we are as people as opposed to the exploitation of who we are and what we own for the time of our lives, on behalf of our forebears and those to come ahead of us.

<>Subject: Economic Panic - October 2006

Sir

While the doom merchants may be having a field day in relation to the current economic situtation in Fiji, there is no need to panic at this stage. Government has signalled a number of key economic reforms that should help curb the blow out in its spending while
maitaining its current account status. Reforms of a number of departments and ministries should provide opportunities to absorb surplus staff from core departments. However this need to be accompanied by more concerted effort to recover lost revenue either through unpaid taxes, duties and fines.

Dealing with the demand side will only bring about limited savings if revenue rightfully due to government is also not efficiently gathered in. Raising the dividend paid to government from its commercial entities should also be part of raising its revenue base as some of them continue to underperform.

Investment in infrastructure is also critical and much needed even though it is capital intensive and has long term impact on government accounts. Tourism and trade depends on it and Fiji is now reaping the cost of not investing in the now aged infrastructures and
utilities. With these in place, Fiji has every chance of emerging from its current economic situation without creating additional pain for its citizens.

However, all these would be useless in an environment of political instability as has been singularly generated by an unruly military. That is why a Supreme Court ruling of its role is critical to sorting out its proper place. While it is obvious to most, the military does not yet realise that its untutored foray into politcs in Fiji now poses as the single most factor that will relegate Fiji back into the backblocks of developing nations. Perhaps this is what
the army commander was referring to when relating his vision of Fijians back to wearing grass skirts.

<>
Subject: Military Leadership -October 2006

Sir

The Military's recent submission on the Qoliqoli Bill

merely lay bare again for any right thinking person to
conclude that its leadership has reached its use by
date. As everyone locally and even externally have
witnessed, it has become one of the biggest obstacle
for Fiji in trying to move forward.

One of the marks of good leadership is knowing when
you have become a hindrance to the desire of the
majority to pursue a particular path. Despite blatantly obvious
signals and directions to the
Military that this is what Fiji wants,
as enunciated by
those legitimately mandated to do so, they persist in
their illegal attempt to derail the wishes of the
government of the day. It now behoves those in the
military with sense to show true leadrership and
correct the path the current commander is taking the
military in.

Subject: Economics Not Politics - August 2006

Sir

Fijians have tended to respond to perceived or real erosion of their rights in the political governance of the country in political terms. This has often resulted in either some restoration of those rights or the tipping in the balance of power to the other end of the nationalistic spectrum, sparking condemnation allround. Often not much gain in real economic terms arises from this political recalibration until the next so called “political upheaval”.

What if the responses have been economic via a concerted focus on developing Fijian human capital and asset base to yield ongoing economic and commercial returns? The fact that the economic lot of a majority of Fijians have not significantly improved as a result of righting the political ship, would mean that Fiji politics will remain a “zero sum” enterprise.

Maori in New Zealand have firmly embarked on raising their contribution to and impact on, the economy in a manner that is also revitalising to their culture and place as the indigenous people of Aotearoa. While they have received assistance from the State by way of compensation for confiscated lands, there is a deliberate focus on realising their economic potential as a key driver to realising broader political and cultural priorities.

The challenge then for Government is providing a climate that will enable the Fijian potential to unfold and blossom. Yet this will remain only a dream if the size of Government is around 11% of GDP, and investment is largely towards consumption. It is a clear indication that Fiji is over governed and regrettably, is hardly the recipe for unleashing Fijian potential. For Fijians, impacting the balance sheet should now take precedence over continuously righting the political ship of the nation.

Subject: Review NLTB – August 2006

Sir

Recent cases of Fijian landowners resorting to blockades over developments on their land point to a disturbing trend that requires a focused policy response from Government. It must be understood that these are not unrelated but interconnected issues that is world wide as the centre of government begins to deal with the desire by its citizens for self sufficiency and independence.

Fijians no longer regard the State as their own as in former times. Just look at landowners taking government to court and recent blockades. Devolution of power outwards always push government in the way of trying to preserve the status quo. Instead, what is required is a good stocktake of what is and should be the role of the State in fostering self sufficiency and independence. Those indicating the desire and are able, should be supported to gain independence from the State. To this end, machinery of government initially set up to preserve the centre also has to be assessed if it is still "fit for purpose".

Sad to say in the case of the NLTB, its organisational culture and mode of operation increasingly appears to be all about keeping Fijians under the apron of the State. This is simply contrary to the tide of events as Fijians want to strike out their own pathway to self sufficiency and independence from the State.

S Lealea

Subject: Sack Commander-June 2005

Sir

The latest childish outburst by the Commander against the PM further reveals the sad state of affairs in the military and the increasing risk posed by them against moving the nation ahead.

As stated by the CEO in the PM's office, what is clearly lacking in the military is credible intellectual leadership capable of discerning what the legitimate role and functions of public servants are and acting in accordance within the rules of the public service. One simply has to contrast how the Police Commissioner goes about engaging his political superiors in order to table operational matters for his portfolio to how the Commander stumbles all over rules of public sector governance with undue arrogance. The said thing about it all is that the Commander may have inadvertently brought this on without even realising the gravity or consequences of such actions.

Any law abiding public servant would know what to do if he or she feels strongly about the policy direction of the Government of the day. The decent and honourable thing to do is to resign, join a political party, and take on the Government on the same political footing, not hiding behind the cloak of the public service and taking pot shots at the Government that pay his salary, then appealing to the political and moral high ground to justify his actions. Worse still, to also brainwash junior officers in the military to his line of thinking against Government speaks more of his insecurity than the legitimacy of his position.

By his actions, the Commander may well not realise that he and the military have now become the biggest obstacle to moving Fiji forward. What an irony such a situation has revealed given the Fijian dominance of the military. Again the key lay in the leadership which in the case of the current Commander is sadly lacking and for that reason he must go.

S Lealea

Subject: Reconciliation Bill - May 2005

Sir

The proposed Bill is so far the best approach to bringing about closure to the events of 2000 despite the opposition raised so far by the vociferous few, most of whom could never claim to represent indigenous Fijian aspirations.

It needs to be made clear that the cost in political, social and economic terms of Not moving to bring matters to a close would stifle current and future desire for stability and positive development. In essence, it is about weighing and balancing the observance of justice on one hand and the need to move ahead as a nation. For now, it is my view that moving ahead rather than placing too much weight on "punishing" the perpetrators, which appears to be the driving agenda of those opposing the Bill.

Fijians are not going to put up with the ongoing retributions meted out to those who now want to move on to positive development and dialogue without being dragged back by the vengeful desire of politically correct public servants and misguided and politically naive elements in the military.

S Lealea

Subject: Unity Bill Cost – May 2005

Sir

Dr Wadan Narsey placed a $6million cost on the Unity Bill in a way designed to suggest that it would be a waste of resource and effort.

As an economist, he should have seen it fit to also compare such a cost with the benefits that would result from undertaking such an exercise. The finality in resolving differences and its impact in ushering in a climate of stability would no doubt result in untold return by way of inward investments, unclogging the courts system and general positive outlook of the future. Admittedly, it may well be difficult to quantify valuations that could be placed on some of these changes. Dr Narsey, to be balanced in his analysis should at least acknowledge this other side of the ledger.

Doing so would be a much more balanced approach to his analysis in that it would make it clear that for any decision there are always trade-offs involved. And that depending on the valuations applied, people, and in the case of Government its true representative, unlike the military or police, have the mandate to consider and implement.

S Lealea

Subject: Message for Fiji Army Boss - February 2005

Sir

The choice for the Commander and others in the army who think they're to be treated differently from other public servants is nakedly simple- tow the line and follow Government policy consistent with the concept of government or resign and test your mandate with the people so that you could engage in a political debate with Government on policy issues.

Have they not caught on to the concept that it is Government that sets policy and public servants carry it out, no matter how unpalatable it is? That is what being a public servant is about, in that you serve the public through service to those who legitimately have the mandate of the people, which is the Government of the day. Once you engage in a debate that impinges on that mandate as a public servant, the honourable thing to do is to resign and seek that mandate in order to legitimise your position in that debate. After all, it is Government that pays your salary pure and simple.

S. Lealea

Subject: Under-Performing Government Companies - February 2005

Sir

I have always argued, and continue to hold, that major State enterprises are not being challenged enough so as to return maximum revenue for Government. A reason could well be in the formula for structuring dividend payments, in that based on profit, State enterprises such as Telecom Fiji and Fiji Post could achieve their target without any connection to the level of investment (by way of capital and asset worth) tied up in the enterprises.

A much more realistic approach would be a return based on 10% net worth of the enterprise compared to over 50% of profit. I distinctly recall commenting on this same point some years back on Winston Thompson, now of Telecom Fiji, handing a dividend cheque to Government representing over 50% profit for National Bank just months before it collapsed. The truth then stands as of now, in that a profit-based dividend payment regime does not accurately reflect the net worth of an enterprise. Government will continue to miss out on much needed revenue if this issue continues to be neglected, especially for major enterprises such as Telecom Fiji and Fiji Post.

S. Lealea

Subject: Law as Policy – October 2004

Sir

Recent, current and upcoming court cases involving Fijian chiefs around their alleged involvement in the political events of 2000 raise fundamental issues around the place of laws as instruments of public policy.

In effect, outcomes to date of court cases such as that for the Vice President, appeared to have elevated the place of laws of the land and the status of judicial officers who administer it, to a position which for a place such as Fiji, seem unrealistic and bound to be unproductive in public policy terms. I say this because it seems clear that law making and legal pronouncements in Fiji are being carried out in a politically charged context. Judges and legal practitioners are unelected officials whose role do not extend to applying the law to achieve public policy outcomes as these are politically determined and require popular mandate.

Law is merely an instrument of public policy, a means available to elected people to realise outcomes they seek for their constituencies. To the extent the law becomes an obstacle, it is well within the mandate of those popularly elected to seek changes to it. It seems to me that Fiji now is awash with judicial officers who, by virtue of international alignment and correctness, appear keen to adopt a more activist and punitive approach than is necessary or consistent with their mandate.

S Lealea

Subject: ADB Projection Flaw – September 2004

Sir

I recently read an item on the Asian Development Bank's forecast for Fiji and it would appear it was based on some flawed analysis. For a start it did not seem to match the optimism in key sectors such as tourism and investment.

Too much undue emphasis also appeared to be placed on the political situation and its impact. While this is a key factor, at least the economic fundamentals and efforts to date at promoting reconciliation will provide some buffer against any adverse impact on the economy, especially during the onset of the next general election.

Two other factors need to be addressed in order to really bed down the economic recovery Fiji is currently enjoying. First is the need to reform the labour market as there is simply too much influence by organised unions in dictating wage setting and working conditions thereby strangling investment, especially new ones. Good businesses can put up with bad national politics but not with bullying unions.

Secondly, there is a real need to break up Telecom's monopoly to ensure equitable access to, and hasten wide use of, broadband technology. E-commerce will not take off in Fiji unless there is greater access by businesses to new and fast internet technology. To this end, Government has a major role to play with its regulatory role to ensure the wider population also has access to affordable IT technology.

Otherwise, you would just be creating a new IT underclass with the cost to be eventually borne in forgone benefits to the national economy in the end.

S Lealea

Subject: Mixed Policy Signals – September 2004

Sir

On arrival at Nadi one is instantly impressed with the boom in economic activity in Fiji. I even struggled to get a room when my internet booking for accommodation did not register with the local hotel as it was handled by its international chain. This no doubt is the outcome of a combination of factors, including good economic management by Government and is greatly pleasing.

This picture changes significantly on arrival in Suva, with its focus on political posturing and the challenges of public policy management. The impression gained is there is competition within elements of the State to the extent it projects a mixed picture as to who is in fact running the country. In public policy terms this is an intolerable situation when public officials seem to be remarking on the policy direction of the elected Government. Officials’ role is to contribute to constructive discussions to enable Government to reach policy decisions then get on with implementation for which their performance would then be assessed. The temerity with which some officials in the disciplined services to respond to any government pronouncements concerning policy direction can never be tolerated anywhere else.

One way to deal with these untutored utterances is to factor it in the performance management system within the public service in a manner that is focused on achieving outcomes for Government. In that way, it takes the focus away from managing for departmental interests and recasts the mindset away from "what departments do and how, to what difference what they do makes to realising outcomes for the Government of the day".

S. Lealea

Subject: Envoy Out of Line – November 2000

Sir

What ever sound reasons Mr Tia Barrett may have to utter the words he did at the USP event about the situation in Fiji, as a senior diplomat he should have been aware of the potential repercussions.

Even more disappointing is the fact that, as a Maori, he should have displayed much more sensitivity and understanding about the difficult task ahead for the Interim Government in balancing the demands of the indigenous Fijians and the need to restore democratic government.

I like to think that Mr Barrett's unfortunate choice of words has more to do with echoing the negative sentiments of his political masters towards Fiji than his personal attitude to Fiji and its government. Mr Barrett has played an important role in keeping intact the link between the two governments. It would be a great shame if he allows himself to be exploited by a blind adherence to foreign doctrines that even Maori in New Zealand are beginning to question.

S. Lealea

Subject: Blueprint Plan- July 2000

Sir

The sooner Mahendra Chauhdry realises that any hope he has of his former government being reinstated is all but vain hope, the better it will be for Fiji.

The Bose Levu Vakalevu is once more and rightly at the titular head of the governance of Fiji. The key now is to allow the interim government to be appointed by the President and the task of revamping the constitution and bringing around the economy to begin, without the sniping from the sideline by those whose bad political judgement has put paid to their tenure of office.

Mr Qarase's blueprint plan for Fijians outlines some very useful areas of much needed affirmative policies for Fijians and should be welcomed. It will be critical that the plan is well co-ordinated and brought under clear and overarching framework of implementation and monitoring that forges close partnership between central government and the provinces.

Provinces must be empowered to take advantage of the opportunities while central government develops the necessary monitoring, accountability and support structures. After all, the coup has highlighted how Fijians were alienated from the centre of government in relation to some of their long held concerns about their development. The takeovers by landowners of ancestral lands were telling reminders in recent weeks.

Much of the success of the policies in the blueprint plan will depend on how the responsibility for its implementation is bedded in at three levels namely: government or ministerial, departmental, and personal at the departmental head. It is at these levels that the accountability for realising the achievements in the plan should also be configured.

Fiji will probably only have one shot of righting the wrongs silently endured by indigenous Fijians for so long. Qarase's plan has scoped out some areas requiring urgent as well as long term attention. All it takes is to regard and face the task ahead as one of opportunity and challenge in the face of known adversity. As a nation, Fiji has never been known to shy away from such a confrontation.

S Lealea

Subject: Military Option - June 2000

Sir

The Military should think very carefully before opting for any role in the direct governance of Fiji.

From a conceptual standpoint the Military is basically a loose organisational entity whose identity and culture is determined by its members and whose values are in turn prescribed by external community forces. It is therefore no different to any other organ of government, except in relation to its capacity to enforce its authority with the means solely at its disposal at a point in time. Though they may not realise it, the criticism by FPSA and the unions of the military and the PSC is basically founded on this reality.

For that reason, the Military has so far been regarded as an enabling force in resolving the current crisis in Fiji. That is, it has so far been seen as a solution to the political problem facing Fiji. Support for the Military from Fiji's provinces is evidence of this ceding of authority to the military to effect a resolution.

This is bound to change the moment the Military assumes direct governance of the country, especially if it does so without seeking the endorsement of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC). Ratu Inoke Kubuabola's call to convene the GCC, which I agree with, points to the changing nature of the issue at stake. For Fijians, the authority to resolve the current problem is far different from a determination of their sovereignty and how best for it to be acknowledged and upheld. The Military runs the real risk of confusing these two interlinked yet separate questions if it insists on its own approach to resolving the coup in Fiji.

The military therefore needs to explore other options rather than issuing ultimatums which are unrealistic. To persist on its own solution to the problem in Fiji could result in the Military being seen as part of the problem itself. This is a development which the military could least afford given its existence as an organ of government whose integrity is only as good as the volume of goodwill given it by the Fijian society.

S. Lealea

Subject: Political Reality - June 2000

Sir

Recent display of pragmatism by the military in accepting that George Speight and his followers may have a contribution to make in the revamp of the 1997 Constitution is very welcome, be it a long time coming. It is critical that the military places priority over the re-examination of the constitutional framework for governing Fiji after recently giving very mixed signals to appease the various international delegations paying fleeting visits to Fiji.

A similarly welcome sense of reality was referred to by the Chief Justice as the basis for his accepting the current status of governance by the military. For that matter the Fiji Law Society would be misguided not to support the Chief Justice in his move as the optimal option to ensure the continued implementation of judicial policy and services for Fiji. To argue otherwise is to engage in a pointless and impractical tug-of-war in which participants have no real say in setting the rules of engagement.

The same could be said for unions and those agitating for non co-operation with authorities in Fiji in moves to minimise the impact of the current crisis. These detractors need to be reminded that loyalty to an ideal is a luxury that is least enjoyed by those who are prevented from valuing it for themselves.

S. Lealea

Subject: Diplomatic Doublespeak- June 2000

Sir

The hardline and punitive approach taken by Australia and NZ towards the current crisis in Fiji offers a study into the practice of diplomatic doublespeak by these two nations when compared to their treatment of relations with countries in South east Asia. Both these countries see their future tied economically with Asia. That is enough reason to display acquiescence when confronted with crises in Asia that have similarities to that in Fiji. Using the instrument of aid, countries such as Fiji are therefore made to tow the ideological line regarded as appropriate by others.

In the long term, the way out for Fiji involves forging closer links with the indigenous populations of the Asia and Pacific region. Countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and importantly China, display a better understanding of the issues confronting indigenous peoples. Amongst this group, there is more than enough market and consumer power to ensure individual nations are not picked apart by the exploitative tendencies of nations in the Pacific who somehow feel compelled to continue with a colonialist agenda in the wrong half of the globe.

S. Lealea

Subject: Provincialism Welcome- June 2000

Sir

Recent moves by provinces and confederacies in Fiji to reassert authority over their governance points to an interesting quest for self government by Fijians which undoubtedly has also come of age. This is a natural reaction in the event of a weak central government, especially in addressing the concerns of significant groups in society.

Rather than being regarded as a detrimental development, it is a trend occurring globally in nations peopled by more than one ethnic grouping. It would therefore be inaccurate to portray it as a disintegration of a nation but rather a redefinition in the mode of governance. Accepting this will focus attention on how best to manage such a development.

For Fijians, there are no reasons why a number of central government powers and functions cannot be devolved to provincial-type governments. These could be in the delivery areas of rural and economic development, social welfare, health, education, aspects of law and order and the like. In turn, central government retain powers relating to raising taxes, defence and foreign relations and trade, in addition to setting overall policy direction for the nation.

If well considered, provincialism could offer an avenue for Fijians to realise their quest for self government in an age where weak central states are increasingly becoming the norm.

S. Lealea

Subject: Fijian Paramountcy- June 2000

Sir

Despite all the doom and gloom forecast as a result of the current crisis in Fiji, there exists a real opportunity to redress the concerns of Fijians in the context of Fiji's governance structures.

The failure to date has been due to an overdependence on a constitutional and electoral response in dealing with the Fijian concerns. While these responses are important, it has been insufficient in ensuring appropriate and targeted policy responses to deal with the poor socio-economic outcomes confronting Fijians at the practical level. This has meant that initiatives for Fijians remain mainstream and lumped with those of other groups thereby diluting its effect. The opening up of the Fiji Development Bank to other groups is an example of a mainstreaming approach.

As well, there are no clear accountability on government departments to respond to Fijian needs in a targeted manner. To address this, the Ministry of Fijian Affairs could have a greater role in monitoring and ensuring that departments and permanent secretaries annually report on how they respond to the needs of Fijians in all outcome areas.

As long as socio-economic outcome gaps exist between Fijians and other groups in Fiji, it will continue to fuel resentment and doubt as to the real intention of the various sections in the previous constitutions relating to the paramountcy of Fijian interest.

S Lealea

Subject: Policy Flaw – June 2000

Sir

The coup in Fiji is a classical lesson in how not to develop public policy. The Chaudhry government's policies on land, affirmative initiatives, public sector ethics, civil service appointments and Fijian affairs suffered from not being properly appraised in terms of its political implications on key stakeholders. It is one thing to assert that one has a mandate to govern, yet it is totally ill advised to ram through badly thought out policies without determining the range of impacts it is bound to generate. The mandate to govern arises from the electoral process while the efficacy of public policies is largely determined by the level of consensus that exists in the public-policy development process.

Public servants have only a limited part to play in figuring out the political implications of government policies as this is the proper function of political appointees such as a Private Secretary. In a public policy sense, the downfall of the Chaudhry government resulted from bad political management. S. Lealea

Subject: Folly of Multiculturalism- June 2000

Sir

The military needs to be cautious about being seen to be prolonging the resolution of the current crisis in Fiji. After all it is a political crisis which ultimately requires a political solution. To that end matters to do with the governance of the country has to be vested in a civilian-type entity such as the Great Council of Chiefs with the military having a role to play (ensuring law and order) within such an institutional framework.

No amount of pontificating by outsiders on the virtues of democracy can resolve the crisis in Fiji. What seems common to all external pronouncements is the lack of real appreciation of the depth of feeling by Fijians on the threat (real or perceived) to their identity as the first peoples of Fiji. The 1997 Constitution sowed the seed for the downgrading of Fijian interest by the emphasis it placed on multiculturalism.

Maori in New Zealand remain hesitant about multiculturalism for the reason that it would tend to de-emphasise the bicultural nature of its relationship with the Crown. It does not mean that other groups are not important, but simply that it is critical not to lose sight of the paramountcy of the interest of the peoples of the land.

Fiji has been misled by those who champion the benefits of a multiracial society without actually examining the extent to which it lumps the interest of the indigenous peoples with those of others. This is evident in the equality of treatment approach of the 1997 Constitution, as opposed to equality of outcomes. Malaysia has undergone similar experience and was able to come out of it in a manner that upholds the status of the indigenous Malay. Such an outcome is also well within the reach for Fijians.

S. Lealea