Surveying the wreckage of the US elections, here are some observations that have emerged:

Campaigns based on hope do not always defeat campaigns based on fear.

Having dozens of retired high ranking military and diplomatic officials warn against the danger Donald Trump poses to democracy (including people who worked for him) did not matter to many voters.

Likewise, having former politicians and hundreds of academics, intellectuals, legal scholars, community leaders and social activists repudiate Trump’s policies of division mattered not an iota to the voting majority.

Nor did Kamala Harris’s endorsement by dozens of high profile celebrities make a difference to the MAGA mob.

Raising +US$ billion in political donations did not produce victory got Harris. It turns out outspending the opponent is not the key to electoral success.

Incoherent racist and xenophobic rants (“they are eating the dogs, they are eating the cats”) did not give the MAGA mob any pause when considering their choices. In fact, it appears that the resort to crude depictions of opponents (“stupid KaMAla”)and scapegoats (like Puerto Ricans) strengthened the bond between Trump and his supporters.

‘Garbage can’ narrative
Macroeconomic and social indicators such as higher employment and lower crime and undocumented immigrant numbers could not overcome the MAGA narrative that the US was “the garbage can of the world.”

Nor could Harris, despite her accomplished resume in all three government branches at the local, state and federal levels, overcome the narrative that she was “dumb” and a DEI hire who was promoted for reasons other than merit.

It did not matter to the MAGA mob that Trump threatened retribution against his opponents, real and imagined, using the Federal State as his instrument of revenge.

Age was not a factor even though Trump displays evident signs of cognitive decline.

Reproductive rights were not the watershed issue many thought that they would be, including for many female voters. Conversely, the MAGA efforts to court “bro” support via social media catering to younger men worked very well.

In a way, this is a double setback for women: as an issue of bodily autonomy and as an issue of gender equality given the attitudes of Trump endorsers like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate. Those angry younger men interact with females, and their misogyny has now been reaffirmed as part of a political winning strategy.

Ukraine, Europe much to fear
Ukraine and Western Europe have much to fear.

So does the federal bureaucracy and regulatory system, which will now be subject to Project 2025, Elon Musk’s razor gang approach to public spending and RFK Jr’s public health edicts.

In fact, it looks like the Trump second term approach to governance will take a page out of Argentine president Javier Milei’s “chainsaw” approach, with results that will be similar but far broader in scope if implemented in the same way.

So all in all, from where I sit it looks like a bit of a calamity in the making. But then again, I am just another fool with a “woke” degree.

Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The University of the South Pacific staff associations are up in arms about the sacking of a union leader and academic by the university’s chief executive.

In a joint press release, the Association of the University of the South Pacific (AUSPS) and the USP Staff Union (USPSU), this week claimed that USP vice-chancellor and president Pal Ahluwalia had “launched a vicious attack on the staff unions and freedom of speech” after he terminated the employment contract AUSPS president Dr Tamara Osborne-Naikatini on July 9.

They said Ahluwalia sacked Dr Osborne-Naikatini because she spoke to the media about the “flawed process” through which he was offered a renewal to his contract to lead the institution.

“The university’s claim of ‘gross misconduct’ stems from information Dr Osborne-Naikatini allegedly shared, as AUSP President, in an Islands Business interview reported in the March 2024 edition that revealed a flawed process in the review of the performance of Ahluwalia that subsequently led to a two-year renewal of contract,” they said in the release.

Dr Osborne-Naikatini was the staff representative on the the chief academic authority — the USP Senate — to the review committee, they added.

“Dr Osborne-Naikatini stood for the staff of USP and fought for good governance which ultimately led to her termination,” they said.

The staff unions say that by sacking the biology lecturer, Ahluwalia has “launched a vicious attack on the staff unions and freedom of speech” and are demanding her reinstatement.

RNZ Pacific had put these claims to the university.

Staff contracts ‘confidential’
“Please note that all staff contracts, including terminations, are confidential. The university is not at liberty to discuss staff information with third parties,” the USP said in an email statement.

The USP, the premier institution of higher learning for the region, has had to deal with a series of crisis in relation to the good governance practices and staff-management issues since the vice-chancellor first took the job in 2018.

In 2019, Ahluwalia was deported from Fiji in a midnight raid carried out Fijian police and immigration officials, after he fell out of favour with the previous Bainimarama administration, for exposing allegations of corruption and financial mismanagement at the university under the leadership of his predecessor.

He led USP from exile, for some time from Nauru, before relocating to Samoa in 2021. In May this year, the USP Council voted for him to relocate back to Suva.

The staff unions reminded Ahluwalia of the 2019 saga in their joint statement, saying they “stood steadfast with him when he was victimised as the whistleblower. He seemed to have a short-lived memory”.

Earlier this year, the unions were at loggerheads with the management over salary disputes.

They had threatened to take strike action if the executive team failed to meet their demands, which they claimed has been neglected by Ahluwalia.

However, both sides reached an agreement last month, and the unions withdrew their strike action.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Breaking down barriers between Pacific islands to spur economic development, visioning 21st century skills that island youth must have for jobs locally or globally, action needed to reverse the non-communicable disease pandemic sweeping the region, and reinventing governance systems for governments to successfully navigate the future of their nations — these are among priority issues that Dr Transform Aqorau believes need to be on the agenda for island leaders.

But for the most part they are not in the conversation.

“There isn’t enough discussion about the future,” said Dr Aqorau, who took up the Solomon Islands National University’s vice-chancellor position in January.

Dr Aqorau was in Majuro recently for the official opening of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement or PNA Office. He was the founding chief executive of the PNA Office from 2010-2016, guiding it from a decision of the leaders on paper to establish the first office of the PNA to becoming one of the most powerful fisheries organisations in the world.

“This is a conversation that isn’t just for universities,” he said. “Governments need to be discussing their vision for the future and work in tandem with national universities.”

It was not simply a theoretical exercise. The conversation could have much needed practical impact on islands in the region, he said.

PNA model ‘has clout’
The PNA model had shown the clout of a regional effort and the governance systems that supported the vision of the nine nations involved in PNA, he said.

“All Pacific islands need to create opportunities in agriculture, fisheries, tourism and other areas,” he said. “It’s difficult, but in the region, we should ask ourselves: What kind of collective brand can we create?”

He thinks the Pacific could offer itself to visitors as a tourism package, not in competition with one another.

“What did we learn from covid?” he asked. “Those that relied on one thing, such as tourism, struggled.”

“We shouldn’t see ourselves as separate. Instead, we should see ourselves as a single economic bloc (and by doing so) we could help ourselves more (during times like the covid pandemic).”

Tourism and trading blocs would work to the advantage of different islands, combined with technology and educational initiatives.

“In our Blue Continent, we should tear down national barriers and work together,” he said.

‘What future for our children?’
“If we don’t do these things for the people, respect for governments as institutions will decline. We need to be asking: What is the future we want for our children?”

Pacific youth should have global skills so they are citizens of the world, Dr Aqorau said.

Seeing NCDs undermine the health of people across the Pacific is great concern too Aqorau. “We need to manufacture our own healthy snacks and alternative foods from our own resources,” he said.

Governments need to get behind incentivising production of island “super foods” and phasing out imported junk food to attack the health crisis “so our next generation can live healthy like their forefathers”, he said.

“These are conversations with impact,” said Dr Aqorau. “They create jobs.”

He expressed worry about the present levels of governance in the region.

“Current structures of government are not working,” he said. “I don’t see their ability to manage this change unless there is a foundational change in the way governments are designed.”

Worsening corruption
He said he saw worsening corruption undermining governance in the region.

“I see increasing alienation of people and increased power in small groups of elite,” Aqorau said, adding that in the present governance environment there was “no way for youth and women to be involved.”

PNA was a shining example of governance that benefited people in the region, he said.

But in the area of resource extraction aside from fisheries — logging and forestry, fossil fuels, mineral mining and deepsea mining — there were no comparable levels of governance.

“PNA shows there is a lot that we can do with forestry, deep sea mining and other extraction resources,” he said.

“We need governance systems in place so we are not exploited. But it’s happening [exploitation] in forestry.”

In the context of the geopolitical competition that is putting additional stress on governance in the islands, Dr Aqorau offered this suggestion to donors.

“Instead of donating things we don’t need that add a level of burden on island countries, support constitutional reforms in governance.”

Dr Aqorau believes that “it won’t always be like this. Young people will demand change”.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji lawyer and former human rights activist Imrana Jalal has offered a “warning” to her motherland that should people be investigated, prosecuted or dismissed, it must be done within the rule of law.

In a social media posting on her Facebook page, Jalal wrote: “A WARNING to ourselves in Fiji — it’s very important that if people are going to be investigated, dismissed, prosecuted or asked to resign voluntarily (without coercion) whether in a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) or otherwise; or a commission of inquiry be set up, example, to look at the judiciary, that this all be done within the rule of law.

“There should be no victimisation or targeted prosecutions unless there is genuine evidence by independent investigators.

“I speak with authority on this having been targeted by the former regime personally.

“If we do otherwise, then we are no better than the corrupt regime [that has been] in power for the last 16 years.

“We need to start off the right way or we are tainted from the beginning.”

Jalal, a former Fiji human rights commissioner and previously a gender specialist with the Asia Development Bank, asked those calling for heads to roll to “be careful”.

She is the first woman to be appointed as a special project facilitator of the ADB.

‘Give our fragile democracy a chance’
“Be cautious. Refrain from this type of diatribe. No good will come of it. There can be no restoration to the rule of law like that,” she said.

“Let the government slowly make its way. Give them a chance: step by step we can restore our fragile democracy.”

Prominent Suva lawyer Graham Leung voiced similar sentiment, calling on Fijians to be patient and follow the law. He added that due process must be followed in dismissing or removing people from office.

“Arbitrary and unlawful dismissals must be avoided at all costs. There are constitutional processes for removal for some posts,” Leung said on his Facebook social media page.

“In some cases, there are legally binding contracts in place. Negotiations for early termination of contracts can take place by mutual agreement. These should be carried out professionally without malice or bad faith.

“We would be no better than the last government if we did this. Due process will take time.

“You cannot rectify and address 16 years of bad governance overnight. The change we all voted for will not happen at the press of a button.

“I urge the people of Fiji celebrating the new government’s victory and the removal of the previous authoritarian government to be patient. We will get there eventually.

“Let us not, in the excitement of the change, lose our sense of reason, fairness and logic.

“I completely accept that those [who] have broken the law must be held personally accountable, whether in the courts or according to law.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sixteen years later, Fiji is about to go to the polls for the third time since Bainimarama took power. One question voters may well ask is: has the good governance coup delivered on its promise to address corruption?

In this article we argue that, while there have been some gains, political will towards anti-corruption efforts in Fiji appears to be running out of steam.

While the phrase “good governance coup” is an oxymoron, there are signs that the government’s subsequent anti-corruption efforts have borne fruit.

The Worldwide Governance Indicators find that Fiji’s Control of Corruption percentile ranking has improved, from 60 in 2007 to 67.3 in 2021. This is better than Papua New Guinea (25) but lower than Micronesia (70) and Tuvalu (73).

In 2021, the country scored 55 out of 100 (with a score of 100 equating to clean and 0 very corrupt) and ranked 45 out of 180 countries on its first appearance in over a decade on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

On this index Fiji ranks better than neighbours Solomon Islands (score: 43/100), Vanuatu (45/100) and PNG (31/100). Fiji’s score was slightly better than the east African island nation Mauritius (which scored 54/100).

Corruption concerns Fijians
Fiji’s citizens are concerned about corruption. In a recent Global Corruption Barometer survey, 68 percent of respondents across the country said that corruption is a big problem in government; 61 percent said it was a big problem in the private sector.

However, the same survey found that bribery rates are low — 5 percent of respondents said they paid a bribe to get a service in the previous 12 months, compared to 64 percent of respondents from Kiribati.

Still, our analysis suggests these relatively positive results could be undermined by dwindling political will towards key anti-corruption organisations. To understand the level of political will towards anti-corruption efforts, we calculate the relative amount of funding for key state-based anti-corruption organisations (we’ve written more about this approach in relation to PNG and Solomon Islands).

To do so, we draw on over a decade of publicly available budget documents.

In 2007, the Bainimarama regime established the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, known as FICAC, which became a key symbol of the good governance coup. FICAC has been accused of being politically motivated — in the lead up to the 2022 election the agency questioned the leader of the People’s Alliance (PA) party, Sitiveni Rabuka, and charged PA deputy leaders Lynda Tabuya and Dan Lobendahn with vote buying and breach of campaign rules.

If it wins the election, the PA party has recently pledged to phase out FICAC within 100 days of forming office.

While complaints to FICAC have significantly increased since it was established, it only responds to a small fraction.

FICAC spending declining
Though budgeted to receive an increase of F$2.2 million in real terms in the 2022-23 budget, our analysis shows that the government’s actual spending on FICAC has been declining.

In 2010 the government spent 0.5 percent of its budget on FICAC, which had halved by 2020-21. (It is budgeted to bounce back slightly in 2022-23, rising to 0.28 percent.) In real terms, spending on FICAC dropped by F$2.6 million between 2010 and 2020-21.

Similarly, spending on the Attorney-General’s Chambers reduced from 0.26 percent of the budget in 2010 to 0.12 percent in 2020-21 (in real terms, spending reduced by F$1.7 million). It is budgeted to receive 0.14% by 2022-23, but given a history of underspending it is likely this agency will receive less than what has been promised.

On a somewhat brighter note, the Office of the Auditor-General received a slightly higher proportion of the budget over the past decade: the government spent 0.15 percent of the budget on this agency in 2010 and 0.16 percent in 2020-21 (an increase of F$1.8 million in real terms).

This is set to dip back down to 0.15 percent by 2022-23. Despite not losing financial ground, as one of us (Neelesh) argues, Fiji’s Auditor-General faces questions about the office’s independence and impact.

Diminishing political will towards key state-based anti-corruption organisations is also evidenced by what is not in the budget. Despite the 2013 constitution providing for the establishment of an Accountability and Transparency Commission — which is supported by civil society groups — the government has not provided the funding required to establish this agency. (In the 2022-23 budget it provides a paltry F$20,000 for this agency, which pales in comparison to the F$10.5 million budgeted for FICAC.)

In February 2021, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum explained that the budgetary allocation for the Accountability and Transparency Commission would not be forthcoming as a bill outlining its responsibilities had not been approved by Parliament. This is still the case.

Financial backing for police
The government has increased financial support to the country’s police force. Spending on the police increased from 4.9 percent in the 2010 budget to 5.7 percent in 2020-21 — an increase of F$78 million in real terms.

In comparison, in its 2020 budget the Papua New Guinean government spent just over 2 percent on its police force, and this is budgeted to fall to 1.6 percent by 2022. Fiji’s police, however, have their own problems with corruption.

The Global Corruption Barometer survey found that, compared to other institutions, more people thought the police, along with members of Parliament, were involved with corruption. Cuts to key anti-corruption organisations may exacerbate this.

Further reforms are clearly needed. Beyond being well funded and staffed, anti-corruption agencies need to be independent and publicly accountable, which suggests the need for multi-stakeholder oversight involving politicians, the business community and civil society.

This could mean reforming — through greater oversight and the involvement of independent stakeholders — rather than abolishing FICAC. Establishing and funding an independent Accountability and Transparency Commission to investigate permanent secretaries and others holding public office could also help.

Whatever the outcome of the 14 December election, the next government will need to quickly establish (or re-establish) its anti-corruption credentials if Fiji is to build on any gains it has already made in the fight against corruption.

Grant Walton is a fellow at the Development Policy Centre and the author of Anti-Corruption and its Discontents: Local, National and International Perspectives on Corruption in Papua New Guinea; Husnia Hushang is school administrator at the ANU Research School of Economics, and a research assistant at the Development Policy Centre; and Neelesh Gounder is senior lecturer in economics and deputy head of school (research) in the School of Accounting Finance and Economics at the University of the South Pacific, Suva. This article is republished from the Devpolicy Blog under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Fiji political leader is calling out the Australian and New Zealand governments on their “deafening silence” over human rights issues in the region.

The leader of the opposition National Federation Party, Professor Biman Prasad, has called out the two countries for not acknowledging what he described as “the declining standards” of democracy, governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech issues in some Pacific countries.

Prasad said the recent 2022 Pacific Islands Leaders’ Forum ended with prime minister Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern refusing to speak up on the decline in the standards of democracy.

“What concerns me is that the Pacific Forum is an important leaders’ meeting and both Australia and New Zealand are members,” Professor Prasad told RNZ’s Pacific Waves.

“One would have expected, even to the dislike of some within the forum, at least some mention of how the Pacific Forum is going to deal with declining standards of democracy, good governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech,” he said.

“[But] no word from leaders, particularly Australia and New Zealand, was a bit concerning.”

Failed over glaring issues
The forum leaders’ meeting, he said, failed to address glaring issues, such as:

• the Fiji government’s spat with the head of the regionally-owned University of the South Pacific;
• questionable governance practices and attacks on free speech in Solomon Islands;
• a judiciary under siege in Kiribati;
• ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua; and
• the deterioration of decolonisation arrangements in New Caledonia.

According to Prasad, Albanese and Ardern refused to discuss these in Suva because they feared it would push Pacific nations “further into the arms of China”.

Such a stance gives credibility to the claim that “Australia and New Zealand are preoccupied with their own strategic interests first, before the interests of Pacific Island countries,” he wrote in a Development Policy Centre blog last week.

“I can speak about Fiji more specifically. As leader of an opposition political party in Parliament, I experienced first-hand the bullying, the intimidation by this government and the declining standards of democracy, of transparency and accountability,” he said.

“Fiji continues to behave in the guise of championing climate change around the world that everything is hunky dory in Fiji. It is not and that is why the forum is important.”

He said “appeasing autocratic leaders” to keep Beijing at bay was unacceptable and the sooner Canberra and Wellington realised appeasement was not the best strategy, the better it would be for the region.

NZ’s ‘no comment’
RNZ Pacific contacted both the Australian and New Zealand governments for comment.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it had no comment to make on Professor Prasad’s blog.

However, a spokesperson for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia had a long-standing history of supporting work to strengthen regional action in support of human rights.

“Our focus was on the contributions we can make as a member of the Pacific family, rather than what others may be doing,” it said.

“Australia will talk to partner governments directly where we have concerns about democracy, transparency and the rule of law.”

Australia will be contributing up to A$7.7 million (NZ$8.6 million] over the next four-and-a-half years to support the Pacific Community in implementing the Human Rights and Social Development Division Business Plan to strengthen human rights in the region.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting has ended and what is intriguing is the deafening silence on declining standards of democracy, governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech issues, despite the serious and arguably worsening situation in some regional countries.

The emphasis on climate change is necessary and welcome. However, to deal effectively with climate adaptation and build climate-resilient infrastructure, countries have to mobilise large amounts of resources.

Whether these resources are effectively used will depend on standards of governance, transparency and accountability. Without these, efforts to deal with the climate change emergency will be fraught with difficulties and wastage of resources.

In any case, not everything can be reduced to climate change, which too often becomes a convenient way of avoiding other hard issues and diverting attention from domestic issues. And we do have other important pressing issues, such as media rights and freedom of expression, that deserve a hearing at the highest levels of this august body, but these were conveniently swept under the “sensitive topic” carpet, or so it seems.

Human rights — including freedom of speech — underpin all other rights, and it is unfortunate that this Forum failed in its moral obligation to send out a strong message of its commitment to upholding these rights.

Australia and New Zealand are regarded as the doyens of human rights and media freedom in the region, and their leaders’ presence at the Forum presented an opportunity to send a strong signal to member countries about the sanctity of these values — but the moment passed without any statement.

Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern could have taken the initiative and spoken out about these issues of their own accord, but they didn’t, thus giving some credence to voices that claim that when it comes to the Forum, Australia and New Zealand are preoccupied with their own strategic interests first, and the interests of Pacific Island countries second.

Avoiding ‘unpalatable topics’
Towards this end, the two leaders from the Western world seemed at pains to avoid topics deemed unpalatable to their Pacific Island counterparts, seemingly over fears of pushing them further into the arms of China.

This includes an apparent fear of upsetting Fiji, which has had a draconian and punitive Media Act in place since 2010. There are also concerns in Fiji about the independence of important offices, such as the Electoral Commission, which are especially pressing in an election year.

The Fiji government is also denying the rights of thousands of tertiary students to access good quality education by withholding more than FJ$80 million (NZ$50 million) in grants to the University of the South Pacific.

Reportedly, during the meetings last week only the Prime Minister of Samoa, Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa, called on the Fiji government to release the grant.

Australia and New Zealand’s silence has given rise to criticism that they are practising the politics of convenience rather than principle and have lost moral ground in the Pacific region.

Appeasing autocratic leaders in our region as a strategy against China is not only unconscionable, it is also short-sighted and counterproductive.

A restrictive and undemocratic environment, where the media are suppressed and the people are denied a voice, is advantageous for China. It is thus in Australia and New Zealand’s best interests to fight against such trends by being vocal about them, instead of silent.

Appeasement not best strategy
The sooner Australia and New Zealand realise that appeasement is not the best strategy, the better it will be for them and for the region. If we are vuvale (one family) as Australia says, then we should look at our collective interest, rather than individual interests only.

Unfortunately, the Forum Secretariat chose not to invite the parliamentary opposition leaders in Fiji to any of the meeting’s events, even though they represent a sizable proportion of the country’s population.

This was another missed opportunity to get a fuller picture of the situation in Fiji instead of the official version only. It leads to a partial and poor understanding of what is happening, which is hardly the basis for sound decision-making.

As leaders of democracies, Australia and New Zealand need to move away from a self-centred approach, and adopt a more conscientious, long-term outlook in the region.

As it stands, in their preoccupation with and fear of China they seem to be losing sight of the goal. Australia and New Zealand should never compromise on governance and human rights and freedom of speech, the building blocks of democracy in the region.

Dr Biman Prasad is an adjunct professor at James Cook University and Punjabi University, and is currently a Member of Parliament and leader of the National Federation Party in Fiji. He is a former professor of economics and dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of the South Pacific. This article was first published by DevPolicy Blog and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On May 9, the Philippines went to the polls in what has been called “by far the most divisive and consequential electoral contest” in the Philippines.

The electoral race had boiled down to two frontrunners: one was the current Vice-President Leni Robredo, running on a “people-led” campaign, and driven by a call to transparency and good governance. Pink became her signature colour.

Her supporters took to wearing the colour and calling themselves “kakampinks” (pink allies). The second frontrunner candidate was Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, the son of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos is part of a political dynasty and represents the status quo of Philippines governance which has been criticised as corrupt and unequal.

Last week, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr was confirmed as the incoming president of the Philippines.

Nina Santos, an award-winning Filipina law student, advocate and campaigner — as well as a self-proclaimed kakampink — writes on watching the election unfold from overseas and her devastation — but also hope — for what comes next.

I’m writing this a week after the 2022 Philippine elections after I cried for my country for the first time.

In the last week, I’ve grappled with intense anxiety, rage, grief — and for a moment, a feeling of hopelessness. I know I’m not alone.

Several friends and family have attested to the collective grief among many Filipinos, particularly those who were part of the “pink revolution”. The people-led campaign for Vice President Leni Robredo was built on hopes for good governance, and transparency, and ultimately stopping the return of the brutal Marcos dynasty.

The campaign slogan “Angat Buhay Lahat”, directly translates to “Better lives for everyone” — and I think this encapsulates the movement well.

Before others comment on how biased this article is, I’ll say it straight up: I’m proud to say that I am one of many “kakampinks” (pink allies) who took a stand against million-dollar misinformation campaigns, fake news and downright historical distortion which now plague the Philippines.

I’ve lived in New Zealand for nearly nine years, but this hasn’t dampened my connection with the motherland. Like many Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), I followed the election closely. I lived vicariously through my friends and family who campaigned tirelessly, knocked on doors, volunteered.

In solidarity, I watched live streams of rallies, attended events in Auckland, and tried debunking misinformation on social media where possible.

Immense health, climate and socio-economic crises
I understand that I played a very small role in the campaign, but the point is I was hopeful. You have to be, especially given the immense health, climate and socio-economic crises in the Philippines.

This election was particularly important and deeply personal as there was a risk of another Marcos getting back into power. For context, former dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted by the Filipino people in 1986. The Marcos dictatorship was marked by extensive extrajudicial killings, documented tortures, countless disappearances and incarcerations. Not to mention the billions owed in unpaid taxes.

The elections also happened amid a global pandemic and crippling effects of the last six years under the Duterte administration, one riddled with extrajudicial killings and human rights violations. There was and still is a lot at stake for the Philippines.

There is a saying that goes, “Even if you know what’s coming, you’re never prepared for how it feels.”

Many people say that the results of the elections were expected given that the Marcoses set out a well-orchestrated campaign built on misinformation, backed by machinery, resources, and enabled by rampant corruption in the Philippines.

There were numerous reports of vote-buying and irregularities which are yet to be addressed by the Commission on Elections. This makes moving on hard to do.

To never forgetting
I’m writing this because I want to remember. I borrow Nuelle Duterte’s words: In this case, widespread corruption and misinformation won over a people-led campaign.

This is devastating and I will never forget how hopeless I felt coming to terms with this reality.

However, I want to note that we cannot blame this on the masses. I disagree with international media coverage that put the blame on Filipinos for what happened in the elections.

Let us not forget the colonial history of the Philippines and the role this played in destabilising the Philippine economy and political systems.

Let us not forget that the Marcoses and Dutertes prey on the marginalised, those who do not have the privilege and headspace to think about politics, and those who have limited access to education and resources, thereby making them more susceptible to fake news and misinformation.

Let us not forget that this cycle is hard to break.

While many are victims, I am most disappointed in people who have the power and privilege to seek resources and educate themselves on issues of the day, yet actively chose to be peddlers of disinformation.

Too many people have played a part in enabling the return of the Marcos family and distorting our country’s history. To other Filipinos, I plead that we never get tired of helping them remember.

Never forget the martial law atrocities
I hope we never forget the atrocities of the martial law era. I hope we never forget the families that are still longing for justice.

I hope we never forget the rage we feel now and that we can eventually transform this rage into something useful.

I hope we never forget the hope that was sparked by the pink movement, how it brought out the best in each of us. I hope we never forget what it’s like to be hopeful. We have to be.

Walang sayang. Nagsisimula pa lang. Nothing was wasted. We’re just getting started.

Nina Santos is a Filipina and a passionate advocate for ethnic communities, migrant rights and gender equality.This article was first published by the Asia Media Centre and is republished with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

I wasn’t invited to the inaugural Vanuatu media awards a couple of weeks ago. Nor was I asked to participate.

Instead, I spent the weekend preparing the final draft of the Media Association of Vanuatu’s Code of Ethics and Practice. I am proud to say it was adopted by the MAV executive last Friday.

If I had been there, and if I had been asked to say something, this is what I would have said (seriously: when did I ever wait for someone to ask me for my opinion?): Journalism isn’t just a profession; it’s a public service. It consists of sharing, broadcasting or publishing information in the public interest.

That’s the first paragraph in the new preamble of an updated Media Code of Ethics and Practice.

This code is integral to our work. It guides us from day to day. It tells us what we must do, what we should do, and what we should aspire to. It will help us serve the community better.

By describing how we should report the news, it helps us to decide what is news, and what’s not.

I agreed to help with this final draft because I know how important it is to think carefully about these things. Agonising over each word of this code has been an invaluable process for me. It’s taught me new things. It’s reinforced others. And it’s led me to do the one thing required of every reporter:

Challenge assumptions
Challenge every single assumption.

Reporting starts with asking questions. Who? What? When? Where? Why?

Socrates, one of humanity’s most famous inquiring minds, reportedly said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

The professional journey of every reporter begins with that phrase.

The Media Association of Vanuatu awards 2021. Image: MAV

In that spirit of examination, I want to take a moment to consider where we are as a media community, where we’ve come from, and where we need to go.

Vanuatu’s media can congratulate themselves for a number of things:

Our populace has a more nuanced and subtle understanding of the law and governance than many others. We joke about bush lawyers, but our interest in the law — and respect for it — is a product of how we in the media portray it.

We are bound to defend and protect the truth. The truth is the seed we sow. And from that seed, we reap a better democracY.

— Dan McGarry

Understanding politics
The same is true of our understanding of politics and Parliamentary procedure. Vanuatu follows Parliament the way some nations follow football. Our society is more engaged with the process of government than a great many others. The media plays a role in that, and we should be proud of it.

The status of women has advanced by leaps and bounds, both in media industry, and in society at large. Of course, the lioness’ share of the work has been done by two generations of fearless women who have campaigned tirelessly, selflessly to improve their lot.

But we have been there to mark their progress, to celebrate their wins, and to shine a light on the countless obstacles that still impede their progress.

The number of prosecutions and convictions for spousal abuse, sexual violence and other gender-based crimes is rising. These crimes are still happening far too often, but we can fairly say that the new, tougher sentences being handed out are a result of an awareness that we helped raise.

Our nation’s environmental awareness has been assisted greatly by the media. Again, we aren’t the ones saving the planet, but we are celebrating the people who do.

By giving space to the wisdom of kastom and the knowledge of science, we can exercise our right and our duty to protect this land.

The list of our achievements is long. I’m grateful that we finally found time to recognise and celebrate them. We have much to be proud of, and we should take this moment to applaud ourselves for a job well done.

About our failures
Now… let’s talk about our failures.

The Code of Ethics requires that we be frank, honest and fair. It also instructs us not to leave out any uncomfortable facts just because they don’t fit the narrative. But we cannot ignore the fact that we could do much, much more, and we could do far, far better.

Fear still dominates and diminishes us. Don’t pretend it’s not there. And don’t you dare tell me it hasn’t made you back off a story. Every single press conferences reeks of faltering confidence.

We’re all guilty of it. Every single one of us. Back in 2015, I made sure my ABC colleague Liam Fox was in the room when Marcellino Pipite announced that he had exercised his power as Acting Head of State and pardoned himself and his cronies.

I made sure he was there because I knew he would ask the one question that mattered: “Aren’t you just trying to save your own skin?”

I’m grateful to Liam for stepping up. But now I wish I’d been the one who had the courage to ask.

We have to find a way past our fear, and we can only do that together. If we all enter the room ready to ask hard questions, it’s easier for each one of us to quit wishing we could and just do it.

Stand up for each other
We have to learn to stand up for each other. Ten years ago, media pioneer Marc Neil-Jones was savagely assaulted by a minister of state.

That bullying act of injustice upset me deeply. It’s also what inspired me to take Marc’s place when his health forced him to step aside.

But what upset me even more was the failure of the media community to say one thing, and say it clearly: Violence against the media is never OK.

Never.

The only way we can be sure that those days of violent intimidation are past is if we hold that line, and condemn any act of coercion or violence loudly and in one voice.

To this day, I’m ashamed that we didn’t do at least that much for Marc.

Where is Marc’s lifetime achievement award? How much longer are we going to ignore his bravery, his leadership? Is his courage and determination going to be forgotten?

Not by me, it won’t.

Standing up to threats
I know how hard it is to stand up to disapproval, verbal abuse, threats of violence, abusive language, rumours, lies and prejudice. I know how hard it is to stand up to my own peers, to take it on the chin when I find out I’m wrong, and to refuse to bend when I know I’m right.

I’ve learned this lesson: They can take your job. They can take your livelihood. They can stab you in the back. They can grind you down. They can attack your dignity, they can shake your confidence.

But they can’t change the truth. Because it’s not my truth, or yours, or theirs.

You can find another place to work. You can find other ways to ply your trade. You can bear up under pressure, even when nobody else believes you can. You can learn to carry on.

You can do all of that, if you’re faithful to the truth. The truth is what we serve, not the director, the producer, the editor.

The truth is our republic. We have a duty to defend it. All of it. Not just the bits that please us. All of it. All the time. Even when it costs us. Especially when it costs us.

We are bound to defend and protect the truth. The truth is the seed we sow. And from that seed, we reap a better democracy.

Holding power to account
Democracy unchallenged isn’t democracy. The people can’t rule if they can’t ask questions.
This principle underpins the media’s role in keeping democracy healthy, and rebuilding it when it’s under threat. The role of the media is to hold power to account.

In Vanuatu, this basic idea needs to be better understood by the government and the governed alike. We can do this by helping journalists better understand their role, and helping them get what they need to fulfil that role more effectively.

The revised Media Code of Ethics and Practice is a milestone on that road. But it’s meaningless if we don’t stand by it.

To my media colleagues, I say: Forget your jealousies, your rivalries. Reject pride, collusion and corruption wherever you see it, even in yourself. Especially in yourself.

Stand with MAV. Uphold this code, and we will stand together with the truth. Because the truth is our republic.

Dan McGarry is former media director (pending an appeal) of the Vanuatu Daily Post / Buzz FM and independent journalist and he held that position since 2015 until the government blocked his work permit in 2019. His Village Explainer is a semi-regular newsletter containing analysis and insight focusing on under-reported aspects of Pacific societies, politics and economics.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz