Entities and individuals that thrived under the previous government with public relations contracts now want to be part of the media or run media organisations, says Fiji Media Association (FMA) secretary Stanley Simpson.

He made the comments yesterday while speaking at a World Press Freedom Day event hosted by the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific.

“We were attacked by fake accounts and a government-funded propaganda machine,” he said.

“It is ironic that those who once spinned and attacked the media as irrelevant  — because they said no one reads or watches them anymore — now want to be part of the media or run media organisations.”

“There are entities and individuals that thrived under the previous government with PR contracts while the media struggled and now want to come and join the hard-fought new media landscape.”

Simpson said the Fijian media fraternity would welcome credible news services.

“We have to be wary and careful of entities that pop up overnight and their real agendas.”

“Particularly those previously involved with political propaganda.

“And we are noticing a number of these sites seemingly working with political parties and players in pushing agendas and attacking the media and political opponents.”

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Laraswati Ariadne Anwar in Suva

The Pacific Island countries are Indonesia’s neighbours. However, so far they are not very familiar to the ears of the Indonesian people.

One example is Fiji, the largest country in the Pacific Islands. This country, which consists of 330 islands and a population of 924,000 people, has actually had relations with Indonesia for 50 years.

In the context of regional geopolitics, Fiji is the anchor of Indonesian diplomacy in the Pacific.

Fiji is known as a gateway to the Pacific. This status has been held for centuries because, as the largest country and with the largest port, practically all commodities entering the Pacific Islands must go through Fiji.

Along with Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS) of New Caledonia, Fiji forms the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

Indonesia now has the status of a associate member of the MSG, or one level higher than an observer.

For Indonesia, this closeness to the MSG is important because it is related to affirming Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Human rights violations
The MSG is very critical in monitoring the handling of human rights violations that occur in Papua. In terms of sovereignty, the MSG acknowledges Indonesia’s sovereignty as recorded in the Charter of the United Nations.

The academic community in Fiji is also highlighting human rights violations in Papua. As a Melanesian nation, the Fijian people sympathise with the Papuan community.

In Fiji, some individuals hold anti-Indonesian sentiment and support pro-independence movements in Papua. In several civil society organisations in Suva, the capital of Fiji, the Morning Star flag of West Papuan independence is also raised in solidarity.

Even so, Fijian academics realise that they lack context in examining Indonesian problems. This emerged in a talanoa or focused discussion with representatives of universities and Fiji’s mainstream media with a media delegation from Indonesia. The event was organised by the Indonesian Embassy in Suva.

Academics say that reading sources about Indonesia generally come from 50 years ago, causing them to have a limited understanding of developments in Indonesia. When examined, Indonesian journalists also found that they themselves lacked material about the Pacific Islands.

Both the Fiji and Indonesian groups realise that the information they receive about each other mainly comes from Western media. In practice, there is scepticism about coverage crafted according to a Western perspective.

“There must be open and meaningful dialogue between the people of Fiji and Indonesia in order to break down prejudices and provide space for contextual critical review into diplomatic relations between the two countries,” said Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, a former journalist who is now head of the journalism programme at the University of the South Pacific (USP). He was also chair of the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference Committee which was attended by the Indonesian delegation.

‘Prejudice’ towards Indonesia
According to experts in Fiji, the prejudice of the people in that country towards Indonesia is viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity to develop a more quality and substantive relationship.

In that international conference, representatives of mainstream media in the Pacific Islands criticised and expressed their dissatisfaction with donors.

The Pacific Islands are one of the most foreign aid-receiving regions in the world. Fiji is among the top five Pacific countries supported by donors.

Based on the Lowy Institute’s records from Australia as of October 31, 2023, there are 82 donor countries in the Pacific with a total contribution value of US$44 billion. Australia is the number one donor, followed by China.

The United States and New Zealand are also major donors. This situation has an impact on geopolitical competition issues in the region.

Indonesia is on the list of 82 countries, although in terms of the amount of funding contributed, it lags behind countries with advanced economies. Indonesia itself does not take the position to compete in terms of the amount of funds disbursed.

Thus, the Indonesian Ambassador to Fiji, Nauru, Kiribati, and Tuvalu, Dupito Simamora, said that Indonesia was present to bring a new colour.

“We are present to focus on community empowerment and exchange of experiences,” he said.

An example is the empowerment of maritime, capture fisheries, coffee farming, and training for immigration officers. This is more sustainable compared to the continuous provision of funds.

Maintaining ‘consistency’
Along with that, efforts to introduce Indonesia continue to be made, including through arts and culture scholarships, Dharmasiswa (a one-year non-degree scholarship programme offered to foreigners), and visits by journalists to Indonesia. This is done so that the participating Fiji community can experience for themselves the value of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika — the official motto of Indonesia, “Unity in diversity”.

Indonesia has also offered itself to Fiji and the Pacific Islands as a “gateway” to Southeast Asia. Fiji has the world’s best-selling mineral water product, Fiji Water. They are indeed targeting expanding their market to Southeast Asia, which has a population of 500 million people.

The Indonesian Embassy in Suva analysed the working pattern of the BIMP-EAGA, or the East ASEAN economic cooperation involving Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and the Philippines. From there, a model that can be adopted which will be communicated to the MSG and developed according to the needs of the Pacific region.

In the ASEAN High-Level Conference of 2023, Indonesia initiated a development and empowerment cooperation with the South Pacific that was laid out in a memorandum of understanding between ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

At the World Water Forum (WWF) 2024 and the Island States Forum (AIS), the South Pacific region is one of the areas highlighted for cooperation. Climate crisis mitigation is a sector that is being developed, one of which is the cultivation of mangrove plants to prevent coastal erosion.

For Indonesia, cooperation with the Pacific is not just diplomacy. Through ASEAN, Indonesia is pushing for the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). Essentially, the Indo-Pacific region is not an extension of any superpower.

All geopolitical and geo-economic competition in this region must be managed well in order to avoid conflict.

Indigenous perspectives
In the Indo-Pacific region, PIF and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) are important partners for ASEAN. Both are original intergovernmental organisations in the Indo-Pacific, making them vital in promoting a perception of the Indo-Pacific that aligns with the framework and perspective of indigenous populations.

On the other hand, Indonesia’s commitment to the principle of non-alignment was tested. Indonesia, which has a free-active foreign policy policy, emphasises that it is not looking for enemies.

However, can Indonesia guarantee the Pacific Islands that the friendship offered is sincere and will not force them to form camps?

At the same time, the Pacific community is also observing Indonesia’s sincerity in resolving various cases of human rights violations, especially in Papua. An open dialogue on this issue could be evidence of Indonesia’s democratic maturity.

Republished from Kompas in partnership with The University of the South Pacific.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji government has announced it will repeal the controversial Media Industry Development Act 2010.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said cabinet had approved the tabling of a bill to repeal the Act “as a whole.”

“The decision is pursuant to the People’s Coalition Government’s commitment to the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in the country,” said Rabuka in his post-cabinet meeting update.

“It has been said that ‘media freedom and freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy’,” he said.

“These fundamental freedoms are integral to enable the people to hold their government accountable.

“I am proud to stand here today to make this announcement, which was key to our electoral platform, and a demand that I heard echoed in all parts of the country that I visited,” he added.

The announcement comes just days after Rabuka’s government introduced a new draft legislation to replace the act.

Strongly opposed
The move to replace the 2010 media law with a new one was strongly opposed during public consultations by local journalists and media organisations.

They said there was no need for new legislation to control the media and called for a “total repeal” of the existing regulation.

The country’s Deputy Prime Minister, Manoa Kamikamica, told RNZ Pacific last Friday that there were areas of concern that local stakeholders had raised during the consultation session of the proposed new bill.

“We hear what the industry is saying, we will make some assessments and then make a final decision,” he said.

But Rabuka’s announcement today means that the decision has been made.

RNZ Pacific has contacted the Fijian Media Association for comment.

‘Good decision’ but investment needed
University of the South Pacific head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said the announcement was expected.

Dr Singh said repealing the punitive legislation was a core election platform promise of the three challenger parties which are now in power.

“This is a good decision because the Fijian media and other stakeholders were not sufficiently consulted when the decree was promulgated in June 2010.”

But he said while getting rid of the media act was welcomed, the coalition was working on a new legislation and “we have to wait and see what that looks like”.

“The media act was dead in the water or redundant before the change in government. The new government could not have implemented it after coming to power, having criticised it and campaigned against it in their election campaign,” he said.

“Repealing the act removes the fear factor prevalent in the sector for nearly 13 years now.”

Dr Singh said the government had committed to the growth and development of a strong news media.

Public good investment
But that, he said, would require more than the repeal of the act.

“[Improving standards] will require some financial investments by the state since media organisations are struggling financially due to the digital disruption followed by covid.”

He said among the many challenges, the media industry was struggling to retain staff.

“So incentives like government scholarships specifically in the media sector could be one way of helping out.

“Media is a public good and like any public good government should invest in it for the benefit of the public.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji government is signalling that it will not completely tear down the country’s controversial media law which, according to local newsrooms and journalism commentators, has stunted press freedom and development for more than a decade.

Ahead of the 2022 general elections last December, all major opposition parties campaigned to get rid of the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 — brought in by the Bainimarama administration — if they got into power.

The change in government after 16 years following the polls brought a renewed sense of hope for journalists and media outlets.

But now almost 100 days in charge it appears Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition is backtracking on its promise to get rid of the punitive law, a move that has been condemned by the industry stakeholders.

“The government is totally committed to allowing people the freedom of the press that will include the review of the Media Act,” Rabuka said during a parliamentary session last month.

“I believe we cannot have a proper democracy without a free press which has been described as the oxygen of democracy,” he said.

Rabuka has denied that his government is backtracking on an election promise.

“Reviewing could mean eventually repealing it,” he told RNZ Pacific in February.

“We have to understand how it [media act] is faring in this modern day of media freedom. How have other administrations advance their own association with the media,” he said.

He said he intended to change it which means “review and make amendments to it”.

“The coalition has given an assurance that we will end that era of media oppression. We are discussing new legislation that reflects more democratic values.”

And last week, that discussion happened for the first time when consultations on a refreshed version of a draft regulation began in Suva as the government introduced the Media Ownership and Registration Bill 2023.

The bill is expected to “address issues that are undemocratic, threatens freedom of expression, and hinders the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in Fiji.”

The proposed law will amend the MIDA Act by removing the punitive clauses on content regulation that threatens journalists with heavy fines and jail terms.

“The bill is not intended as a complete reform of Fiji’s media law landscape,” according to the explanations provided by the government.

No need for government involvement
But the six-page proposed regulation is not what the media industry needs, according to the University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh.

“We have argued there is no need for legislation,” he said during the public consultation on the bill last Thursday.

“The existing laws are sufficient but if there has to be a legislation there should be minimum or no government involvement at all,” he said.

The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has also expressed strong opposition against the bill and is calling for the MIDA Act to be repealed.

“If there is a need for another legislation, then government can convene fresh consultation with stakeholders if these issues are not adequately addressed in other current legislation,” the FMA, which represents almost 150 working journalists in Fiji, stated.

Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, FMA executive member and Communications Fiji Limited news director Vijay Narayan said “we want a total repeal” of the Media Act.

“We believe that it was brought about without consultation at all…it was shoved down our throats,” Narayan said.

“We have worked with it for 16 years. We have been staring at the pointy end of the spear and we continue to work hard to build our industry despite the challenges we face.”

‘Restrictions stunts growth’
He said the Fiji’s media industry “needs investment” to improve its standards.

Narayan said the FMA acknowledged that the issue of content regulation was addressed in the new law.

But “with the restrictions in investment that also stunts our growth as media workers,” he added.

“The fact that it will be controlled by politicians there is a real fear. What if we have reporting on something and the politician feels that the organisation that is registered should be reregistered.”

The FMA has also raised concerns about the provisions in relation to cross-media ownership and foreign ownership as key issues that impacts on media development and creates an unequal playing field.

Sections 38 and 39 of the Media Act impose restrictions on foreign ownership on local local media organisations and cross-media ownership.

According to a recent analysis of the Act co-authored by Dr Singh, they are a major impediment to media development and need to be re-examined.

“It would be prudent to review the media ownership situation and reforms periodically, every four-five years, to gauge the impact, and address any issues, that may have arisen,” the report recommends.

But Suva lawyer and coalition government adviser Richard Naidu is of the view that all issues in respect to the news media should be opened up.

Naidu, who has helped draft the proposed new legislation, said it “has preserved the status quo” and the rules of cross-ownership and foreign media ownership were left as they were in the Media Act.

“Is that right? That is a question of opinion…because before the [MIDA Act] there were no rules on cross-media ownership, there were no rules on foreign media ownership.”

Naidu said the MIDA Act was initially introduced as a bill and media had two hours to to offer its views on it before its implementation.

“So, which status quo ought to be preserved; the one before the [MIDA Act] was imposed or the one as it stands right now. Those are legitimate questions.”

“There is a whole range of things which need to be reviewed and which will probably take a bit of time.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“The most important thing from my perspective is a strategic partnership — a partnership where the media should not be seen as the enemy or a nuisance.”

This was the view of the Communications Fiji Ltd news director and Fijian Media Association executive Vijay Narayan expressed at a media segment of the Police Consultative Session in Suva yesterday.

Narayan said the media and the police had the same goals and objectives “focusing on truth, integrity, accountability and transparency”.

He said the media was ready to have regular meetings with the senior command of Fiji’s Police Force, and also extended an invitation to the Acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew and his senior officers to visit individual media outlets to understand their work.

Narayan said that at times there was a disconnect where the only time the media was called in was when police wanted to say something or maybe when there was a major issue at hand.

He said he remembered that the Crime Stoppers Board also included members of the media and media organisations.

He added that they “fought the fight together”.

Communications Fiji Ltd news director Vijay Narayan speaking at the police workshop. Video: Fijivillage

Police need ‘humanising’
Narayan encouraged police to engage more with the public through media conferences as the Police Force also needed to be “humanised”, and not just focus their message on posting to their social media page.

The CFL news director said that at times they might not be on the same page but the tough questions needed to be asked.

Fiji Sun’s investigative journalist Ivamere Nataro said some people she spoke to did not understand the work of the police and kept requesting frequent updates.

Nataro said that in this digital age, news spread faster on social media and if the police did not open up to the mainstream media, it was another thing that people looked at.

She said police needed to engage more with the community and show that they cared.

Commissioner agrees
While responding to the media, Acting Commissioner Chew said he agreed with what had been said, and moving forward the police would try to improve.

But Chew also gave an example of when a story had been published alleging that someone had been tortured.

He said the story was published and they did not know whether it was true or false.

When the matter was investigated, the issue just died out.

He said that if they manage to find that person, he or she would be taken to task for giving false information.

Krishneel Nair is a Fijivillage reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In any true democracy, the role of journalists and the media outlets they represent is to inform the people so that they can make educated and well-informed choices.

The role of politicians is to represent those who elected them.

They are to make decisions that best serve the public interest and to ensure that the concerns of citizens are heard, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist and the politician must both serve the people but in peculiarly differing ways.

Journalists act on behalf of citizens by exploring and covering issues that concern the people and in doing so they include a diversity of voices and political opinions that offer different viewpoints and opinions.

The bottom line of their job is ensuring that politicians do their job transparently, with accountability and through better public service delivery.

In the end, journalism enhances, encourages meaningful dialogue and debate in society.

On the other hand, politicians use the media to reach the masses, make them understand their policies and through this — get acceptance and approval from the public.

Politicians love media spotlight
Politicians naturally love the media spotlight for without reporters nobody knows their policies and their good deeds, no matter how grand they may be.

Politicians love talking to reporters so they can get publicity.

Reporters like politicians too because they provide them with stories — there goes the long story of the symbiotic relationship between the press and powerful members of the legislature.

What a perfect relationship.

Absolutely wrong!

Some say the relationship is one of “love and hate” and always hangs in the balance.

This liaison of sorts is more than meets the eye and the truth is simple.

Like the legislature, the media has a prominent and permanent place in national leadership and governance (known as the Fourth Estate).

Critical components of democracy
Both are critical components of a democracy.

Because of their democratic mandate, the media and politicians cannot be fulltime bedfellows.

And as the saying goes, they will have their moments.

However, in past years The Fiji Times has always been seen as the “enemy of the state”.

This had nothing to do with the media’s work as a watchdog of society or the Fourth Estate, but rather with the way in which the former government muzzled the media and created an environment of fear through draconian media laws that stifled freedom of expression and constricted media freedom.

Simply put, a newspaper and any truly independent media outlet must be fair and in being fair, its content must reflect the rich diversity of views and opinions that exists in the public sphere, as well as the aspirations, fears and concerns of the varied groups that exist in the community.

Experts, academics or anyone outside of government is welcomed to use this forum of information exchange, dissemination and sharing.

Politicians, if they have nothing to hide, can use it too, provided what they have to say is honest, sincere and accurate.

Listening to pluralistic ‘voices’
A responsible government deliberately chooses to listen attentively to pluralistic “voices” in the media although these expressions may put it in an uncomfortable position.

A responsible government also explores avenues in which valid ideas could be propagated to improve its own practices and achieve its intended outcome.

In other words, a newspaper exists to, among other reasons, communicate and amplify issues of concern faced by citizens.

This includes voicing citizens’ complaints over any laxity in government’s service delivery, especially people in rural areas who often do not enjoy the public services that we so often take for granted in towns and cities.

So whenever, people use the mainstream media to raise concerns over poor roads, water, garbage disposal, education and inferior health services, the public does so with the genuine yearning for assistance and intervention from government.

And in providing this platform for exchange, the media achieves its democratic goal of getting authorities to effectively respond to taxpayers’ needs, keep their development promises and deliver according to their election manifestos.

Remember, a responsible newspaper or media does not exist to act as government’s mouthpiece.

Retaining media independence
If media outlets give up their independence and allow themselves to be used by politicians for political parties’ own political agenda and gains, then citizens who rely on the media as an instrument for meaningful dialogue, discussion and discourse will be denied their participatory space and expressive rights.

A responsible and autonomous newspaper like The Fiji Times does not exist to make government feel good.

For if this ever occurs, this newspaper will compromise its ability to provide the necessary oversight on government powers and actions, without which, abuse of power and corruption thrive to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

If media organisations and journalists who work for them operate in the way they should, then for obvious reasons, all politicians in government will “sometimes” find the media “upsetting” and “meddlesome”.

Copping the flak from ministers and those in positions of authority is part and parcel of the media’s work.

It is a healthy sign that democracy works.

This newspaper was instrumental in calling on the SVT (Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei) government and its then prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, (now Fiji’s Prime Minister again under the People’s Alliance Party-PAP/National Federation Party (NFP) and Sodelpa coalition) to account for the enormous financial loss which caused the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji in the 1990s.

Our pages can prove that.

This newspaper also scrutinised many of the policies of the coalition government under the leadership of Mahendra Chaudhry and Laisenia Qarase, during whose time, this newspaper was the common foe.

Our pages can prove that.

Last government ‘vindictive, authoritarian’
But no government was as vindictive and authoritarian as the last government.

Today, early in the days of the PAP/NFP and Sodelpa coalition government, we are seeing the good old days of media freedom slowly coming back.

We can now doorstop the Prime Minister and call the Attorney-General at 9pm for a comment and get an answer.

The openness with which ministers talk to the press is encouraging.

We hope things stay that way and the government accepts that we will sometimes put out stories that it finds positive and there will be times when we will make its life difficult and uneasy.

At the end of the day, it is the people that we both work hard to serve.

Sometimes we will step on some people’s toes, be blamed for provoking disquiet and seem unpopular among powerful politicians.

That is to be expected and embraced.

Safeguarding press freedom
But we will continue to play a prominent role in safeguarding the freedom of the press so that all Fijians can enjoy their own rights and freedoms.

With the best intentions, our journalists will continue to forge forward with their pursuit of truth and human dignity, regardless of the political party in power.

As we rebuild Fiji and regain what many people think we’ve lost in 16 years, this newspaper will play a pivotal role in allowing government to reach the people so that they make informed choices about their lives.

We must face it — Fiji is heavily in debt, many families are struggling, the health system is in a poor state, thousands are trapped in poverty and the most vulnerable members of society are hanging in the balance, taking one day at a time.

It is in this environment of uncertainty that the media and politicians must operate in for the common good.

And as a responsible newspaper, we will listen to all Fijians and provide a safe space to express their voices.

That is our mandate and our promise.

John Mitchell is a senior Fiji Times feature writer who writes a weekly column, “Behind The News”. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In any true democracy, the role of journalists and the media outlets they represent is to inform the people so that they can make educated and well-informed choices.

The role of politicians is to represent those who elected them.

They are to make decisions that best serve the public interest and to ensure that the concerns of citizens are heard, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist and the politician must both serve the people but in peculiarly differing ways.

Journalists act on behalf of citizens by exploring and covering issues that concern the people and in doing so they include a diversity of voices and political opinions that offer different viewpoints and opinions.

The bottom line of their job is ensuring that politicians do their job transparently, with accountability and through better public service delivery.

In the end, journalism enhances, encourages meaningful dialogue and debate in society.

On the other hand, politicians use the media to reach the masses, make them understand their policies and through this — get acceptance and approval from the public.

Politicians love media spotlight
Politicians naturally love the media spotlight for without reporters nobody knows their policies and their good deeds, no matter how grand they may be.

Politicians love talking to reporters so they can get publicity.

Reporters like politicians too because they provide them with stories — there goes the long story of the symbiotic relationship between the press and powerful members of the legislature.

What a perfect relationship.

Absolutely wrong!

Some say the relationship is one of “love and hate” and always hangs in the balance.

This liaison of sorts is more than meets the eye and the truth is simple.

Like the legislature, the media has a prominent and permanent place in national leadership and governance (known as the Fourth Estate).

Critical components of democracy
Both are critical components of a democracy.

Because of their democratic mandate, the media and politicians cannot be fulltime bedfellows.

And as the saying goes, they will have their moments.

However, in past years The Fiji Times has always been seen as the “enemy of the state”.

This had nothing to do with the media’s work as a watchdog of society or the Fourth Estate, but rather with the way in which the former government muzzled the media and created an environment of fear through draconian media laws that stifled freedom of expression and constricted media freedom.

Simply put, a newspaper and any truly independent media outlet must be fair and in being fair, its content must reflect the rich diversity of views and opinions that exists in the public sphere, as well as the aspirations, fears and concerns of the varied groups that exist in the community.

Experts, academics or anyone outside of government is welcomed to use this forum of information exchange, dissemination and sharing.

Politicians, if they have nothing to hide, can use it too, provided what they have to say is honest, sincere and accurate.

Listening to pluralistic ‘voices’
A responsible government deliberately chooses to listen attentively to pluralistic “voices” in the media although these expressions may put it in an uncomfortable position.

A responsible government also explores avenues in which valid ideas could be propagated to improve its own practices and achieve its intended outcome.

In other words, a newspaper exists to, among other reasons, communicate and amplify issues of concern faced by citizens.

This includes voicing citizens’ complaints over any laxity in government’s service delivery, especially people in rural areas who often do not enjoy the public services that we so often take for granted in towns and cities.

So whenever, people use the mainstream media to raise concerns over poor roads, water, garbage disposal, education and inferior health services, the public does so with the genuine yearning for assistance and intervention from government.

And in providing this platform for exchange, the media achieves its democratic goal of getting authorities to effectively respond to taxpayers’ needs, keep their development promises and deliver according to their election manifestos.

Remember, a responsible newspaper or media does not exist to act as government’s mouthpiece.

Retaining media independence
If media outlets give up their independence and allow themselves to be used by politicians for political parties’ own political agenda and gains, then citizens who rely on the media as an instrument for meaningful dialogue, discussion and discourse will be denied their participatory space and expressive rights.

A responsible and autonomous newspaper like The Fiji Times does not exist to make government feel good.

For if this ever occurs, this newspaper will compromise its ability to provide the necessary oversight on government powers and actions, without which, abuse of power and corruption thrive to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

If media organisations and journalists who work for them operate in the way they should, then for obvious reasons, all politicians in government will “sometimes” find the media “upsetting” and “meddlesome”.

Copping the flak from ministers and those in positions of authority is part and parcel of the media’s work.

It is a healthy sign that democracy works.

This newspaper was instrumental in calling on the SVT (Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei) government and its then prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, (now Fiji’s Prime Minister again under the People’s Alliance Party-PAP/National Federation Party (NFP) and Sodelpa coalition) to account for the enormous financial loss which caused the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji in the 1990s.

Our pages can prove that.

This newspaper also scrutinised many of the policies of the coalition government under the leadership of Mahendra Chaudhry and Laisenia Qarase, during whose time, this newspaper was the common foe.

Our pages can prove that.

Last government ‘vindictive, authoritarian’
But no government was as vindictive and authoritarian as the last government.

Today, early in the days of the PAP/NFP and Sodelpa coalition government, we are seeing the good old days of media freedom slowly coming back.

We can now doorstop the Prime Minister and call the Attorney-General at 9pm for a comment and get an answer.

The openness with which ministers talk to the press is encouraging.

We hope things stay that way and the government accepts that we will sometimes put out stories that it finds positive and there will be times when we will make its life difficult and uneasy.

At the end of the day, it is the people that we both work hard to serve.

Sometimes we will step on some people’s toes, be blamed for provoking disquiet and seem unpopular among powerful politicians.

That is to be expected and embraced.

Safeguarding press freedom
But we will continue to play a prominent role in safeguarding the freedom of the press so that all Fijians can enjoy their own rights and freedoms.

With the best intentions, our journalists will continue to forge forward with their pursuit of truth and human dignity, regardless of the political party in power.

As we rebuild Fiji and regain what many people think we’ve lost in 16 years, this newspaper will play a pivotal role in allowing government to reach the people so that they make informed choices about their lives.

We must face it — Fiji is heavily in debt, many families are struggling, the health system is in a poor state, thousands are trapped in poverty and the most vulnerable members of society are hanging in the balance, taking one day at a time.

It is in this environment of uncertainty that the media and politicians must operate in for the common good.

And as a responsible newspaper, we will listen to all Fijians and provide a safe space to express their voices.

That is our mandate and our promise.

John Mitchell is a senior Fiji Times feature writer who writes a weekly column, “Behind The News”. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If anyone is wondering why the Fijian media hasn’t reported the details of my reporting on Grubsheet Feejee of the Prime Minister’s secret role in the sacking of the Solicitor-General, his alleged action in shutting down a police drug investigation into a close family member, or his Attorney-General’s alleged behaviour in inviting his female staff to give him massages in his hotel rooms on overseas trips, it is because they are terrified of the AG’s draconian 2010 Media Industry Development Decree and the very real prospect of prosecution.

The following is what can happen to any Fijian news media outlet that Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum decides has breached the terms of the decree, which became legislation on the return to parliamentary rule in 2014 and has had the effect of gagging the media and preventing it from reporting stories that are genuinely in the national interest.

As you can see, the national interest is not defined in the legislation, which means the AG effectively decides what is in the national interest.

And if he thinks that it is not in the national interest for allegations against him and the PM to be aired in the local media, then he can use the law against any organisation that republishes my disclosures.

Fortunately, I am beyond his reach but these stories go untold for anyone without the internet.

[MED 22] CONTENT REGULATION:

The content of any media service must not include material which—

(a)is against the public interest or order;
(b)is against national interest; or
(c)creates communal discord.

[MED 24] OFFENCES RELATING TO CONTENT REGULATION:

A breach of any of the provisions in or under section 22 … by a media organisation shall constitute an offence and the media organisation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or in the case of a publisher or editor to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.

The details of what I reported are in my Secrets and Skeletons: The Inside Story.

But how tragic it is that accessing the work of journalists outside Fiji is the only way the Fijian people can gain information on anything remotely approaching the truth about what is really happening in their country.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

What do you do when the other small island nations don’t recognise your brilliance and won’t go along with your suggestions?

Well, when you are Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, you call up your brother, Riyaz’s, broadcasting network (their FBC, not yours), and instruct it to express your displeasure.

FBC News reports that the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, Antigua and Barbuda, rejected a proposal on oceans put forward by Fiji at COP26 and “this has not gone down well with Fiji, which says it does not believe this position is in the long-standing collaborative interest of AOSIS”.

Which actually means the big slap in the face has not gone down well with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, an oceans champion at COP.

The FBC News story doesn’t carry the name of the author of the story, which is a requirement for every story under the AG’s media laws. But those rules don’t apply either when the AG orders a version of a story to go to air to try to counter a humiliating setback.

Grubsheet Feejee understands that with the Chair of AOSIS “shunning Fiji’s presentation” – which is how even FBC News put it – other island nations have taken Antigua and Barbuda’s lead.

Indeed, there are reports that not a single other AOSIS member has sided with the AG, which just compounds his humiliation.

It wasn’t meant to be this way. COP26 was meant to showcase Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s brilliant negotiating skills by putting oceans at the centre of the climate agenda.

But Glasgow is not Suva. And the AG is finding out the hard way that just because he wants something doesn’t mean that he will get it.

Maybe he can use his celebrated skills of persuasion to turns things around before it all ends in failure.

But let’s hope Captain Mendacious has learned a valuable lesson in one of his first forays onto the global stage. That the leaders of other nations don’t necessarily share his high opinion of himself.

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. He was a member of the Fiji government’s climate delegation at COP23.

AOSIS Chair shuns Fiji’s presentation

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

MAY 19, 2000: As editor of the Fiji Daily Post newspaper in Suva, I was expecting some big stories that day but nothing like what happened – today, 18 years ago. A march by radical indigenous Fijians had been planned and Parliament was sitting, with an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister leading the government benches.

My news editor and I made sure we had everyone in place, then went for breakfast.

Back in the newsroom I was told the march was getting violent and continuing on to Parliament, which got me worried. I quickly drove to pick up the children and, after seeing them home safely, returned to work, knowing for sure that I wasn’t going to be home for dinner.

Fiji had crashed into another coup, this time led by a man called George Speight and rogue soldiers from the Fiji Military Forces’ elite Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit (CRWU).

There was an eerie calm in the newsroom, almost like the lull before a storm with people seeming to be expecting something bad to happen but pretending to be going about a normal day.

I quietly disappeared into the tearoom to make coffee. The sound of breaking glass brought me out and I said to myself, perhaps someone has broken something.

From my experience of past coups in Fiji I knew that there was always going to be violence no matter how much the coup perpetrators tried to paint over their actions using a noble brush.

Two sides
There were always two sides to the argument and one side was always going to get hurt, but even then I had not expected to see what I saw that day, with the situation deteriorating as quickly as I was seeing.

In a matter of minutes, maybe a short 30 minutes or less since I returned to the newsroom, our part of Suva had turned from nothing much to a seething, angry pit of senseless violence — all in the time it took to make a cup of coffee.

Hundreds of people, maybe a thousand even, I don’t know, filled the streets below our second-floor vantage point.

Shops were burning and men and women were smashing through glass windows and doors and looting every shop on the streets below.

A group of men led the way, breaking through doors and windows then moving on, allowing the throng behind to get in and take as they pleased in a free-for-all scramble for anything that could be carried away – TVs, shoes, clothes, stereo sets, food, anything.

There was cursing and shouting and the noise was deafening and frightening. The sound of breaking glass would haunt me for months after that.

Indo-Fijians had abandoned the city and fled for their lives, and many who had been unable to leave had gone into hiding in back rooms and anywhere, leaving their business at the mercy of this maddest march of madness; a few Indo-Fijians drove by still trying to get out, and some of them were forced to stop, dragged out of their car and assaulted.

I was really scared
I was scared, really scared, especially for the Indo-Fijian members of our staff. Our financial controller was Indo-Fijian, and a big man too, but when he came up to me in the newsroom and put out his hand, I knew he was afraid for his life and when I held his hand I felt him trembling.

Indo-Fijian members of the staff, especially women, like my young reporters, fresh out of university, had crawled under desks, crying, “I don’t want to die, I don’t want to die”.

Our newsroom was quickly turning into a sanctuary, too, with owners of shops and anyone nearby who had been slow to leave the city, seeking safety there. We called the police several times but no one came.

Our marketing manager, Lionel Heffernan, was a big man ­– strong — a farmer on his days off, and he walked up the stairs into the newsroom armed with a crowbar, presenting me with the first sign of a willingness to fight back.

We knew we had to do something, we had to protect our staff. We called all our indigenous Fijian staff members and briefed them and together we walked downstairs in silence.

Our offices were down a short alleyway and accessible only from the front, from the main street where the burning and looting were taking place.

Stood together in defiance
We closed the grill gate and everyone of us, men and women, stood together in defiance, completely blocking any access to our offices, and thereby providing as much protection as we could to those on the second floor.

Heffernan stood beside me, the crowbar clearly visible in his hand, saying words of encouragement.

There were men and women beside me with far more courage and strength than I could ever muster in several lifetimes and without them the outcome would have been very different. But the weak and the strong and the older and the young, we stood together that day, indigenous Fijians facing up to indigenous Fijians, until the sun started to go down and soldiers arrived to set up roadblocks and empty the streets.

Police Commissioner Isikia Savua and his officers finally turned up in a pointless show of useless force after the damage had been done and no one was about. Suva was already in ruins.

It was too dangerous after that to put out a newspaper, so we cancelled that night’s edition and, using only indigenous Fijian drivers, dropped everyone home, including those who had come off the street to seek safety.

As a journalist it is my job to report and not to judge but the events I witnessed that day affected me in ways that would swing me to one side and keep me there for a long time.

Terrorist act
That day was not political. It was a criminal and terrorist act and I decided that from then onwards our coverage of George Speight and the events that would follow would focus on terrorism, even though I knew that the course I was taking would bring me into a collision course with the terrorists themselves, some of whom I knew well, including Speight himself.

Finally darkness enveloped Suva and I got into the car and left. At home, my wife Maureen had used the beds to barricade the windows and put the children and everyone else to sleep on the floor in the hallway.

I walked in and hugged and kissed her then went down on my knees and kissed all our children and all the other children on the forehead.

Then I sat down and cried. A month later to the day, on June 19, 2000, I walked into The Southland Times newsroom in Invercargill, New Zealand, and signed on as a subeditor.

Jale Moala, one of Fiji’s most experienced and talented journalists, is currently night editor of The National daily newspaper in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. George Speight is currently serving a life sentence in prison for treason.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When Commodore (now rear admiral retired and an elected prime minister) Voreqe Bainimarama staged Fiji’s fourth “coup to end all coups” on 5 December 2006, it was widely misunderstood, misinterpreted and misrepresented by a legion of politicians, foreign affairs officials, journalists and even some historians.

A chorus of voices continually argued for the restoration of “democracy” – not only the flawed version of democracy that had persisted in various forms since independence from colonial Britain in 1970, but specifically the arguably illegal and unconstitutional government of merchant banker Laisenia Qarase that had been installed on the coattails of the third (attempted) coup in 2000.

Yet in spite of superficial appearances, Bainimarama’s 2006 coup contrasted sharply with its predecessors.

Bainimarama attempted to dodge the mistakes made by Sitiveni Rabuka after he carried out both of Fiji’s first two coups in 1987 while retaining the structures of power.

Instead, notes New Zealand historian Robbie Robertson who lived in Fiji for many years, Bainimarama “began to transform elements of Fiji: Taukei deference to tradition, the provision of golden eggs to sustain the old [chiefly] elite, the power enjoyed by the media and judiciary, rural neglect and infrastructural inertia” (p. 314). But that wasn’t all.

[H]e brazenly navigated international hostility to his illegal regime. Then, having accepted an independent process for developing a new constitution, he rejected its outcome, fearing it threatened his hold on power and would restore much of what he had undone. (Ibid.)

Bainimarama reset electoral rules, abolished communalism in order to pull the rug from under the old chiefly elite, and provided the first non-communal foundation for voting in Fiji.

Landslide victory
Then he was voted in as legal prime minister of Fiji with an overwhelming personal majority and a landslide victory for his fledgling FijiFirst Party in September 2014. He left his critics in Australia and New Zealand floundering in his wake.

Robertson is well-qualified to write this well-timed book with Bainimarama due to be tested again this year with another election. He is a former history lecturer at the Suva-based regional University of the South Pacific at the time of Rabuka’s original coups (when I first met him).

He and his journalist wife Akosita Tamanisau wrote a definitive account of the 1987 events and the ousting of Dr Timoci Bavadra’s visionary and multiracial Fiji Labour Party-led government, Fiji: Shattered Coups (1988), ultimately leading to his expulsion from Fiji by the Rabuka regime. He also followed this up with Government by the Gun (2001) on the 2000 coup, and other titles.

Robertson later returned to Fiji as professor of Development Studies at USP and he has also been professor and head of Arts and Social Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, as well as holding posts at La Trobe University, the Australian National University and the University of Otago.

He has published widely on globalisation. He is thus able to bring a unique perspective on Fiji over three decades and is currently professor and dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

Since 2006, Fiji has slipped steadily away from Australian and New Zealand influence, as outlined by Robertson. However, this is a state of affairs blamed by Bainimarama on Canberra and Wellington for their failed and blind policies.

Even since the 2014 election, Bainimarama has maintained a “hardline” on the Pacific’s political architecture through his Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) alternative to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus trade deal.

‘Turned their backs’
While in Brisbane for an international conference in 2015, Bainimarama took the opportunity to remind his audience that Australia and New Zealand “as traditional friends had turned their backs on Fiji”. He added:

How much sooner we might have been able to return Fiji to parliamentary rule if we hadn’t expended so much effort on simply surviving … defending the status quo in Fiji was indefensible, intellectually and morally (p. 294).

For the first time in Fiji’s history, Bainimarama steered the country closer to a “standard model of liberal democracy” and away from the British colonial and race-based legacy.

“Government still remained the familiar goose,” writes Robertson, “but this time, its golden eggs were distributed more evenly than before”. The author attributes this to “bypassing chiefly hands” for tribal land lease monies, through welfare and educational programmes no longer race-bound, and through bold rural public road, water and electrification projects.

Admittedly, argues Robertson, like Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (Fiji’s prime minister at independence and later president), Rabuka and Qarase, “Bainimarama had cronies and the military continues to benefit excessively from his ascendancy”. Nevertheless, Bainimarama’s “outstanding controversial achievement remains undoubtedly his rebooting of Fiji’s operating system in 2013”.

Robertson’s scholarship is meticulous and drawn from an impressive range of sources, including his own work over more than three decades. One of the features of his latest book are his analysis of former British SAS Warrant Officer Lisoni Ligairi and the role of the First Meridian Squadron (renamed in 1999 from the “coup proof” Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit – CRWU), and the “public face” of Coup 3, businessman George Speight, now serving a life sentence in prison for treason.

His reflections on and interpretations of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Board of Inquiry (known as BoL) into the May 2000 coup are also extremely valuable. Much of this has never before been available in an annotated and tested published form, although it is available as full transcripts on the “Truth for Fiji” website.

‘Overlapping conspiracies’
As Robertson recalls, by mid-May, “there were many overlapping conspiracies afoot … Within the kava-infused wheels within wheels, coup whispers gained volume”. Ligairi’s role was pivotal but BoL put most of the blame for the coup on the RFMF for “allowing” one man so much power, especially one it considered ill-equipped to be a director and planner’ (p. 140).

The BoL testimony about the November 2000 CRWU mutiny before Bainimarama escaped with his life through a cassava patch, also fed into Robertson’s account, although he admits Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka’s ANU doctoral thesis is the best account on the topic, “Sacred King and Warrior Chief:The role of the military in Fiji politics”.

It was a bloody and confused affair, led by the once loyal [Captain Shane] Stevens, 40 CRWU soldiers, many reportedly intoxicated, seized weapons and took over the Officers Mess, Bainimarama’s office and administration complex, the national operations centre and the armoury in the early afternoon. They wanted hostages; above all they wanted Bainimarama. (p. 164)

The book is divided into four lengthy chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion – 1. The Challenge of Inheritance about the flawed colonial legacy, 2. The Great Turning on Rabuka’s 1987 coups and the Taukei indigenous supremacy constitution, 3. Redux: The Season for Coups on Speight’s attempted (and partially successful) 2000 coup, and 4. Plus ça Change …? on Bainimarama’s political “reset”. (The Bainimarama success in outflanking his Pacific critics is perhaps best represented by his diplomatic success in co-hosting the “Pacific” global climate change summit in Bonn in 2017.)

One drawback from a journalism perspective is the less than compelling assessment of the role of the media over the period, considering the various controversies that dogged each coup, especially the Speight one when accusations were made against some journalists as having been too close to the coup makers.

One of Fiji’s best journalists and editors, arguably the outstanding investigative reporter of his era, Jo Nata, publisher of the Weekender, sided with Speight as a “media minder” and was jailed for treason.

However, while Robertson in several places acknowledges Nata’s place in Fiji as a journalist, there is no real examination of his role as journalist-turned-coup-propagandist. This ought to be a case study.

Robertson noted how Nata’s Weekender exposed “morality issues” in Rabuka’s cabinet in 1994 without naming names. The Review news and business magazine followed up with a full report in the April edition that year, naming a prominent female journalist who was sleeping with the post-coup prime minister, produced a love child and who still works for The Fiji Times today (p. 118).

Nata then promised a special issue on the 21 women Rabuka had had affairs with since stepping down from the military. However, after Police Commissioner Isikia Savua spoke to him, the issue never appeared. (A full account is in Pacific Journalism Review – The Review, 1994).

NBF debacle
Elsewhere in the book is an outline of the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) debacle that erupted when an audit was leaked to the media: “In fact, the press, particularly The Fiji Times and The Review, were pivotal in exposing the scandal.” Robertson added:

The Review had earlier been threatened with deregistration over its publication of Rabuka’s affair[s] in 1994; now both papers were threatened with Malaysian-style licensing laws to ensure that they remained respectful of Pacific cultural sensitivities and did not denigrate Fijian business acumen. (p. 121)

The bank collapsed in late 1995 owing more than $220 million or nearly 9 percent of Fiji’s GDP – an example of the nepotism, corruption and poor public administration that worsened in Fiji after Rabuka’s coups.

On Coup 1, Robertson recalls how apart from Rabuka’s masked soldiers inside Parliament, “other teams fanned out across the city to seize control of telecommunication power authorities, media outlets and the Government Buildings” (p. 65).

But there is little reflective detail about Rabuka’s “seduction” of the Fiji and international journalists, or how after closing down the two daily newspapers, the neocolonial Fiji Times reopened while the original Fiji Sun opted to close down rather than publish under a military-backed regime.

About Coup 3, Robertson recalls “[Speight] was articulate and comfortable with the media – too comfortable, according to some journalists. They felt that this intimate media presence ‘aided the rebel leader’s propaganda fire … gave him political fuel’. They were not alone’ (p. 154) (see Robie, 2001).

On the introduction of the 2010 Fiji Media Industry Development Decree, which still casts a shadow over the country and is mainly responsible for the lowest Pacific “partly free” rankings in the global media freedom indexes, Robertson notes how it was “Singapore-inspired”. The decree “came out in early April 2010 for discussion and mandated that all media organisations had to be 90 percent locally owned. The implication for the News Corporation Fiji Times and for the 51 percent Australian-owned Daily Post were obvious” (p. 254).

The Fiji Times was bought by Mahendra Patel, long-standing director and owner of the Motibhai trading group. (He was later jailed for a year for “abuse of office” while chair of Post Fiji.) The Daily Post was closed down.

Facing a long history of harassment by various post-coup administrations (including a $100,000 fine in January 2009 for publishing a letter describing the judiciary as corrupt, and deportations of publishers), The Fiji Times is heading into this year’s elections facing a trial for alleged “sedition” confronting the newspaper.

In spite of my criticism of limitations on media content, The General’s Goose is an excellent book and should be mandatory background reading for any journalist covering South Pacific affairs, especially those likely to be involved in coverage of this year’s general election.

The General’s Goose: Fiji’s Tale of Contemporary Misadventure, by Robbie Robertson. Canberra: Australian National University. 2017. 366 pages. ISBN 9781760461270.

References
Baledrokadroka, J. (2012). The sacred king and warrior chief: The role of the military in Fiji politics. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Canberra: Australian National University.

Robertson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2001). Government by the gun: The unfinished business of Fiji’s 2000 coup. Sydney & London: Pluto Press & Zed Books.

Robertson, R., & Tamanisau, A. (1988). Fiji: Shattered coups. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Robie, D. (2001). Coup coup land: The press and the putsch in Fiji. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 10, 149-161. See also for an extensive media coverage examination of the 1987 Rabuka coups: Robie, D. (1989). Blood on their banner: Nationalist struggles in the South Pacific. London: Zed Books; 2006 coup and 2014 elections: Robie, D. (2016). ‘Unfree and unfair’?: Media intimidation in Fiji’s 2014 elections. In Ratuva, S., & Lawson, S. (Eds.), The people have spoken: The 2014 elections in Fiji. Canberra: ANU Press.

The Review (1994). Rabuka and the reporter. Pacific Journalism Review, 1(1), 20-22.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz