Fiji President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has urged legislators not to sow seeds of “fear and division” as the country moves towards a general election later this year.

Speaking at the opening of the fourth and final session of Parliament before the polls, Ratu Naiqama called on political leaders and their supporters to engage constructively and respect the rule of law before, during and after the elections.

Fijians are expected to head to the polls anytime between August 7 (earliest) this year and 6 February 2027 (latest).

In an almost hour-long speech, which mentioned the word “unity” 17 times and covered a wide range of topics, Ratu Naiqama also confirmed the coalition government had commenced a review of the 2013 Constitution.

“The Constitution Amendment Bill, like all other Bills, will be made public and undergo an extensive consultation process with robust public debate and input before it is tabled to Cabinet and Parliament,” he said.

AI will have ‘detrimental effect on governance’
Other topics focused from unity in diversity to climate change and the threats posed by artificial intelligence.

Ratu Naiqama said he was at pains to underline factors which created division, noting the threat of false information.

On media and artificial intelligence, he said information was being disseminated at unprecedented speed but with little regard for accuracy.

“The misuse of artificial intelligence is an emerging threat that will have a detrimental effect on governance, national unity and peace,” he said.

“While freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of our democracy, it carries with it a grave responsibility.”

Fiji’s multicultural society is one of its greatest strengths, he said. However, unity did not arise automatically from diversity, he added.

“Unity must be consciously built through fair laws, inclusive policies, respectful leadership, and a shared commitment to the common good.”

Flagged Truth Commission
Ratu Naiqama flagged the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process as important to fostering unity, inclusivity and mutual understanding across all communities, saying its “findings and recommendations should be approached with maturity, guiding practical measures that strengthen reconciliation, institutional learning, and lasting social cohesion”.

The president described climate change as “the defining challenge of our time” and that Fiji would remain a global leader in climate advocacy, “while acting decisively at home”.

Looking at the region, Ratu Naiqama said Pacific nations were navigating complex geostrategic dynamics, while striving to preserve peace, cooperation and their sovereignty.

He reiterated the importance of the Ocean of Peace concept reinvigorated by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka at last year’s Pacific Forum leaders’ summit.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji government is spending big on this year’s budget.

The country’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad, unveiled a FJ$4.8 billion (about NZ$3.5 billion) spending package, complete with cost of living measures and fiscal stimulus, to the Fijian Parliament on Friday.

This is about F$280 million more than last year, with the deficit widening to around $886 million.

Dr Prasad told Parliament that his government had guided the country to a better economic position than where he found it.

“When we came into office we were in a precarious economic crossroad . . . our first priority was to restore macroeconomic stability, rebuild trust in policymaking institutions, and chart a path towards sustainable and inclusive growth.”

The 2025/2026 budget consisted of a spending increase across almost every area, with education, the largest area of spending, up $69 million to $847 million overall.

The health sector received $611.6 million, the Fijian Roads Authority $388 million, and the Police force $240.3 million, all increases.

A package of cost of living measures costing the government $800 million has also been announced. This includes a value-added tax (VAT) cut from 15 percent to 12.5 percent on goods and services.

Various import duties, which firms pay for goods from overseas, have been cut, such as  chicken pieces and parts (from 42 to 15 percent) and frozen fish (from 15 to 0 percent).

A subsidy to reduce bus fares by 10 percent was announced, alongside a 3 percent increase in salaries for civil servants, both beginning in August.

Drastic international conditions
In a news conference, Dr Prasad said that responding to difficult global economic shocks was the primary rationale behind the budget.

“This is probably one of the most uncertain global economic environments that we have gone through. There has been no resolution on the tariffs by the United States and the number of countries, big or small,” he said.

“We have never had this kind of interest in Fiji from overseas investors or diaspora, and we are doing a lot more work to get our diaspora to come back.”

When asked why the VAT was cut, reducing government revenue and widening the deficit, Dr Prasad said there was a need to encourage consumer spending.

“If the Middle East crisis deepens and oil prices go up, the first thing that will be affected will be the supply chain . . . prices could go up, people could be affected more.”

On building resilience from global shocks, Dr Prasad said the budget would reduce Fiji’s reliance on tourism, remittances, and international supply chains, by building domestic industry.

“It kills two birds in one [stone]. It addresses any big shock we might get . . .  plus it also helps the people who would be affected.”

In their Pacific Economic Update, the World Bank projected economic growth of 2.6 percent in 2025, after a slump from 7.5 percent in 2023 to 3.8 percent in 2024.

Senior World Bank economist Ekaterine Vashakmadze told RNZ that Fiji was an interesting case.

“Fiji is one of the countries that suffered the sharpest shock [post-covid] . . .  because tourism stopped.”

“On the other hand, Fiji was one of the first countries in the Pacific to recover fully in terms of the output to pre-pandemic level.”

Deficit too high — opposition
Opposition members have hit out at the government over the scale of the spend, and whether it would translate into outcomes.

Opposition MP Alvick Maharaj, in a statement to local media outlet Duavata News, referred to the larger deficit as “deeply troubling”.

“The current trajectory is concerning, and the government must change its fiscal strategy to one that is truly sustainable.”

“The way the budget is being presented, it’s like the government is trying to show that in one year Fiji will become a developed country.”

MP Ketal Lal on social media called the budget “a desperate cloak for scandal” designed to appeal to voters ahead of elections in 2026.

“This is what happens when a government governs by pressure instead of principle. The people have been crying out for years. The Opposition has consistently raised concerns about the crushing cost of living but they only act when it becomes politically necessary. And even then, it’s never enough.”

He also pointed out, regarding the 3 percent increase in civil servants salaries, that someone earning $30,000 a year would only see a pay increase of $900 per year.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The deposed Prime Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, says Speight’s motive had less to do with indigenous rights and a lot more to do with power, greed, and access to the millions likely to accrue from Fiji’s mahogany plantation.

On this day 25 years ago, the elected government was held hostage at the barrel of the gun, the Parliament complex started filling up with rebels supporting the takeover, Suva City and other areas in Fiji were looted and burnt, and innocent people were attacked just because of their race.

Chaudhry said indigenous emotions were “deliberately ignited to beat up support for the treasonous actions of the terrorists”.

He said the coup threw the nation into chaos from which it had not fully recovered even to this day.

Chaudhry said using George Speight as a frontman, the “real perpetrators” of the coup, assisted by a group of armed rebels from the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), held Chaudhry and members of his government hostage for 56 days as they plundered, looted and terrorised the Indo-Fijian community in various parts of the country.

The Fiji Labour Party leader said that, as with current Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who led the first two coups in 1987, so with Speight in May 2000, that the given reason for the treason and the mayhem that followed was to “protect the rights and interests of the indigenous community”.

Chaudhry said today that it was widely acknowledged that the rights of the indigenous community was not endangered either in 1987 or in 2000.

He added that they were simply used to pursue personal and political agendas.

The FLP leader said those who benefitted were the elite in Fijian society, not ordinary people.

Chaudhry said this was obvious from current statistics which showed that currently the iTaukei surveyed made up 75 percent of those living in poverty.

He said poverty reports in the early 1990s showed practically a balance in the number of Fijians and Indo-Fijians living in poverty.

The former prime minister says it was obvious that the coups had done nothing to improve the quality of life of the ordinary indigenous iTaukei.

Instead, he said the coups had had a devastating impact on the entire socio-economic fabric of Fiji’s society, putting the nation decades behind in terms of development.

Chaudhry said the sorry state of Fiji today — “the suffering of our people and continued high rate of poverty, deteriorating health and education services, the failing infrastructure and weakened state of our economy” — were all indicators of how post-coup governments had failed to deliver on the expectations of the people.

He said: “It is time for us to rise above discredited notions of racism and fundamentalism and embrace progressive, liberal thinking.”

Chaudhry added that leaders needed to be judged on their vision and performance and not on their colour and creed.

Republished with permission from FijiVillage News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Fijian academic believes Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s failed attempt to garner enough parliamentary support to change the country’s 2013 Constitution “is only the beginning”.

Last week, Rabuka fell short in his efforts to secure the support of three-quarters of the members of Parliament to amend sections 159 and 160 of the constitution.

The prime minister’s proposed amendments also sought to remove the need for a national referendum altogether. While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

Video: RNZ Pacific

While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

Jope Tarai, an indigenous Fijian PhD scholar and researcher at the Australian National University, told RNZ Pacific Waves that “it is quite obvious that it is not going to be the end” of Rabuka’s plans to amend the constitution.

However, he said that it was “something that might take a while” with less than a year before the 2026 elections.

“So, the repositioning towards the people’s priorities will be more important than constitutional review,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The lack of women representation in parliaments across the world remains a vexed and contentious issue.

In Fiji, this problem has again surfaced for debate in response to Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica’s call for a quota system to increase women’s representation in Parliament.

Kamikamica was speaking at the “Capacity Building Training for Prospective Women and Youth Candidates in Local Elections” workshop in Suva in November last year.

The workshop was organised by Suva-based civil society organisation, Dialogue Fiji, in collaboration with Emily’s List Australia and funded by Misereor.

Kamikamica noted that women’s representation in Fiji’s Parliament peaked at 20 percent in 2018, only to drop to 14 percent after the 2022 elections.

He highlighted what he saw as an anomaly — 238,389 women voted in the 2022 election, surpassing men’s turnout.

However, women candidates garnered only 37,252 votes, accounting for just 8 percent of the total votes cast. This saw only six out of 54 female candidates elected to Parliament.

Reducing financial barriers
He said implementing supportive policies and initiatives, such as reducing financial barriers to running for office and providing childcare support could address some of the structural challenges faced by aspiring female leaders.

While agreeing with Kamikamica’s supportive remarks, Suva-based lawyer and former journalist Sainiana Radrodro called for urgent and concrete actions to empower aspiring women candidates besides just discussions.

She identified finance, societal norms and more recently, bullying on social media, as major obstacles for women aspiring for political careers. She said measures to address these problems were either insufficient, or non-existent.

Radrodro, who participated in the 2024 Women’s “Mock Parliament”, supports a quota system, but only as a temporary special measure (TSM). TSM is designed to advance gender equality by addressing structural, social, and cultural barriers, correcting past and present discrimination, and compensating for harm and inequalities.

The lawyer said that TSM could be a useful tool if applied in a measured way, noting that countries that rushed into implementing it faced a backlash due to poor advocacy and public understanding.

She recommends TSM based on prior and proper dialogue and awareness to ensure that women elected through such measures are not marginalised or stereotyped as having “ridden on the back of government policies”.

She said with women comprising half of the national population, it was sensible to have proportional representation in Parliament.

Social media attacks
While she agreed with Kamikamica that finance remained a significant obstacle for Fijian women seeking public office, she stated that non-financial barriers, such as attacks on social media, should not be overlooked.

To level the playing field, Radrodro’s suggestions include government subsidies for women candidates, similar to the support provided to farmers and small businesses.

“This would signal a genuine commitment by the government to foster women’s participation in the legislature,” she said.

Radrodro’s views were echoed by the University of the South Pacific postgraduate student in sociology, Lovelyn Laurelle Giva-Tuke.

She advocates a holistic approach encompassing financial assistance, specific legislation to address violence against women in political contexts; capacity-building programs to equip women with leadership, campaigning, and public speaking skills; and measures to ensure fair and equitable media coverage, rather than stereotyped and discriminatory coverage.

Giva-Tuke emphasised that society as a whole stand to benefit from a gender balanced political establishment. This was also highlighted by Kamikamica in his address. He cited research showing that women leaders tended to prioritise healthcare, education, and social welfare.

While there is no disagreement about the problem, and the needs to address it, Giva-Tuke, like Radrodro, believes that discussions and ideas must translate into action.

“As a nation, we can and must do more to create an inclusive political landscape that values women’s contributions at every level,” she said.

Protection another hurdle
For Radrodro, one of the most urgent and unaddressed problems is the targeting of women with harmful social media content, which is rampant and unchecked in Fiji.

“There is a very high level of attacks against women on social media even from women against other women. These raises reservations in potential women candidates who now have another hurdle to cross.”

Radrodro said a lot of women were simply terrified of being abused online and having their lives splashed across social media, which was also harmful for their children and families.

She said it was disheartening to see the lack of consistent support from leaders when women politicians faced personal attacks.

She called for stronger policies and enforcement to curb online harassment, urging national leaders to take a stand against such behavior.

Another female rights campaigner, the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh, called for stronger and more effective collaboration between stakeholders — communal groups, women’s groups, local government departments, political parties and the Fijian Elections Office.

Singh highlighted the need for a major educational campaign to change the mindsets with gender sensitisation programs targeting communities. She also recommended increased civic education and awareness of government structures and electoral systems.

Temporary law changes
While she supported reserved parliamentary seats for women, Singh said temporary changes in laws or regulations to eliminate systemic barriers and promote gender equality were also needed.

Singh also highlighted the importance of bridging the generational gaps between older women who have worked in local government, and young women with an interest in joining the political space by establishment of mentoring programmes.

She said mandating specific changes or participation levels within a defined timeframe and advocacy and awareness campaigns targeted at changing societal attitudes and promoting the inclusion of underrepresented groups were other options.

“These are just some ways or strategies to help increase representation of women in leadership spaces, especially their participation in politics,” said Singh.

The views of women such as Sainiana Radrodro, Lovelyn Laurelle Giva-Tuke and Nalini Singh indicate not just what needs to be done to address this problem, but also how little has actually been done.

On his part, Kamikamica has said all the right things, demonstrating a good understanding of the weaknesses in the system. What is lacking is the application of these ideas and sentiments in a real and practical sense.

Unless this is done, the ideas will remain just that — ideas.

Monika Singh is a teaching assistant with The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme and the supervising editor of the student newspaper Wansolwara. This article is first published by The Fiji Times and is republished here as part of a collaboration between USP Journalism and Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Let other people decide your salaries” is the latest message in the Fiji parliamentary pay controversy.

This is the call of Fiji’s longtime House of Representatives Secretary Edward Blakelock, who believes that the Special Emoluments Committee must be independent.

He said the Emoluments Committee, traditionally comprised independent consultants who were not sitting parliamentarians and cabinet ministers.

Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry echoed similar sentiments, adding the report on the review of emoluments for parliamentarians should have been cleared by Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad in cabinet before it was tabled in Parliament.

RNZ Pacific reports that the political fallout from Fijian parliamentarians giving themselves a pay rise last week is spiralling out of control after the main opposition — FijiFirst, the largest single political party in Parliament — sacked 17 out of 26 of its MPs.

While Parliament decides on the make-up of the Special Emoluments Committee, Blakelock said it should not comprise ministers and members of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 does not spell out who should be members of this committee, but in accordance with parliamentary tradition, the body is expected to be independent of the Parliament.

It should not include current sitting members as committee members so as to ensure no conflict of interest but to be eventually be answerable to Parliament in terms of the approval of its report.

Not eligible
He said the 1997 Constitution specified that exclusion under Section 83 (4) — that a person whose renumeration is reviewable by the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee is not eligible to be appointed as a member.

“As a matter of principle, I personally believe that a member of Parliament — whether a minister or not — should not be a member of a committee which reviews their own salaries, allowances and benefits purely because of conflict of interests issues and just basic fairness,” said Blakelock.

“As mentioned earlier, the 1997 Constitution specifies that exclusion in no uncertain terms.

“In other words, members are expected to be drawn from outside of the current membership of Parliament.

“The Parliament itself chooses by agreement who should be a member of the committee.

“Again, Parliament has to act within the confines of the relevant constitutional provisions and precedence, as well as the provisions in the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014.

“I would have thought that if the committee had comprised of members who are not current sitting members of Parliament, we would certainly not be going through all these rigmaroles today.

Independent committee
“The committee should, in my opinion, be independent and consist of experienced and qualified persons from outside of Parliament.”

The 2013 Constitution requires that Parliament “must, under its rules and orders, establish committees with the functions of scrutinising government administration and examining Bills and subordinate legislation and such other functions as are specified from time to time in the rules and orders of Parliament”.

And according to Parliament’s Standing Orders on Special Committees, a special committee may be established by a resolution of Parliament to carry out the assignment specified in the resolution.

This allowed Parliament to pass a resolution on July 12, 2023, for the establishment and membership of the Special Emoluments Committee.

The committee is chaired by Minister for Women Lynda Tabuya and comprises Minister for Infrastructure Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Education Minister Aseri Radrodro, and Opposition MPs Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu.

Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

So 40 Fiji members of Parliament voted in favour of the Special Committee on Emoluments Report on the review of MPs’ salaries, allowances and benefits in Parliament on Friday.

Now that’s not going down well with the masses, with many venting their frustrations on social media. From the outset, it appears there are many people frustrated by the turn of events in the august house.

Many also sent in letters to the editor expressing their disappointment. There was the odd one out though, reflecting on the need for a pay rise for parliamentarians. So in effect, we have both ends of the spectrum covered.

That’s democracy for you. People will have differing opinions on what constitutes the right action to take at this moment in our history.

Seven voted against the motion and five abstained.

There are differing opinions as well in the House.

The National Federation Party voted against the motion, pointing out their position was in accordance with the directive of the party.

Opposition leader Inia Seruiratu insisted government must be seen as an equal opportunity provider and an employer of choice.

In saying that, we reflect on a number of factors. They are intertwined with this change in financial status of our MPs.

There will be the line taken about the importance of the work and salary comparisons initially, the duration of their stint in Parliament, status and expectations from voters, and the argument about attracting and retaining professionals, against the impact this will have on our coffers, pinning down taxpayer dollars.

We have a scenario that isn’t a pleasant one at all. We have a competitive salary against timing, and expectations of a nation that isn’t well off at all.

We have a delicate situation. Sceptics will wonder about what is fair compensation against the financial strain this places on taxpayers.

Let’s face it. There are economic challenges, and this increase will no doubt be seen as an insensitive one.

For what it is worth, what we have now is a situation that raises the importance of transparency and public trust in government decisions.

There will be issues raised about the independence of the process, and references will no doubt be made back to earlier emolument committees, and the processes they followed.

There will be questions asked about the need for people independent of Parliament.

In saying that, we are reminded about the taxpayer having every right to hold our MPs up to scrutiny!

We again raise that delicate balance between effective governance and the concerns of the people!

Fred Wesley is editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Today is the 24th anniversary of renegade and failed businessman George Speight’s coup in 2000 Fiji. The elected coalition government headed by Mahendra Chaudhry, the first and only Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji, was held hostage at gunpoint for 56 days in the country’s new Parliament by Speight’s rebel gunmen in a putsch that shook the Pacific and the world.

Emerging recently from almost 24 years in prison, former investigative journalist and publisher Josefa Nata — Speight’s “media minder” — is now convinced that the takeover of Fiji’s Parliament on 19 May 2000 was not justified.

He believes that all it did was let the “genie of racism” out of the bottle.

He spoke to Islands Business Fiji correspondent, Joe Yaya on his journey back from the dark.

The Fiji government kept you in jail for 24 years [for your media role in the coup]. That’s a very long time. Are you bitter?

I heard someone saying in Parliament that “life is life”, but they have been releasing other lifers. Ten years was conventionally considered the term of a life sentence. That was the State’s position in our sentencing. The military government extended it to 12 years. I believe it was out of malice, spitefulness and cruelty — no other reason. But to dwell in the past is counterproductive.

If there’s anyone who should be bitter, it should be me. I was released [from prison] in 2013 but was taken back in after two months, ostensibly to normalise my release papers. That government did not release me. I stayed in prison for another 10 years.

To be bitter is to allow those who hurt you to live rent free in your mind. They have moved on, probably still rejoicing in that we have suffered that long. I have forgiven them, so move on I must.

Time is not on my side. I have set myself a timeline and a to-do list for the next five years.

What are some of those things?

Since I came out, I have been busy laying the groundwork for a community rehabilitation project for ex-offenders, released prisoners, street kids and at-risk people in the law-and-order space. We are in the process of securing a piece of land, around 40 ha to set up a rehabilitation farm. A half-way house of a sort.

You can’t have it in the city. It would be like having the cat to watch over the fish. There is too much temptation. These are vulnerable people who will just relapse. They’re put in an environment where they are shielded from the lures of the world and be guided to be productive and contributing members of society.

It will be for a period of up to six months; in exceptional cases, 12 months where they will learn living off the land. With largely little education, the best opportunity for these people, and only real hope, is in the land.

Most of these at-risk people are [indigenous] Fijians. Although all native land are held by the mataqali, each family has a patch which is the “kanakana”. We will equip them and settle them in their villages. We will liaise with the family and the village.

Apart from farming, these young men and women will be taught basic life skills, social skills, savings, budgeting. When we settle them in the villages and communities, we will also use the opportunity to create the awareness that crime does not pay, that there is a better life than crime and prison, and that prison is a waste of a potentially productive life.

Are you comfortable with talking about how exactly you got involved with Speight?

The bulk of it will come out in the book that I’m working on, but it was not planned. It was something that happened on the day.

You said that when they saw you, they roped you in?

Yes. But there were communications with me the night prior. I basically said, “piss off”.

So then, what made you go to Parliament eventually? Curiosity?

No. I got a call from Parliament. You see, we were part of the government coalition at that time. We were part of the Fijian Association Party (led by the late Adi Kuini Speed). The Fiji Labour Party was our main coalition partner, and then there was the Christian Alliance. And you may recall or maybe not, there was a split in the Fijian Association [Party] and there were two factions. I was in the faction that thought that we should not go into coalition.

There was an ideological reason for the split [because the party had campaigned on behalf of iTaukei voters] but then again, there were some members who came with us only because they were not given seats in Cabinet.

Because your voters had given you a certain mandate?

Well, we were campaigning on the [indigenous] Fijian manifesto and to go into the [coalition] complicated things. Mine was more a principled position because we were a [indigenous] Fijian party and all those people went in on [indigenous] Fijian votes. And then, here we are, going into [a coalition with the Fiji Labour Party] and people probably
accused us of being opportunists.

But the Christian Alliance was a coalition partner with Labour before they went into the election in the same way that the People’s Alliance and National Federation Party were coalition partners before they got into [government], whereas with us, it was more like SODELPA (Social Democratic Liberal Party).

So, did you feel that the rights of indigenous Fijians were under threat from the Coalition government of then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry?

Perhaps if Chaudhry was allowed to carry on, it could have been good for [indigenous] Fijians. I remember the late President and Tui Nayau [Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara] . . .  in a few conversations I had with him, he said it [Labour Party] should be allowed to . . . [carry on].

Did you think at that time that the news media gave Chaudhry enough space for him to address the fears of the iTaukei people about what he was trying to do, especially for example, through the Land Use Commission?

I think the Fijians saw what he was doing and that probably exacerbated or heightened the concerns of [indigenous] Fijians and if you remember, he gave Indian cane farmers certain financial privileges.

The F$10,000 grants to move from Labasa, when the ALTA (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Act) leases expired. Are you talking about that?

I can’t remember the exact details of the financial assistance but when they [Labour Party] were questioned, they said, “No, there were some Fijian farmers too”. There were also iTaukei farmers but if you read in between the lines, there were like 50 Indian farmers and one Fijian farmer.

Was there enough media coverage for the rural population to understand that it was not a one-sided ethnic policy?

Because there were also iTaukei farmers involved. Yes, and I think when you try and pull the wool over other people, that’s when they feel that they have been hoodwinked. But going back to your question of whether Chaudhry was given fair media coverage, I was no longer in the mainstream media at that time. I had moved on.

But the politicians have their views and they’ll feel that they have been done badly by the media. But that’s democracy. That’s the way things worked out.

Pacific journalism educator, David Robie, in a paper in 2001, made some observations about the way the local media reported the Speight takeover. He said, “In the early weeks of the insurrection, the media enjoyed an unusually close relationship with Speight and the hostage takers.”

He went on to say that at times, there was “strong sympathy among some journalists for the cause, even among senior editorial executives”.

David Robie is an incisive and perceptive old-school journalist who has a proper understanding of issues and I do not take issue with his opinion. And I think there is some validity. But you see, I was on the other [Speight’s] side. And it was part of my job at that time to swing that perception from the media.

Did you identify with “the cause” and did you think it was legitimate?

Let me tell you in hindsight, that the coup was not justified
and that is after a lot of reflection. It was not justified and
could never be justified.

When did you come to that conclusion?

It was after the period in Parliament and after things were resolved and then Parliament was vacated, I took a drive around town and I saw the devastation in Suva. This was a couple of months later. I didn’t realise the extent of the damage and I remember telling myself, “Oh my god, what have we done? What have we done?”

And I realised that we probably have let the genie out of the bottle and it scared me [that] it only takes a small thing like this to unleash this pentup emotion that is in the people. Of course, a lot of looting was [by] opportunists because at that time, the people who
were supporting the cause were all in Parliament. They had all marched to Parliament.

So, who did the looting in town? I’m not excusing that. I’m just trying to put some perspective. And of course, we saw pictures, which was really, very sad . . .  of mothers, women, carrying trolleys [of loot] up the hill, past the [Colonial War Memorial] hospital.

So, what was Speight’s primary motivation?

Well, George will, I’m sure, have the opportunity at some point to tell the world what his position was. But he was never the main player. He was ditched with the baby on his laps.

So, there were people So, there were people behind him. He was the man of the moment. He was the one facing the cameras.

Given your education, training, experience in journalism, what kind of lens were you viewing this whole thing from?

Well, let’s put it this way. I got a call from Parliament. I said, “No, I’m not coming down.” And then they called again.

Basically, they did not know where they were going. I think what was supposed to have happened didn’t happen. So, I got another call, I got about three or four calls, maybe five. And then eventually, after two o’clock I went down to Parliament, because the person who called was a friend of mine and somebody who had shared our fortunes and misfortunes.

So, did you get swept away? What was going on inside your head?

I joined because at that point, I realised that these people needed help. I was not so much as for the cause, although there was this thing about what Chaudhry was doing. I also took that into account. But primarily because the call came [and] so I went.

And when I was finally called into the meeting, I walked in and I saw faces that I’d never seen before. And I started asking the questions, “Have you done this? Have you done that?”

And as I asked the questions, I was also suggesting solutions and then I just got dragged into it. The more I asked questions, the more I found out how much things were in disarray.

I just thought I’d do my bit [because] they were people who had taken over Parliament and they did not know where to go from there.

But you were driven by some nationalistic sentiments?

I am a [indigenous] Fijian. And everything that goes with that. I’m not infallible. But then again, I do not want to blow that trumpet.

Did the group see themselves as freedom fighters of some sort when you went into prison?

I’m not a freedom fighter. If they want to be called freedom fighters, that’s for them and I think some of them even portrayed themselves [that way]. But not me. I’m just an idiot who got sidetracked.

This personal journey that you’ve embarked on, what brought that about?

When I was in prison, I thought about this a lot. Because for me to come out of the bad place I was in — not physically, that I was in prison, but where my mind was — was to first accept the situation I was in and take responsibility. That’s when the healing started to take place.

And then I thought that I should write to people that I’ve hurt. I wrote about 200 letters from prison to anybody I thought I had hurt or harmed or betrayed. Groups, individuals, institutions, and families. I was surprised at the magnanimity of the people who received my letters.

I do not know where they all are now. I just sent it out. I was touched by a lot of the responses and I got a letter from the late [historian] Dr Brij Lal. l was so encouraged and I was so emotional when I read the letter. [It was] a very short letter and the kindness in the man to say that, “We will continue to talk when you come out of prison.”

There were also the mockers, the detractors, certain persons who said unkind things that, you know, “He’s been in prison and all of a sudden, he’s . . . “. That’s fine, I accepted all that as part of the package. You take the bad with the good.

I wrote to Mr Chaudhry and I had the opportunity to apologise to him personally when he came to visit in prison. And I want to continue this dialogue with Mr Chaudhry if he would like to.

Because if anything, I am among the reasons Fiji is in this current state of distrust and toxic political environment. If I can assist in bringing the nation together, it would be part of my atonement for my errors. For I have been an unprofitable, misguided individual who would like to do what I believe is my duty to put things right.

And I would work with anyone in the political spectrum, the communal leaders, the vanua and the faith organisations to bring that about.

I also did my traditional apology to my chiefly household of Vatuwaqa and the people of the vanua of Lau. I had invited the Lau Provincial Council to have its meeting at the Corrections Academy in Naboro. By that time, the arrangements had been confirmed for the Police Academy.

But the Roko gave us the farewell church service. I got my dear late sister, Pijila to organise the family. I presented the matanigasau to the then-Council Chairman, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (Roko Ului). It was a special moment, in front of all the delegates to the council meeting, the chiefly clan of the Vuanirewa, and Lauans who filled the two buses and
countless vehicles that made it to Naboro.

Our matanivanua (herald) was to make the tabua presentation. But I took it off him because I wanted Roko Ului and the people of Lau to hear my remorse from my mouth. It was very, very emotional. Very liberating. Cathartic.

Late last year, the Coalition government passed a motion in Parliament for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Do you support that?

Oh yes, I think everything I’ve been saying so far points that way.

Do you think it’ll help those that are still incarcerated to come out and speak about what happened in 2000?

Well, not only that but the important thing is [addressing] the general [racial] divide. If that’s where we should start, then we should start there. That’s how I’m looking at it — the bigger picture.

It’s not trying to manage the problems or issues of the last 24 years. People are still hurting from [the coups of] 1987. And what happened in 2006 — nothing has divided this country so much. Anybody who’s thought about this would want this to go beyond just solving the problem of 2000, excusing, and accusing and after that, there’s forgiveness and pardon.

That’s a small part. That too if it needs to happen. But after all that, I don’t want anybody to go to prison because of their participation or involvement in anything from 1987 to 2000. If they cooked the books later, while they were in government, then that’s a different
matter.

But I saw on TV, the weeping and the very public expression of pain of [the late, former Prime Minister, Laisenia] Qarase’s grandchildren when he was convicted and taken away [to prison]. It brought tears to my eyes. There is always a lump in my throat at the memory of my Heilala’s (elder of two daughters) last visit to [me in] Nukulau.

Hardly a word was spoken as we held each other, sobbing uncontrollably the whole time, except to say that Tiara (his sister) was not allowed by the officers at the naval base to come to say her goodbye.

That was very painful. I remember thinking that people can be cruel, especially when the girls explained that it was to be their last visit. Then the picture in my mind of Heilala sitting alone under the turret of the navy ship as she tried not to look back. I had asked her not to look back.

I deserved what I got. But not them. I would not wish the same things I went through on anyone else, not even those who were malicious towards me.

It is the family that suffers. The family are always the silent victims. It is the family that stands by you. They may not agree with what you did. Perhaps it is among the great gifts of God, that children forgive parents and love them still despite the betrayal, abandonment, and pain.

For I betrayed the two women I love most in the world. I betrayed ‘Ulukalala [son] who was born the same year I went to prison. I betrayed and brought shame to my family and my village of Waciwaci. I betrayed friends of all ethnicities and those who helped me in my chosen profession and later, in business.

I betrayed the people of Fiji. That betrayal was officially confirmed when the court judgment called me a traitor. I accepted that portrayal and have to live with it. The judges — at least one of them — even opined that I masterminded the whole thing. I have to decline that dubious honour. That belongs elsewhere.

This article by Joe Yaya is republished from last month’s Islands Business magazine cover story with the permission of editor Richard Naidu and Yaya. The photographs are from a 2000 edition of the Commonwealth Press Union’s Global Journalist magazine dedicated to the reporting of The University of the South Pacific’s student journalists. Joe Yaya was a member of the USP team at the time. The archive of the award-winning USP student coverage of the coup is here.   

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji is facing an exodus of Fijians as many are leaving for overseas seeking employment and education and others are migrating, says Opposition MP Viliame Naupoto.

Speaking in Parliament, he said: “His Excellency’s speech (Ratu Wiliame Katonivere) comes after a little over one year of the coalition government in power,” he said.

“So, for the coalition government, it’s time to defend your record — if there is anything to defend at all.”

Naupoto said this must be the reason why the government had laid the blame on FijiFirst “to cover them doing little or nothing at all”.

He said there had been a sharp rise in crime and that the drug problem was at a crisis level.

Citing the International Monetary Fund, Naupoto said the economy was slowing down at 3 percent and life was hard on the ground.

“There’s a general shortage of skilled workers, there is brain drain as well.

“FijiFirst put in place policies to reverse that brain drain and turn it into a brain gain where Fijians could come back and invest in our country.

“This government, it looks like, will be a brain drain gone.”

Naupoto added that the opposition would never shy away from its job of criticising and asking tough questions of the government.

Wata Shaw is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Parliament has passed a motion for the coalition government to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to facilitate open and free engagement in truth telling” to resolve racial differences and concerns in the country.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had announced in December 2022 after forming a coalition that the setting up of such a body “to heal the pains and scars left by the events of the 1987, 2000 and 2006 coups” was one of its top priorities.

On Wednesday, 28 MPs voted for the motion, 23 voted against while four did not vote.

While tabling the motion in the Parliament, Fiji’s Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran said people were still hurting from “political upheavals” and “many unresolved issues” from the past.

Kiran said the commission would offer “closure and healing” to individuals who were still affected by Fiji’s turbulent history.

In May, the Methodist Church of Fiji initiated a national prayer and reconciliation programme during the Girmit Day celebrations. Kiran said the participation of leaders and various faith groups at the event signalled that Fijians were ready for the healing process.

“Some may ask whether this is the time for it. Some may say we should focus on cost of living and on better public services and I understand [that],” she said.

‘Many unresolved issues’
“I know from many long years of personal engagement with our people a lot of people are hurting. There are many unresolved issues that need closure.

“Can we be a prosperous society if we live in fear and insecurity, if we do not trust our neighbours and carry wounded hearts.”

She said Fiji had been plagued by political turmoil for more than three decades with four coups.

“We are not looking deep inside ourselves to learn the lessons of the past. It is easier to look away from the painful events and perhaps pretend that they did not happen.

“But constant echoes of divide, narratives of the past remind us that there are deep rooted wounds in may hearts unable to heal.”

An emotional Rabuka said the commission would “remove the division between the two main communities that have co-existed since well before independence” in 1970.

He said the opposition did not have any reason to oppose the motion.

‘I am opening it up’
“I have, but I am opening it up. I would probably want to hide a long of things I know [but] none of you [MPs] has anything to hide so we should cooperate and work for this,” Rabuka said.

However, opposition MPs did not back the motion, saying a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would do more harm than good.

Tackle ‘deep-rooted problems’ – Naupoto
FijiFirst MP and former military commander Viliame Naupoto, in a teary intervention, said “the problem we have is the divide in our society”.

“The divide along racial lines, now there’s even a bigger divide along political lines. I think the big task we have is try and narrow the divide as much as we can and keep working on it,” Naupoto said.

“When we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission you are opening wounds of the past. If it needs to be opened, it needs to be treated so that it can heal.”

Naupoto cautioned that political leaders needed to ensure they were not creating new wounds by opening wounds of the past.

“Equality that we strive for can be dealt with policies that unite us,” he said.

“When we see that most of the things that were put in place by the government of the past it means also that the 200,000 voters that voted for us are feeling bad . . . and so our divide widens now.

“I plead that if you want and work on that utopian dream of this country that is prosperous and peaceful and stable, we have to be tough and face the deep-rooted problems that we have.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Department of Information spent $889,234.84 in taxpayer funds to the Fiji-owned company Vatis Communications until its contract was terminated earlier this year.

Prime Minister and Minister for Information and Public Enterprises Sitiveni Rabuka revealed this in Parliament last week in response to questions raised surrounding the engagement of Vatis Communications by the Ministry of Information under the Voreqe Bainimarama-led FijiFirst government.

Rabuka said Vatis had been engaged by the Department of Information from September 2019 to January 2023 to provide social media management services for the Fiji government social media platforms.

He said the department did not have the specifics for the engagement of Vatis by other ministries.

“The Department of Information entered into two one-year contracts with Vatis, commencing on September 24, 2019, and October 1, 2022, respectively, which also included provision for extensions,” Mr Rabuka said.

“The first contract between the Department of Information and Vatis commenced on September 24, 2019, and was valued at $280,000 VIP.

“The second contract which commenced on October 1, 2020, was valued at $295,412 VIP.”

The PM said that according to the Registrar of Companies records, Vatus was established on January 22, 2018, while the advertisement for the initial expression of interest for a social media management firm was posted on August 17, 2019.

Responding to questions on its experience and motivation, Rabuka noted Vatis had previous experience working with multiple and diverse range of stakeholders that included government ministries and statutory organisations, independent agencies and private organisations; and their experience included crisis management and strategic communication services on social media platforms, among other things.

Timoci Vula is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has resigned from Parliament just two weeks after copping a three-year suspension for making seditious comments.

Bainimarama, who was the opposition leader, made the announcement via a five-minute video on Facebook today.

He said his suspension on February 17 was “unwarranted and most certainly unjustified”.

“I did not swear nor did I make any racist or divisive comments,” he said.

“In fact, the so-called offensive words could have been objected to by points of order as provided for under the Standing Orders. However, the decision has been made by Parliament through a vote and I have complied with the decision.”

But the former coup leader-turned-PM, who was in charge of the country for almost 16 years before losing the 2022 Elections in December, said he would remain the leader of FijiFirst which was “the largest single political party in Parliament”.

“I want to assure all our supporters and all Fijians that you will be seeing more of me on the ground as I engage with you to listen to your needs, wants and concerns,” he said.

Guiding FijiFirst MPs
He said he would be guiding the FijiFirst MPs with his former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

“So they can continue to fight inside Parliament while we will engage more actively outside Parliament with our FijiFirst supporters and the growing number of unsatisfied Fijians who are now questioning their decision to vote for parties that seem to be not delivering on their promises.”

Bainimarama’s suspension also means that the opposition’s numbers in Parliament will go down to 25. However, he will be replaced by the next ranked FijiFirst candidate from the 14 December election.

“From FijiFirst’s perspective and also for the nearly 43 percent of voters in the 2022 General Elections, it is important that we maintain at all times our 26 seats in Parliament,” Bainimarama said.

He said his party would prevent the incumbent coalition government “from running roughshod over our Constitution, breaches of which are taking place almost on a daily basis, and to highlight the lack of adherence to basic fundamentals of due process and procedural fairness”.

Bainimarama has confirmed that FijiFirst will nominate former defence minister and disaster management minister Inia Seruiratu as the new opposition leader when Parliament sits for its next session at the end of the month.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama remains as Leader of the Opposition despite his suspension from Parliament on Friday for breach of privilege, according to Fiji constitutional lawyer Richard Naidu.

Naidu told the Sunday Times he believed that Bainimarama was entitled to retain the salary and other rights that go with the job — although “there might be a legal argument” about that.

He said that the Leader of the Opposition was different from other MPs who had previously been suspended.

“He is not an ordinary MP. His position is established under the Constitution. Under Section 78, he is elected from among the Opposition members,” he said.

“Under Section 78 of the Constitution, he keeps his job even after the dissolution of Parliament.”

Naidu said the Opposition Leader had other constitutional roles outside Parliament, including being a member of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC).

“He is also one of the people who may nominate a new President for Parliament to vote on under Section 84.

‘Must not be varied’
“It seems that he can continue to do these jobs — and to keep his salary, which Section 80 of the Constitution says “must not be varied to his disadvantage”.

“Other suspended MPs have had their salary payments suspended while out of Parliament.

“So there might be a legal argument about that.

“But other suspended MPs did not hold a substantive office as Mr Bainimarama does.”

Naidu said that despite the suspension, Bainimarama remained an MP — however, he could not attend Parliament for three years.

“While he is suspended, he is not replaced in Parliament. This means the voting strength of the FijiFirst Party drops to 25 while he is suspended.

“It is for the Opposition MPs to work out how they will operate in Parliament while Bainimarama isn’t there. But while he continues to hold the post, a new Leader of the Opposition cannot be appointed.

Could be voted out
“Under the Constitution, if a majority of Opposition members want Bainimarama out, they could vote him out.

“He could resign as Leader of the Opposition only and keep his seat as an MP. Or he could resign both as Leader of the Opposition and as an MP.

“If he resigned as an MP, a new FijiFirst Parliamentarian would come in; the next one on the list of candidates who missed out in the 2022 election.”

Questions regarding the suspension were sent to both Bainimarama and FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum yesterday.

However, no response was obtained when this edition of the newspaper went to press.

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s opposition leader Voreqe Bainimarama has been suspended for three years as an MP for breaching parliamentary privilege.

It comes after the ex-prime minister said the President, Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, had failed to protect the constitution and the rule of law in his opening statement for the 2023 parliamentary session on Monday.

The FijiFirst leader will be out of Parliament until 17 February 2026, after a midnight vote as both sides of the House clashed over Bainimarama’s suspension.

Leader of government business Lynda Tabuya said Bainimarama’s words “denigrated” the head of state when he uttered “seditious words”.

“Matters of offensive conduct towards Parliament must be taken seriously. It is even more important that members of Parliament uphold the required standard of behaviour in Parliament,” she said.

“In particular, the prohibition against speaking words that are disrespectful to our head of state as well as seditious words that breach the standing orders.”

The Parliamentary Privileges Committee had recommended that Bainimarama be immediately suspended for three years; that he provide a written apology to the President within 14 days; and issue apology to public within 48 hours.

It also recommended that he not be allowed to enter Parliament during the period of suspension; and if he fails to comply then necessary enforcement measures will be implemented.

Co-deputy Prime Ministers Viliame Gavoka and Professor Biman Prasad supported the former PM’s exclusion.

Gavoka said Bainimarama’s comments were an “insult” to President Katonivere and his “ignorant comments can destroy confidence” in the office of the head of state.

He urged all MPs to “defend the values” of Parliament and “denounce the ignorance” of the leader of opposition.

Professor Prasad said Bainimarama was a “repeat offender of parliamentary assault” and his words were “utterly pathetic”.

But Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka appealed to the Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and the parliamentarians as the “lone voice” from the government side for Bainimarama to be forgiven and he receive a lenient suspension.

Rabuka’s plea resulted in the government side amending their motion to reduce Bainimarama’s suspension to 18 months.

However, the opposition side still not did not support the amendment late into Friday night.

“You cannot apologise if you have done nothing wrong,” FijiFirst MP Jone Usamate said as he defended Bainimarama’s political fate.

While another opposition member, Faiyaz Koya, said they “did not find any guilt” in what their party leader said.

Bainimarama becomes the fifth MP to be suspended from the House after breaching privilege.

Previously:

• The current Speaker Ratu Lalabalavu was suspended for two years in 2015 as a Sodelpa MP;
• Former National Federation Party MP Tupou Draunidalo was suspended in June 2016 for the remainder of her term;
• Another Sodelpa MP, Ratu Isoa Tikoca, was suspended for two years in September 2016; and
• Current Home Minister Pio Tikoduadua was suspended for 6 months in 2019.

RNZ Pacific has contacted Bainimarama for comment.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

FijiFirst Party general secretary and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is no longer a Member of Fiji’s Parliament, says Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu.

Ratu Naiqama said formal notices had been served to Sayed-Khaiyum, advising him that he had lost his seat in the House.

“We have served notices to all his addresses,” the Speaker said.

Under Section 63(1)(b) of the 2013 Constitution, the seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant if the member — with the member’s consent — becomes the holder of a public office.

“The leader of the opposition [former PM Voreqe Bainimarama] is advising us to follow the law, so we are following the law.”

Sayed-Khaiyum was nominated to the Constitutional Offices Commission by Bainimarama and appointed by President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere.

Sayed-Khaiyum attended the first commission meeting on Sunday with Bainimarama.

The Constitutional Offices Commission meeting was chaired by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Attorney-General Siromi Turaga was also present at the forum.

The PM’s nominees were prominent lawyer Jon Apted and lawyer Tanya Waqanika.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission

Bainimarama threatens Fiji government
Meanwhile, The Pacific Newsroom’s Michael Field writes that Bainimarama has “made it plain he is “out to bring down Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his coalition government”.

“In a Facebook rant, the defeated former prime minister said Rabuka’s “three uneven legged stool government” must be stopped.

‘“We are here to ensure they do not get away with it,” [Bainimarama] said.

‘“We are here to ensure that your voices are heard, in what is already unfolding as an oppressive and vindictive regime that feeds on suppression of a free flow of ideas, division, racism, religious chauvinism, bigotry, exclusivity and colonialism.”’

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz