Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has hinted that the country may “hold its first-ever referendum” following a landmark Supreme Court opinion aimed at amending the 2013 Constitution.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court ruled that thresholds for constitutional amendments should be lowered — requiring only a two-thirds majority in parliament and a simple majority of voters in a referendum.

The ruling followed a three-day hearing in August, after Rabuka’s Cabinet, in June, had sought clarification on making changes to parts of the Constitution.

Submissions came from the State, seven political parties, the Fiji Law Society, and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Rabuka said that the Supreme Court’s opinion established a “clear and democratic pathway” for his government’s constitutional reform efforts.

“This opinion provides clarity on matters of constitutional law and governance. It will now go before Cabinet for further deliberation, after which I, as Head of Government, will announce the way forward,” he said in a statement.

However, the Fiji Labour Party, while welcoming the Supreme Court’s opinion, expressed concerns over the lowering of the current “75 percent double super majority requirement” to amend the constitution.

Fijians of Indian descent make up just over 32 percent of Fiji’s total population.

Indo-Fijians ‘particularly vulnerable’
Labour leader and former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said that the Indo-Fijian community felt “particularly vulnerable” due to the nation’s race-based political tensions, which have resulted in four coups.

He noted that the coalition’s “unwillingness to spell out the constitutional changes it was contemplating” had made Indo-Fijians “apprehensive”.

“It is for this reason that Labour had submitted that constitutional changes should be left to political negotiations with a view to achieving consensus, and stability,” he added.

But Rabuka dismissed Chaudhry’s concerns on Monday, saying that his “argument does not stand”.

“In a referendum, every community is part of the decision. Indo-Fijians, like all other minority groups, vote as equal citizens,” he said.

He said that any government wanting to change the constitution would need support from the whole nation.

“This forces proposals to be fair, broad, and inclusive. Discriminatory ideas would never survive such a test.”

‘Generalised statements’ criticised
Rabuka said Chaudhry should refrain from making “generalised statements”, adding that he does not have the mandate to speak for all Indo-Fijians.

“Chaudhry says change should only come through political negotiations and consensus. But that usually means a few leaders making deals in closed rooms. That gives a small group of politicians’ veto power over the entire country, blocking needed changes and leaving Fiji stuck,” he said.

“A referendum is the opposite of backroom politics. It is open, transparent, and gives the final say to the people themselves. That is real democracy. That is what the Coalition Government welcomes entirely.”

While Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party wanted the 2013 Constitution thrown out and replaced with the previous 1997 Constitution, he said the former Prime Minister should “move past the old style of politics and recognise that Fiji may now hold its first-ever referendum”.

“That would be a historic step, one that strengthens democracy for every community, not weakens it.

“As your Prime Minister, I give my assurance to all Fijians that this process belongs to you.”

When Voreqe Bainimarama walked out of Parliament after his government lost by a single vote on Christmas Eve in December 2022, he told reporters who swarmed around him in the capital, Suva: “This is democracy and this is my legacy [the] 2013 Constitution.”

Visibly shellshocked
His most trusted ally Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, looking visibly shellshocked at FijiFirst’s loss of power, said at the time: “We hope that the new government will adhere to the rule of law.”

Sayed-Khaiyum is widely viewed as the architect of the 2013 Constitution, although he disputes that claim.

Critics of the document, which is the country’s fourth constitution, argue that it was imposed by the Bainimarama administration

Meanwhile, the country’s chiefs want the 2013 Constitution gone. In May, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) unanimously rejected the document as “restricting a lot of work for the iTaukei (indigenous Fijians)”.

Following the Supreme Court opinion, the head of of GCC told local media that the 2013 Constitution lacked cultural legitimacy and undermined Fiji’s democratic capacity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended police chief Sitiveni Qiliho have been granted bail.

Both men have pleaded not guilty to one count each of abuse of office.

Magistrate Seini Puamau has set bail at FJ$10,000 (NZ$7,000), according to local news media reports.

Bainimarama and Qiliho have also been ordered not to leave the country and to reside at a permanent address.

Magistrate Puamau also ordered them not to interfere with witnesses.

They are next expected in court on May 11.

On Thursday, the country’s top prosecutor sanctioned charges against the two men for obstructing a police investigation in 2019.

Questioned by pollce
Bainimarama and Qiliho were questioned by the Fiji police investigations unit before being held in remand overnight at the Totogo Police Station in in the capital Suva.

It was the first time for a former PM and a police chief to be kept in a police cell facing such allegations.

The two men were greeted by their family members and friends who gathered outside the courthouse.

The pair were photographed by local reporters smiling as they walked into the Magistrates Court Room 3.

‘I served as PM with integrity’
After being granted bail, Bainimarama told local journalists outside the court that he would defend the charges laid against him.

“Look, I want to tell you that I have served as Fiji’s PM with integrity and with the best interest of all Fijians at heart,” he said.

“I have been served this charge against my legacy so I am going to fight this charge. Not only for my reputation but for democracy, for all Fijians, and of course for the Constitution,” he added.

Bainimarama: “I am going to fight this charge. Not only for my reputation, for democracy, for all Fijians, and of course for the Constitution.” pic.twitter.com/5ExBntYTbL

— Stanley Ian Simpson (@stansimpsonfj) March 10, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Five weeks on from Christmas Eve, I think most of us are still a bit stunned at what has happened in Fiji.

A new government came to power in dramatic circumstances.

It took not one but two Sodelpa management board meetings to change it, with razor-thin margins.

The same drama extended into Parliament.

There was definitely a bump in the road when the military openly expressed concern about the speed of change.

But that was navigated smoothly.

One other thing stood on a razor-thin margin.

Nobody in Fiji should forget it.

‘Rule of law’
A little thing called “rule of law”.

In a Fiji Times column last week, I tried to capture the idea of this.

First, the idea that the law is more important than everyone, including the government.

But second, the idea that the law is more than just rules and regulations which restrict us.

Rule of law means also that the government is bound to respect ordinary people’s rights and freedoms.

That rule of law was seriously at risk under the FijiFirst government.

Things had gotten to the point where, using bullying and fear, unafraid of the courts or any other institution which might restrain it, the FijiFirst government just did what it wanted.

In its last year of power, the only restraint on FijiFirst was the fact that an election was coming.

Turned on opponents
Had it won that election, FijiFirst would have turned its guns on the only opponents it had left — the opposition political parties, the independent news media and the few non-government organisations that continued to criticise it.

Fiji would have fallen firmly into that growing group of countries now called “democratic dictatorships” — places which have elections and the other trappings of democracy, but which in truth severely restrict the democratic rights and freedoms of their people.

Four key officials holding important constitutional positions — the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Supervisor of Elections — have been suspended inside of four weeks.

That tells us one of two things.

Either the new government is particularly vengeful.

Or there are complaints against these officials that date back to the FijiFirst party’s time in power and which are only now coming to light.

After all, they’ve hardly had time to offend us under the new government.

And if these are in fact complaints about things which happened long ago, we must ask — why were they not actioned under the FijiFirst government?

No one dared complain
Or was fear of the government so pervasive that no one dared to complain against these officials — and the complaints are only being made now?

We need to know about these complaints.

Yes, each of these officials is innocent until proven otherwise.

But they are public officials, occupying some of the most powerful and critical positions in the country.

The decisions they make concern our most basic rights and freedoms — whether or not we spend a night in a cell, whether (and when) we will get a ruling on our employment dispute, or whether we are able to vote.

So we, the public, have a right to know what they are accused of.

What has changed?

The overwhelming sentiment for most of us — at least those around me — is a new sense of freedom.

Doesn’t change things
For many of us, that does not really change things from day to day.

Not everyone has the compelling urge to air their opinions on everything (in newspaper columns or elsewhere).

But it is simply the fact that if you want to rant about something on Facebook, you’re not worrying about what the government will think.

Most of us, day to day, are not worrying about whether we will be unfairly held for 48 hours in a jail cell.

Yet only two years ago in the covid crisis, the police were doing that to hundreds of people.

We are not worrying about whether we will be arrested for saying something which will “cause public alarm”.

Yet, every time an NGO or opposition political party leader issued a public statement in the last 10 years, this was a constant worry.

But much of the real damage done was at the next level down — the level where ordinary people like us want to get things done.

This week I met a small group of distinguished doctors.

Climate of fear
I heard with some amazement about the climate of fear which predominated in the Ministry of Health.

Criticism was not permitted.

In November last year, the permanent Secretary for Health publicly told politicians to “leave the Health Ministry alone”.

Nobody, he said, should talk about it.

Nobody should “undermine” it — because it was on the cusp of great things.

One senior medical specialist who famously criticised the state of our hospitals in The Fiji Times was immediately banned from entering them.

This was hardly a hardship — he was only volunteering his skills for free.

But what about all the patients who he was looking after?

He recounted to me, with some wonder the bureaucratic memo-writing process that is now being followed to bring him back.

Cash and volunteers
The International Women’s Association has cash and volunteers ready to improve women’s and children’s health at CWM Hospital.

We are talking about basic things, like hot water and decrepit bathrooms.

How do you run hospital wards without hot water?

IWA’s mistake was to make these deficiencies public on social media.

So the Health Ministry stopped talking to IWA.

Only with the change of government is IWA allowed to openly communicate with the Ministry of Health about what it wants to do — instead of whispers to officials on their gmail accounts.

For years, I have marvelled at the stupidity of the edicts issued from Ministry of Education headquarters.

Schools may not fund-raise without permission.

Schools may not invite speakers to their school assemblies without permission.

Schools may not run extracurricular classes for students without their permission.

‘In name of equality’
The policy seems to be “in the name of equality, we must all be equally dumbed down”.

As the Education Ministry pursued the government’s mad obsession with our “secular state”, schools owned by religious bodies cannot choose their own school heads, even if they pay for them and save the government money.

Education and health are critical issues for all of us.

The government can’t deliver everything.

Governments by nature are unwieldy, bureaucratic and slow (sometimes for good reason, because they have to carefully manage public funds and follow other laws).

So people have to get involved.

Get involved

We also have to get involved on a wide swathe of other issues such as poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, crime and economic opportunities.

Criticism not welcome
These are all things which, for the past 15 years, we were told, the government had under control — like “never before”.

Our input — and certainly our criticism — were not welcome.

Let’s be clear about our new government.

We might be glad that it’s there.

And we should never take for granted the rights and freedoms it has restored to us and the refreshing new attitude it brings after 15 years.

But soon the honeymoon will end, the shine will come off and we will all have to get down to the work (which never ends) of solving our deep social and economic problems.

The expectations on the new government are huge.

Everybody wants every problem to be solved and every complaint to be answered.

We want every crook who has received an unfair benefit to be (as we now always seem to say) “taken to task”.

Same huge debt
The new government has the same huge debt, the same shortage of cash and the same lack of resources the old government did.

It can move some money around and change some priorities — but it can never solve every problem.

But a government that is prepared to tolerate criticism has at least one advantage over one that is not.

It can hear from real people about where the real problems are.

That’s why freedom of expression is not just a nice thing to have.

It’s actually important to tell us what is going on.

This government, like the old one, will gradually become more complacent and unresponsive as it becomes burdened with the ordinary business of administration.

And that is why every democracy — at least every real one — prizes freedom.

Freedom to march
Freedom for people to criticise, to march in the street, to take the government to court, without being punished for it.

These are some of the tools we use to hold the government to account, to remind the politicians that it is about us, not them, and to embarrass the politicians into action.

But just as important is the responsibility on us not just to talk — but also to act.

Our new freedom also means freedom to get involved.

What are the things that are important to us?

Is it health?

Education?

Child poverty?

Prison reform?

Our local environment?

So what will we do?

Don’t take it for granted
We don’t need to be part of some official committee or NGO to fight for the things that are important to us.

We don’t need the government’s permission to hold a public forum to talk about problems and solutions.

After 15 years we need to be able to say to our leaders: “We’re in charge here. This is what we want. You work for us.”

They won’t always listen — but that’s what freedom is.

It was a close-run thing on Christmas Eve — but freedom is what we got.

So let’s not take it for granted.

Let’s use it.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who is fairly free with his opinions. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A New Zealand-based professor in comparative politics says the Fiji constitution needs to clear up the role of the military.

Dr Jon Fraenkel of Victoria University, formerly of the University of the South Pacific, says the 2013 constitution revived the provision that existed in the 1990 constitution which gave the military responsibility for looking after the well-being of the Fiji people.

But he told Pacific Waves this needed clarifying.

“Of course, when that was first introduced in 1990, it was as part of an ethno-nationalist constitution that was seeking to codify indigenous paramountcy in the states. At that point, I think the Fiji military [Republic of Fiji Military Forces] contemplated briefly assuming power in an unconstitutional way for 16 years.

“But it didn’t do that. And by the early 1990s, things had calmed down there was a desire to read for civilian government, for the military to keep out of politics. It’s only really in the wake of the [George] Speight coup that Mohammed Aziz rehabilitated this provision in the 1990 constitution, and suggested that it was still applied under the 1997 constitution, and then they put it in the 2013 constitution.

“And what does this mean? Well, it could mean just about anything. What does it mean to look after the welfare of the Fiji people? You could interpret that to mean anything at all?

“I noticed that before the final result, when [Sitiveni] Rabuka, perhaps misguidedly, complained to the military commander about the glitch about the counting of the election ballots, the military commander said that that wasn’t within his remit.

Protecting ‘well-being’
“In other words, he thought that it didn’t fall under section 131 of the Constitution that gives the military right to intervene to protect the well-being of the Fiji people.

“But after the formation of the new government in early January, the military commander, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai did make a peculiar statement where he expressed concern about the ambition of the government and about the speed at which things were moving.

“And he also suggested that the military might have some responsibility for making sure that the separation of powers is guaranteed.

“Now, that’s usually a role for the courts, not for the military. So one has to be careful about this kind of expansive understanding of the role of the military and the new Fiji. I think there needs to be further discussions about what that actually means.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Constitution does not require everything related to the government to be called Fijian, says Attorney-General Siromi Turaga.

Speaking during a media conference, he said there was no right or wrong way to describe a title or name a government.

He said FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was trying to mislead the people when he said that the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had not called everybody a Fijian.

“On the term of Fijian as common name, again Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is playing with half-truths to mislead the people when it comes to his petty complaints that the Ministry of Information Facebook page is now called Fiji Government,” Turaga said.

“We are the Republic of Fiji not the republic of Fijians constitutionally, Fiji is home to all Fijians.

“In China, the official government website is the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

“In Australia and Britain it is the Australian government and the British government. He said the Constitution never said that when someone spoke they must call every citizen Fijian.

“Frankly, there is nothing grammatically incorrect about that and the fact is, no law was broken by the renaming.

“A Constitution does not say everything related to the government must be called Fijian, neither does it require all officials to call citizens Fijian when they speak.

“It is the prerogative of government and the transition from FFP (government) to the coalition government, a decision has been made to call the government page Fiji Government.”

Turaga said the 2013 Constitution also enshrined freedom of speech.

Meri Radinibaravi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Politicians can respond to the political rhetoric but claims that the new Fiji government has broken the law are a more serious matter, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

Reacting to FijiFirst general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s claims that there have been a number of incursions into the separation of powers since the government came in, Naidu said Sayed-Khaiyum had made no specific allegations that the People’s Alliance-led coalition had breached the “separation of powers”.

“In layman’s terms, ‘the separation of powers’ means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each ‘stay in their lanes’,” he said.

“They should not interfere in each other’s functions.

“Aiyaz has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?”

Naidu also questioned the procedures that were taken to set up the 2013 Constitution.

“Aiyaz’s FijiFirst party government applied the constitution as it suited them.

“It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121); it never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149); it never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150).

“This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.”

Rakesh Kumar is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format.

He pontificated at length while his party’s MPs stood silently behind him.

From what I could tell, Sayed-Khaiyum’s speech was a mixture of political criticism and claims about the law. The politicians can respond to the political rhetoric. But claims that the government has broken the law are a more serious matter.

Sayed-Khaiyum has raised a number of complaints suggesting that the new government has broken the law. He has not been very clear about why this is so. However, for the record, let’s go over these complaints (or at least what he seems to be suggesting):

that former Constitutional Offices Commission members were unlawfully removed from office

Wrong. The Commissioners were asked to resign. They did so. No law prevents them from resigning. If they had refused to resign, they would have remained in place (as others have done).

Sayed-Khaiyum says that the PM had “no authority” to ask them to resign. Wrong. Nobody needs “authority” to ask anyone else to commit a voluntary act. The former Constitutional Offices Commissioners are not the property of the FijiFirst party. No law has been broken.

that the Minister for Home Affairs should not have asked the Commissioner of Police to resign

Wrong. It is a free country. The minister may make any request he wants — and the commissioner may accept or refuse that request.

The commissioner refused the minister’s request, saying he wanted the Constitutional Office Commission process be followed. The commissioner remains in place.

No law has been broken.

that prayers at government functions breach the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum read out s.4 of the Constitution (“Secular state”) and claimed that at government functions prayers were now only offered in one religion (presumably the Christian one).

To suggest that this is something new — that this did not happen under the FijiFirst party government — is fantasy. And I too wish that those who offer prayers were sometimes a little more sensitive to other religions.

But that is not the point. The Constitution does not tell any of us how to pray.

No law has been broken.

“not referring to all citizens as Fijians”

The Constitution may refer to all citizens as “Fijians”. But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. There is no law that says we must all call each other “Fijians”. We may call each other what we want.

No law has been broken.

replacing boards of statutory authorities before expiry of their terms

Sayed-Khaiyum should be specific. Which boards is he referring to? If board members have resigned and been replaced, then what I have already said about resignations also applies.

For a number of statutory bodies the minister has, under the relevant law, the power to appoint board members. This power generally includes the power to dismiss them.

Replacing boards or board members mid-term is certainly nothing new. Sayed-Khaiyum may recall a recent example while he was Minister for Housing. He requested the entire Housing Authority board to resign before the expiry of their terms (and they complied).

No law has been broken.

taking back ATS [Air Terminal Services] workers. Sayed-Khaiyum seems to think that because a court decided that ATS is not required to take the workers back, ATS cannot do so.

Wrong. Any parties to litigation — including employers and employees — can decide to settle their differences at any time — including after a court ruling. The new government has requested ATS to take its former employees back. If ATS has a legal problem with this, no doubt it will tell government.

No law has been broken.

that using vernacular languages in Parliament breaches Standing Orders

Other than for the formal process of electing the Speaker and the Prime Minister, Parliament has not yet even sat yet.

The new government wants to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament. The current Standing Orders do not permit this.

So, to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament, the government will have to propose changes to the Standing Orders and parliamentarians will have to vote for them. That is normal procedure (Standing Order 128).

No law has been broken.

“separation of powers”

Under the FijiFirst party government, this phrase seemed to be thrown around to justify anything. For example, the Parliament Secretariat would frequently refuse to allow opposition MPs to ask questions of government ministers because of “the separation of powers”.

This justification made no sense. Section 91 of the Constitution requires ministers to be accountable to Parliament.

In layman’s terms, “the separation of powers” means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each “stay in their lanes”.

They should not interfere in each other’s functions. Sayed-Khaiyum has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?

FijiFirst and the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst party government applied the Constitution as it suited them.

It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121) It never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149).

It never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150). This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.

His government treated Parliament — the elected representatives of Fiji’s people — with contempt. Almost all of its laws were passed under urgency (Standing Order 51).

Typically, parliamentarians got two days’ notice of what new laws the government was proposing, sometimes less. That meant no one had time to review the laws
or consult the people on them.

The FFP government treated the people’s laws as its own property. Sayed-Khaiyum complains about board members being removed and public service appointment rules not being followed. He says nothing about the numerous arbitrary terminations of many public servants under the FijiFirst party government, including the Solicitor-General and the Government Statistician.

It was no less than the Fiji Law Society president who this week described rule of law under the FijiFirst government as “sometimes hanging by a thread”.

Against this background, not many lawyers are prepared to listen to Sayed-Khaiyum lecture us on the law.

#LOCALNEWS Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format. #TimesNews #FijiNews #FijiPol https://t.co/sblh8koJBs

— The Fiji Times (@fijitimes) January 22, 2023

If you’ve got a problem, go to court

The “separation of powers” doctrine is also clear that if you have a problem with the lawfulness of any government action, the courts are there to solve that problem. It is the
courts who decide if anyone has breached the Constitution. It is not the secretary of the opposition political party.

So, if Sayed-Khaiyum has a complaint that the law has been broken, he should do what the rest of us do — take it to court. That is what he frequently told the Opposition to do when it complained about what his government did.

Sayed-Khaiyum has a little more time on his hands now. He is a qualified lawyer with a practising certificate. So — get on with it. Bring your complaints to court, because
that is where they belong. Should Sayed-Khaiyum really be lecturing us about the law?

Finally, Sayed-Khaiyum has still not explained to anyone how, in the space of three days in January, he got himself kicked out of Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission — and then had to resign from the Constitutional Offices Commission when asked how he could continue as general secretary of the Fiji First Party.

Should we really be taking legal advice from him?

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer and a columnist. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The opposition FijiFirst party still “seems to be confused” about the role of its general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

“Mr Sayed-Khaiyum appears to have triggered his exit from Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission,” he said.

“That means he is a ‘public officer’ as defined in the Constitution.

“An MP who accepts appointment as a ‘public officer’ loses his seat in Parliament. That has already happened.

“Mr Bainimarama is now suggesting that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum will continue as general secretary of FijiFirst.

“But Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is still a ‘public officer’.

“Under section 14(1)(b) of the Political Parties (Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures Act 2013) a ‘public officer’ is not eligible to be a political party official.

“In fact, under section 14(1)(a), while he holds office in the Constitutional Offices Commission, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is not allowed even to be a member of the FijiFirst party.

“So FFP’s plans for Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, now that he is out of Parliament, still seem confused.

‘Other parties will be writing’
“No doubt other political parties will be writing to the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, asking him to ensure that the FijiFirst party is complying with the law.”

Naidu was referring to a video statement on the FijiFirst party Facebook page on Tuesday night where FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama said Sayed-Khaiyum’s exit from Parliament would mean that “he will be able to fully concentrate on FijiFirst matters outside Parliament”.

“I will be leading the charge inside Parliament and he will be leading the charge outside Parliament,” Bainimarama said.

“So to ensure that we are constantly in touch with our supporters and all Fijians on a daily basis, I have tasked our general secretary to be our voice outside Parliament.

“He will be in our parliamentary office, he will give us advice and also issue statements on behalf of FijiFirst when Parliament is not sitting.”

Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem confirmed that any person taking up public office must ensure that they comply with section 14(1) of the of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

In a media statement issued after questions from The Fiji Times, he said public office holders according to section 14(1) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 (Act) were not eligible to be an applicant or a member of a registered political party, not eligible to hold office in a registered political party, are not to engage in political activity that may compromise or be seen to compromise the political neutrality of that person’s office in an election; or publicly indicate support for or opposition to any proposed political party or a registered political party or candidate in an election.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s coalition government has every right to “appoint and disappoint” under the 2013 Constitution, says Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

While responding to opposition Leader and former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s call to the coalition government to follow the 2013 Constitution in dealing with the employment of permanent secretaries, Rabuka said even the Bainimarama administration did not follow proper procedure to establish the same Constitution.

“There is a change in the prime minister and he (Bainimarama) should expect changes,” he said.

“We believe that the 2013 Constitution was not properly promulgated by the people.

“The Constitution allows for review and recommendation for changes so we will be looking at this as well.”

Rabuka said the permanent secretaries were hired by the former government.

“So it will be unfair of us to expect them to perform under us as they were hired by the past government.

“Therefore, we have the right to deal with these issues.”

Bainimarama defends constitution
The Fiji Times reported yesterday that Bainimarama had defended the 2013 Constitution in a video that was posted on the party’s Facebook page.

He called on Rabuka and his ministers to follow the 2013 Constitution and the law.

In his video, Bainimarama also called on civil servants, permanent secretaries, all those appointed to various boards, commissions and independent bodies to “stay strong” and not to resign.

“You must not resign from your positions even though the new government and their supporters will bully you, intimidate you and even threaten you,” Bainimarama said.

“Please be strong. You have not done anything wrong.

“You have been appointed through due process and because you had the skill sets, know how, knowledge and acumen to contribute to your organisations and to Fiji.

“Do not leave your posts.”

Serafina Silaitoga is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The People’s Alliance Party took an early lead in the Fiji general election vote tally this evening with a total of 21,810 votes recorded after the completion of counting from 470 of the 2071 polling stations.

The governing FijiFirst Party was in second place with 16,515 votes and SODELPA running third with 3684 votes.

The National Federation Party followed with 3256 votes and Unity Fiji in fifth place with 1688 votes.

The other results by party as at the 5pm update provided by the Fijian Elections Office are:

Fiji Labour Party – 1269
We Unite Fiji Party – 1179
All Peoples Party – 614
New Generation Party – 175
Rajendra Sharma (Independent) – 26
Ravinesh Reddy (Independent) – 21

The top five candidates at that update were:

Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama – 11,248
Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka – 6738
Lynda Diseru Tabuya – 1397
Siromi Dokonivalu Turaga – 1048
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum – 927

Counting continues at the National Count Centre and the next update is due to be provided by the Supervisor of Elections at 10pm.

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

Fiji’s military will respect electoral process – Kalouniwai
RNZ Pacific reports that the Fiji military commander has rejected a request by opposition party leaders to intervene in a dispute over the country’s election process.

Major-General Jone Kalouniwai said the military (RFMF) as an institution would put its trust in the electoral process.

“I wish to reassure the people of Fiji that the RFMF will not respond to [PAP leader Sitiveni ] Rabuka’s insistence or any political party, that we intervene under our responsibilities from Section 131.2 of the 2013 Constitution,” Kalouniwai said.

“The constitutional responsibility of the RFMF section 131.2 does not make any reference to intervening or getting involved with the electoral processes or management of voting or counting of votes with the assistance of the military.”

Kalouniwai explained that using the military in any form during the electoral process was unconstitutional.

The statement came after a group of opposition party leaders called for a halt to vote counting yesterday, demanding an audit of the country’s electoral system.

It was triggered by an anomaly in provisional results that was displayed on a Fiji Election Office results app on Wednesday night.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s National Federation Party leader and Member of Parliament Dr Biman Prasad is confident that the incumbent Voreqe Bainimarama government will be defeated in this year’s general election, because — as he says — “People have had enough; they want a change”.

Speaking to the media in Auckland on Wednesday, he said Fiji was suffering from an economic downturn, inept policies and an unfriendly government.

“Bainimarama does not hold any hope for our people. His government has been in power since December 5, 2006, when he ousted a democratically elected coalition government,” he said.

“Since then, Fiji has been sliding on the economic scale. We are in dire straits.”

Describing the Constitution of Fiji, adopted in 2013 as “draconian”, he said that several provisions of the document were detrimental to human rights and freedom of speech.

“There are human rights breaches, media cannot operate freely and even the Opposition is also not allowed to function as per democratic standards,” he said.

Fiji’s electoral system
Fiji follows a single, nationwide constituency method of electing members to its Parliament through the open list proportion with an electoral threshold of 5 percent.

The House has 50 seats allocated using the D’Hondt method. Also known as the “Jefferson Method” or the “Greatest Divisors Method”. This allows for the allocation of seats in Parliament among federal states or in the party-list proportional representation system.

It belongs to the class of highest average methods.

The method was first described in 1772 by future US President Thomas Jefferson and was reinvented in 1878 by Belgian mathematician Victor D’Hont — hence the name.

The Election Office in Fiji has not set the date for this year’s election but said in an announcement on March 17, 2022, that it would be held during November this year.

Candidates can begin campaigning on April 26, 2022, but must conclude two days before the polling date.

The first general election was held in September 2014 with the Parliamentary term set at four years. Bainimarama and his close friend, Attoney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, established the FijiFirst Party, which won 32 seats, followed by the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) (15 seats) and NFP (3).

However, in the 2018 election, FijiFirst won only 27 seats, with SODELPA gaining 21 seats, while NFP retained its three seats in the 51-Member House.

An accomplished academic
Dr Prasad, who served the University of South Pacific as a lecturer and professor for 28 years, gave up his academic career to enter politics. He was the associate editor of the Journal of Fijian Studies and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Pacific Studies, the head of the School of Economics and later dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics.

He said that the Fijian economy suffered from mismanagement and wasteful expenditure.

“Poverty, which was placed at 29 percent of the population in 2019, has risen sharply since the covid-19 pandemic hit the country. Today another 20 percent of our people are on the margin of poverty. The government received budget support of F$300 million from Australia and New Zealand,” Dr Prasad said.

“The total amount obtained in the last two years from various sources is F$1.3 billion. Covid has exposed the extent of mismanagement. Our growth has been negative for the past three years.

“The agriculture and sugarcane sectors have been neglected and all the money has been spent on tourism. Our infrastructure is in a pathetic state.”

IMF expects contraction
According to the December 2021 report of the International Monetary Fund, Fiji’s real gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by an estimated 15.7 percent in 2021 and is projected to contract by another 4 percent in the fiscal year 20211-2022 in the wake of the delta variant covid outbreak.

“The fiscal deficit reached a record 13.1 percent of GDP in the fiscal year 2020-2021 with an accompanying rise in public debt to 89.8 percent of the GDP by March 2022. Year-on-year consumer price inflation reached -2.8 percent at the end of 2020.

“Increases in international commodity prices and local food prices are expected to drive consumer price inflation to 1.4 percent by end of 2021.

“Both lending and deposit rates have decreased, and private sector credit contracted by 3.1 percent in 2020 and is expected to shrink by a further 3.6 percent by the end of the 2021 financial year. Non-performing loans have risen to record levels,” the IMF report said.

Pact with Rabuka
Dr Prasad said that NFP would work with People’s Alliance party leader Sitiveni Rabuka, who is expected to emerge strongly in the 2022 election, saying that he had changed and favoured inclusive politics.

“We will restore the rights of the people, including freedom of speech, and freedom of the media and repeal the draconian laws within the first 100 days in office. We will have a strong focus on social welfare and improve the availability of healthcare and medicines,” Dr Prasad said.

“Fiji wants a free government. As a politician, I was arrested more than once for speaking out against the Constitution.”

He is confident that the people of Fiji will elect the opposition parties to form the government later this year.

“Our people want a good, accountable and transparent government. Our Constitution does not allow a coalition government but we are confident of reaching an agreement with other parties. We have plenty of work to do,” he said.

Dr Prasad ruled out another coup saying, “Fijians will not tolerate any more of them”.

Earlier, New Zealand Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono spoke about the plight of West Papuan students who have been facing hardship since the Indonesian government stopped funding their scholarships at the beginning of this year.

He said that he had written to the Labour government asking for urgent financial support through the Scholarship Fund and including the affected students in the “2021 Pathway to Residency Programme”.

Venkat Raman is editor and general manager of Indian Newslink. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad is confident there will be a change of government in Fiji this year and his party will be part of the new line-up giving the people a genuine choice for an optimistic future.

“The people of Fiji are fed up with the lies and propaganda that they have seen with this government,” he told listeners today on Pacific Media Network’s Radio 531pi.

“Why we are very optimistic is that we feel that the people are going to make a definite choice [in the general election] to reject this government that has been in power for the past 15 years.”

The current FijiFirst government has been in power since then military commander Voreqe Bainimarama seized power in a coup in 2006 and was then elected to office in a return to democracy in 2014.

Economist Professor Prasad said that his NFP partnership with the People’s Alliance Party (PAP), formed last year and led by former 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka, was committed to bringing back a “sense of good governance” to Fiji with transparency and accountability.

Responding to public discussions about democracy, he told Pacific Days host Ma’a Brian Sagala that Fiji was “far, far away from a genuine democracy”.

“We have articulated this very well over the last three or four years,” he said.

‘Ambush’ discussion
His interview with PMN today had a very different and more informative tone compared to a hostile “ambush” discussion yesterday with Radio Tarana’s host Pawan Rekha Prasad, who kept insisting on an NFP party manifesto when the election writs have not yet been issued and campaigning has yet to start.

Professor Prasad eventually walked out of that interview, complaining that he was not being “listened to”.

He later told Fijivillage that it was a set-up and a plan to try to “discredit him”.

Professor Prasad also spoke to a media briefing yesterday that included Indian Newslink editor Venkat Rahman and Māori and Pacific journalists at the Whānau Community Hub when he commented about plans for the “first 100 days” if elected.

Asked by Sagala what the major election issues would be, Professor Prasad said: “The situation in Fiji with respect to the economy, with respect to poverty levels, with respect to health issues, education, infrastructure, and the contraction of the economy — that we even had before the covid pandemic — has been of serious concern to the people.”

He said Fijians “want a choice in the next election”.

“They want to see the last of the current government in Fiji and we in the NFP and the People’s Alliance, and the partnership agreement that we have signed, provide a definite distinction and choice for the people.”

Issues for the election
These issues would be the ones that NFP would be taking into the election. A date has yet to be set, but the election writs are due on April 26 with the ballot to be set between July 9 and January 2023.

Professor Prasad said the mood at the recent NFP convention when people gathered again after two years of the pandemic was confident.

“We had a sense of exuberance, and a sense of optimism. Everyone is looking ahead to the election and a change of government,” he said.

Asked by Sagala what would the partnership do if successful in the election, Professor Prasad said a coalition was only possible after the election. But the partnership agreement between the NFP and PAP would be a good basis for forming a coalition.

However, Professor Prasad also pointed to the 2018 NFP manifesto as a good indicator.

Asked about a recent “heated exchange” in a parliamentary debate about the Fiji Investment Bill and a claim by Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum that the partnership was a “naked grab for power at any cost”, Professor Prasad said:

‘Ironical and hypocritical’
“This is ironical and the height of hypocrisy when coming from a man who himself with Frank Bainimarama nakedly grabbed power together in 2006 through the barrel of a gun.

“And they stayed in power with the support of the military from 2006 to 2014 when we had an election under an imposed constitution by them.

“So it is quite ironical and hypocritical of the de facto prime minister or leader of the FijiFirst party to say that this partnership is about a naked grab for power.

“Far from it, this partnership gives a clear choice, an alternative for the people of Fiji, and they have been looking for one.

“This partnership is the alternative.”

The Professor Biman Prasad interview on Radio 531pi’s Pacific Days.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Brij Vilash Lal, banished from the land of his birth by the Bainimarama government in November 2009 for championing democracy and barred from entering Fiji upon the orders of the Prime Minister, has died in Brisbane, 12 years after the draconian act of a heartless government.

The sudden and shocking death of Professor Brij Lal at the age of 69 should create a moment for all Fiji citizens to pause and reflect, even while we are distracted by our many personal challenges brought on by the pandemic and our other deep national problems.

Professor Lal was a giant on the international academic stage. But for the last 12 years of his life he was banned by the Bainimarama and FijiFirst governments from returning to the place of his birth.

Some of Fiji’s most outstanding people, with international reputations, are sporting figures, business people or international diplomats. But among historians and scholars, Professor Lal stood tall around the world.

From a poor farming family in Tabia, Vanua Levu, Professor Lal rose to be an emeritus professor of Pacific and Asian history at the Australian National University, one of the world’s highest-ranked places of learning.

He was an acknowledged expert on the Indian diaspora around the world. He was recognised as the pre-eminent historian on the history of indenture and Girmitiya.

Among his many books, he wrote authoritative biographies on A D Patel and Jai Ram Reddy, two of Fiji’s most influential political leaders.

1997 Fiji Constitution architect
Professor Lal will be remembered as one of the architects of the 1997 Fiji Constitution. His membership of the three-man Reeves Commission, with former Parliamentary Speaker Tomasi Vakatora, ushered in multiparty government and a national governing law strongly protective of good governance, human rights and multiracialism.

It is this constitution that current Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, as Army Commander, twice abrogated in May 2000, only for it to be restored by the Fiji Court of Appeal in March 2001, and again in April 2009, bringing in a new legal order.

However, Professor Lal may be best remembered in Fiji as the target of a small-minded two-man government of Voreqe Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, which banned him and his wife Dr Padma Lal indefinitely from returning to Fiji.

This was because Professor Lal spoke up for democracy and rule of law at a time the Bainimarama government did not want to be criticised. Professor Lal remained excluded from Fiji to the day of his death because Fiji’s insecure political leaders could never say they were wrong.

And they repeatedly refused to reconsider their reprehensible act despite resumption of parliamentary democracy 7 years ago in October 2014.

Pettiness of Fiji leaders
The pettiness of Fiji’s leaders will not take away Professor Lal’s towering achievements and scholarship, for which he will one day be fully recognised in the place he was born. All of us in Fiji are the poorer for his irreplaceable loss.

The opposition National Federation Party will be organising a condolence gathering to remember Professor Lal and details on this will be announced soon.

The party offers its deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to Dr Padma Narsey Lal, children Yogi and Niraj and the Lal and Narsey families in Fiji and abroad.

“I do not know whether I will ever be able to understand the mystery that is Fiji, and whether I will ever be allowed to return to again embrace the land of my birth. But I know one unalterable truth whatever happens, the green undulating hills of Tabia will always be a special place for me. Home is where the heart is.”

– Professor Brij Vilash Lal, October 2020

Professor Biman Prasad is leader of the Fiji opposition National Federation Party (NFP) and a former colleague of Professor Brij Lal at the University of the South Pacific.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The opinion polls about voting intentions for Fiji’s 2022 General Election suggests that voters face the horrible challenge of choosing as their next Prime Minister one of two former military officers.

Both of these former soldiers have carried out military coups removing lawfully elected governments.

Is Fiji genuinely between, as the saying goes, “a rock and a hard place”? I suggest that today’s young voters, who have only known the 14 years of governance by the Voreqe Bainimarama government, need to think also about how Sitiveni Rabuka governed Fiji after his 1987 coup.

Both coup leaders may have coup skeletons in their cupboards.

But only one is being very selectively focused on by the current Republic of Fiji Military Force (RFMF) commander, writing (appropriately) in the other daily newspaper, Fiji Sun.

Fiji’s voters ought to focus on historical facts by answering the following difficult questions about the two coup leaders:

• Who were really behind the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006?
• How did each coup leader change Fiji’s constitution and Fiji’s governance?
• How did each coup leader change the powerful institutions of state, such as police, prisons and judiciary?
• How did each coup leader influence the media?
• Were our coup leaders collective decision-makers or dictators?
• Were the coup leaders accountable to the voters or to “powers behind the throne”?

Perhaps Fiji is more accurately “between a rock and a softer place” with political and economic progress only possible if there is a change in government.

Behind the 1987 coup?
The world knows that Sitiveni Rabuka, the third in command in the RFMF, implemented the first 1987 coup.

But anyone watching the very public protests against the 1987 NFP/FLP government would have known that the former Prime Minister (the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara) and the Governor-General and later President (the late Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau), and all their entourages, would have had their ears very close to the ground and, possibly, their fingers in the pie.

But importantly, what did Rabuka do afterwards as coup leader?

Rabuka became multiracial
Victor Lal and Fijileaks rightly remind readers about the trauma that Rabuka’s 1987 coup caused the Indo-Fiji community.

But what needs also to be discussed is Rabuka’s reform of the racist 1990 Constitution and his support of the revolutionary 1997 Constitution.

Rabuka, in partnership with Jai Ram Reddy (Leader of the National Federation Party) agreed to the appointment of the three-person Reeves Constitution Commission (Sir Paul Reeves, Tomasi Vakatora Snr and Dr Brij Lal).

Their report was the basis of the 1997 Constitution, with one valuable addition not in the report.

It is sadly often forgotten today that the 1997 Constitution included a “multiparty government” provision.

This ensured that any party with at least 10 percent of the seats in Parliament had to be invited to join the cabinet and share in the governance of Fiji.

Of course, there was one huge defect in its electoral system, which I had explained even as I (as a NFP Member of Parliament then) voted to pass the 1997 Constitution. (“The Constitution Review Commission Report: sound principles but weak advice on electoral system”, The Fiji Times, November 1, 1996).

But we in the NFP were in a hurry to approve the progressive constitutional change agreed to by Rabuka.

We knew he had to convince some very reluctant colleagues, and we fully co-operated for the 1999 Elections.

I remember accompanying Ratu Inoke Kubuabola in his election campaigns in the Yasawas and Ratu Sakiusa Makutu in Nadroga.

Sadly, both Indo-Fijian and indigenous Fijian voters rejected the multiracial stance of Rabuka and Reddy.

Nevertheless, it is to Rabuka’s credit that he accepted the results of the election and humbly offered his services to Mahendra Chaudhry as the incoming PM (on the phone in my presence on the Vatuwaqa Golf Course).

Unfortunately, for reasons that historians can explore till the cows come home, Chaudhry did not accept that humble offer from Rabuka, who soon after lost the leadership of SVT to Ratu Inoke Kubuabola.

Ignored today are the following:

• the historical opportunity to implement a multiracial multiparty government (of the Fiji Labour Party and Mr Rabuka’s Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party went begging. Thus the cogs of the 2000 coup were set in motion;
• the 1997 Constitution had an upper house — the Senate which was a solid “checks and balances” mechanism of national leaders, and which could officially hold the decisions of the elected House of Representatives to account; and
• by and large the institutions of government were relatively independent of the government of the day. Less clear are the events of 2000.

Behind the 2000 coup?
It is a real tragedy that while George Speight is seen as the leader of the 2000 coup, the truth has never been revealed about who else, including military officers, might have had more than just a sticky hand in it.

It is a real tragedy that Fiji has forgotten the names of a few honest RFMF officers who were very ethically opposed to the 2000 coup. From personal communications to me, I list the following: Ilaisa Kacisolomone, George Kadavulevu, Vilame Seruvakoula, Akuila Buadromo and several others.

But also conveniently forgotten are the names of RFMF officers who were at least initially behind the 2000 coup, many revealed by the Evans Board of Inquiry Report (which can be freely downloaded from the TruthForFiji website).

What is historically indisputable is that after RFMF gained control of the situation  Bainimarama chose not to restore the lawful Chaudhry government to power but appointed the interim Qarase government, thereby effecting the real coup.

It is said that some of the CRW soldiers involved in the November 2000 mutiny did so because they felt betrayed by some in the RFMF hierarchy.

It is not disputed that a number of CRW soldiers (not necessarily involved in the mutiny) ended up dead after the mutiny in circumstances not known to this day.

It is not in dispute that Rabuka, with his uniform, appeared at Queen Elizabeth Barracks at the time of the mutiny.

But while one newspaper is focusing on his actions, the roles of several other senior RFMF officers during the 2000 coup are not being similarly examined.

2006 and governance since then
Now we come to the 2006 coup.

In contrast to those which went before, there is no doubt whatsoever that the then RFMF commander, Voreqe Bainimarama, was the sole leader of the 2006 coup and totally controlled the government thereafter, while still controlling the RFMF.

Given what have I sketched above, the sheer contrasts of the Bainimarama coup with the Rabuka coup are all too obvious.

It is tragically forgotten that the 2006 coup did not just depose Qarase’s SDL government.

It deposed a multi-party government — a government of Qarase’s Soqosqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) Party and FLP.

One can understand why Chaudhry as FLP leader has never emphasised that point.

Soon after the 2006 coup, he joined Bainimarama’s government as Minister of Finance.

It is indisputable that Bainimarama ruled Fiji for eight years as the head of a military government which was not democratically accountable to the Fiji public.

A “People’s Charter” exercise was carried out under the leadership of John Samy and the late Archbishop Mataca but rejected without explanation.

Professor Yash Ghai’s Constitutional Commission was appointed by Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

It produced a comprehensive draft constitution, but Professor Ghai and his Commission were also were sent packing for reasons never clarified.

A 2013 Constitution with little popular input was imposed on Fiji without the approval of any elected Parliament.

The Senate was abolished.

Parliament has become a rubber stamp for the legislative changes the current government wants.

Many important institutions of government were allowed by the Constitution to come under the direct or indirect control of the politicians who controlled the government.

Large sections of the media (with the painful exception of The Fiji Times) and the Media Industry Development Authority came under government influence or control.

Undermining the Ministry of Information, a massive amount of money was spent annually on American propaganda machine Qorvis.

One government minister, not the Prime Minister, clearly became all powerful while others toed the line or were ejected from Parliament.

To fund the ruling party’s electioneering, the owners of some of Fiji’s largest businesses have worked their way around the annual political donation limit of $10,000 by using family members and even in some cases staff, contributing hundreds of thousands in cash.

A distorted electoral system
Under the 2013 Constitution an electoral system was imposed, supposedly proportional, but designed to elect a President type “leader” with the bulk of the votes, while the rest of his MPs and ministers had pitifully small numbers.

There was an outrageous ballot paper for one national constituency without names, faces, or party symbols, just one number among more than 200 from which Fiji’s largely undereducated voters were to select one number.

Voters were not allowed the help of even a “voter assistance card” (common in all democratic countries) which was astonishingly made illegal with heavy fines.

This utterly contrived electoral system was given the stamp of approval by many authoritative figures such as the Catholic cleric Reverend David Arms and even self-censoring USP academics whose academic journal covering the 2014 elections blazoned “ENDORSED” on their cover.

That system was perpetuated through the 2018 Elections and is now in full swing for the 2022 elections.

The outcome of those elections will be interesting to say the least, given that under the Constitution the RFMF can claim legal responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of Fiji, which may be what they decide themselves.

Between a rock and a softer place?
Of course, Fiji’s voters might also want to examine the impact of the two coup leaders on the public debt, FNPF and the economic welfare (and poverty) of ordinary people of Fiji.

But even the very simple comparisons and contrasts that I have drawn above between Rabuka and Bainimarama in their governance of Fiji, would suggest that Fiji is not between “the rock and a hard place” but “between a rock and a softer place”.

I am sure that The Fiji Times readers are intelligent enough to decide who is the “rock” and who is the “softer place” — regardless of the skeletons rattling in both their cupboards.

Professor Wadan Narsey is a former professor of economics at The University of the South Pacific and a leading Fiji economist and statistician. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji celebrated Constitution Day today virtually due to the ongoing civid-19 pandemic crisis, but many see the day as a hollow event not worth celebrating.

The national holiday marks the eighth year that the adoption of the controversial and contested 2013 Constitution by the Bainimarama government has been observed.

Among the critics this year is opposition National Federation Party (NFP) leader Professor Biman Prasad who says the document is “widely rejected” around the world while being “frequently ridiculed” at home in Fiji.

“Every year the FijiFirst Party desperately attempts to talk up the Constitution,” he declared in a statement today mocking the document.

“It even tries to suggest that it is one of the world’s best. Yet no serious constitutional lawyer believes so. Around the world it is widely rejected. In Fiji, it is frequently ridiculed.”

Prasad said the Constitution was nothing more than “a piece of paper if it is not honoured in spirit”.

“In Fiji, the Constitution does not belong to the people. The people live in fear of its institutions.”

Dr Prasad spelt out the reasons he believed caused this “national fear”:

• “Most people live in fear of the government. Many fear police assaults, which are now routine.
• “Other people fear being identified with the opposition, because they will be denied government benefits.
• “People who do not want to be vaccinated are denied welfare. Those who dissent with the government line on vaccinations are arrested.
• “Laws such as Bill 17 [introducing governance changes for indigenous land] are rammed through the Parliament without consultation. Even MPs who criticise these laws are detained and questioned by police.
• “Under our Constitution people have a right to health. Yet this government’s shocking handling of the covid-19 second wave has led to hundreds of deaths, both from the disease and from denied care. We have had some of the highest covid infection rates in the world.
• “Trade unions are refused the right to march to demand workers’ rights. And the government has not increased the already pitiful minimum wage for nearly five years. Even people with full-time work live in poverty.
• “Our Human Rights Commission is supposed to enforce and protect our constitutional rights. Yet it is widely ridiculed as a pro-government mouthpiece and a national joke.”

Dr Prasad lamented that this was the Constitution as Fiji lived it today – “the so-called ‘reality of the matter’.”

He pledged a National Federation Party government would abolish “Constitution Day” if elected in Fiji’s general election next year.

“We will instead create a Founders’ Day – a day to commemorate the great leaders of Fiji’s past, a reminder to all of us about those who led us in the lead-up to independence and helped to create our country.

“A NFP government will also reinstate Ratu Sukuna Day as a public holiday.

“We have been blessed with sound, wise leadership in the past. One day, good leadership will return to our country.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz