The Ukrainian Club in the New South Wales city of Queanbeyan – adjacent to Canberra – was the unlikely setting this weekend for the launch of what’s being billed by its organisers as the most serious attempt thus far to dislodge the Bainimarama regime in Fiji. The star speaker was Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara – the renegade Fijian military officer also known as Roko Ului, who’s been warmly embraced by Frank Bainimarama’s opponents even as he stands accused of personally abusing democracy activists in the wake of the military coup he helped stage in 2006.
The anti-regime forces see Mara – who made a dramatic escape by sea to Tonga last month after being charged with sedition – as a credible figure around which to base a serious challenge to Bainimarama. That attempt seems to have the tacit support of both the Australian and New Zealand Governments. Canberra lifted its travel ban on Mara to enable him to attend the Queanbeyan gathering despite the fact that he’s a fugitive from Fijian justice and was on a list of Fijians excluded from Australia because of their roles in the 2006 coup. At first, New Zealand indicated that it was keeping Mara more at arms length, saying that it was in no hurry to admit him. But foreign minister Murray McCully has since announced that Wellington will grant Mara a one-off visa to attend a similar gathering of regime opponents in the coming week.
Tevita Mara began his Queanbeyan speech by pressing the one button that he knows makes him a far more consequential figure in Australian eyes than any other potential Fijian leader-in-exile. This is the fact that he’s the son of the country’s respected founding father, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. Tevita described his father to the gathering as “revered” and seems intent on using the Mara moniker to maximum effect. The problem is that some of his new acolytes are people who Mara senior loathed and blamed for the destruction of his own presidency in 2000 and the destruction of his attempts to forge a thriving multiracial nation in Fiji.
This is what the Americans would call “the smoking gun” photograph that demonstrates a startling link between the so-called Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement in Australia and the indigenous extremists who brought the country to its knees in the George Speight coup of 2000 and drove Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara from office.
On the left is Dr Jon Fraenkel of the Australian National University, who regularly spars with Grubsheet in these columns and in those of The Australian. Fraenkel is a British-born former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific who is married to an indigenous Fijian. In the middle is the Indo-Fijian historian Brij Lal – also of the ANU – who is a regular commentator on Radio Australia and its influential Pacific Beat. Both are fiercely anti-regime and described as co-authors of a ten point plan presented to the Queanbeyan gathering to return Fiji to democracy at the earliest opportunity. So far so good. But on the right of the photo is a man called Simione Kaitani, who happens to be one of the co-conspirators of the 2000 coup who went on to become a minister in the government of Laisenia Qarase, which Frank Bainimarama removed at gunpoint in 2006.
Grubsheet investigated the circumstances of the 2000 coup just before Bainimarama’s coup six years later when we worked for the Nine Network’s now defunct Sunday program. One of the 2000 conspirators, Maciu Navakasuasua, blew the whistle on the people around him who’d seized power at gunpoint and held the then prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, and his cabinet hostage in the parliamentary complex for 56 days. Among those he fingered was Simione Kaitani, who he alleged was one of the indigenous extremists who’d encouraged George Speight to carry out his coup and was with him in the parliamentary complex. Navakasuasua’s account was one thing. But in the vaults of Channel Nine, Grubsheet also found archival footage of the coup clearly showing Simione Kaitani before several hundred people in the parliamentary forecourt calling for a round of applause for George Speight. That evidence is undeniable.
Kaitani was subsequently charged with treason for allegedly taking an illegal oath of office as one of George Speight’s ministers. After a lengthy trial, he was acquitted because of a lack of concrete evidence that he’d actually taken the oath, in the form of photographs or video footage of the event. But this does nothing to alter the fact that he was an enthusiastic Speight supporter, was identified as one of the co-conspirators of 2000, and was present throughout the parliamentary siege when the legally-elected prime minister of Fiji was held against his will for nearly two months and was also badly beaten. Mahendra Chaudhry told Grubsheet in a televised interview: “He (Kaitani) was very prominent during our incarceration. I believed him to be, you know, one of the mob”.
Kaitani went on – in highly controversial circumstances – to be appointed a minister in the Qarase government, not just in some minor role but as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. In this capacity, he sat at Laisenia Qarase’s right hand and was a key figure urging Qarase to strengthen the position of indigenous Fijians over other races in Fiji. This influence led to what was called the Qoliqoli Bill, which would have extended indigenous land rights to include dominion over coastal waters. And to what was cynically called a “Reconciliation and Unity Bill” that would have freed George Speight and other convicted 2000 coup makers from prison and allowed them to stand for public office. Surprise, surprise.
All this enraged the military commander, Frank Bainimarama, who’d jailed Speight in the first place and appointed Qarase as civilian prime minister on condition that he put Fiji back on the multiracial path set by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. Instead, he put people like Simione Kaitani in positions of power and set about entrenching indigenous rights. Bainimarama warned Qarase to back off but he refused. So in December 2006, Bainimarama staged his own coup with the stated intention of restoring racial equality and ending what he called the corruption of the Qarase years.
After his trial, Simione Kaitani fled to Australia. But why was he given residency when there’s clear evidence of his active involvement in the events of 2000? Australians also deserve some urgent answers as to why they should give any Fiji “pro-democracy movement” credence when it has coup-makers at its heart. What was Kaitani doing at Tevita Mara’s Queanbeyan talkfest? What is his role in the so-called Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement? Why are Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal – academics on the Australian public payroll – being photographed with a 2000 coup maker? Are they willing to explain this remarkable picture and their relationship with Kaitani?
All this goes way beyond the concept of odd bed-fellows to strike at the heart of the nature of this movement, which Australia is evidently supporting. What steps has the Australian Government taken to establish the bona fides of these individuals? What steps have media organisations like the ABC taken to establish their backgrounds and the veracity of their motives? These are some of the questions that need to be answered as Tevita Mara begins what he says will be a global campaign to dislodge the Bainimarama regime.
Grubsheet has been at the receiving end of a stream of invective from Jon Fraenkel about our attempts to encourage Australia to engage with the Bainimarama regime and help it keep its pledge to hold one-man, one vote elections for the first time in Fiji in 2014. He’s castigated us as “coup supporters” – which we deny – yet is prepared to be photographed with a proven coup-maker in Simione Kaitani. So, Jon, let’s hear your explanation. You tout a blueprint for a return to democracy with someone like this by your side?
Tevita Mara also needs to explain to those who may be persuaded to see him as Fiji’s new best hope to explain the presence of proven coup-makers at his “pro-democracy” gatherings. He’s already under fire for allegedly dog whistling to indigenous extremists. He accused Fiji’s Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed- Khaiyum, of giving a fellow Muslim a job but only in a Fijian language Youtube broadcast. Is the presence of a prominent indigenous extremist at one of his rallies a sign that he’s not only repudiated his father’s multiracial legacy but also embraced someone who helped destroy his father’s presidency?
The destruction of the “Mara-Ganilau dynasty” was a stated centrepiece of the Speight coup and something Simione Kaitani presumably supported. Now he evidently sees Mara the son as Fiji’s potential saviour. Ah, irony upon irony. The story of modern Fiji. And of Australia, for that matter – a country that gives refuge to coup makers who are avowed racial supremacists and does everything it can to destroy others pursuing racial equality.
Postscript: As well as being the authors of Tevita Mara’s ten point plan to return Fiji to democracy, both Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal evidently addressed the Queanbeyan rally – a clear indication that they’ve become active, partisan political players rather than the independent commentators they’ve allowed themselves to be portrayed as in the Australian media until now. The agenda shows those attending also heard from representatives of two national institutions that have been bastions of indigenous supremacy and are most at loggerheads with the Bainimarama regime – Laisenia Qarase’s SDL Party and the Methodist Church in Fiji. A message was also conveyed from the Great Council of Chiefs, the hereditary body that once dominated indigenous politics but has been sidelined by Bainimarama and is banned from meeting until further notice. All this indicates that Mara is heading a loose coalition that includes elements of a pro-democracy intelligentsia but is heavily comprised of those stripped of their power and influence in 2006.
This article has subsequently appeared in the Fiji Sun, Pacific Scoop New Zealand, and NZ academic Crosbie Walsh’s influential blog – Fiji:The Way It Was, Is And Can Be. For further commentary on the subject, Grubsheet highly recommends Cafe Pacific, the blog of veteran regional journalist and Auckland University of Technology communications professor David Robie.
Simione Kaitani has since issued a response to the anti-regime blog Coup Four Point Five about our central allegation of his involvement in George Speight’s 2000 coup. We’re re-publishing it here in the interests of fairness but stand by our original story:
I wish to respond to Graham Davis’s article (Unholy Alliance on Fiji, Fiji Sun, 13/6/06). His attempt to re-crucify me afresh for my alleged involvement in the 2000 coup not only cast doubts, but very much confirms my suspicions regarding his vested interest and personal agenda, unbecoming of his journalistic profession.
Mr Davis’ sweeping statements and diatribes, peppered with hasty generalisations, are a public admission of his continued personal support for the illegal regime of Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama. It is very obvious that Mr Davis is desperately seeking to find some scapegoats as a means to sustaining and distracting attention away from the Regime’s current illegal activities. You’ve got it all wrong, Mr Davis. All very wrong!
Let me remind him that I was an Independent Member of Parliament and also a victim of George Speight’s coup of 2000. So despite all the allegations levelled against me, I wish to categorically state that I was never party to any of the meetings or planned takeover of our Parliament of Fiji prior to the Speight coup. I had just embarked on my political career.
Why should I, therefore, have been interested in deposing our Parliament when that would have meant the termination of my own political life and aspirations? Mr Davis’s allegations and subtle choice of words, that I was Mr Speight’s Right Hand Man, is grossly erroneous. He has jumped to the wrong conclusion by making a false connection.
The truth is I was never Speight’s “Right Hand Man”, for I only met and came to know of Speight in that mayhem on the morning of 19th May, 2000. For Mr Davis’ information, it was out of our own concerns for the negative impressions being generated by the extreme nationalist elements in Parliament, that some of us – Members of the Opposition in the deposed Parliament – got together to embark on a damage control exercise.
With great hesitation and after continual pressure from others, I was compelled to take over as spokesperson for the coup from the nationalist leader Mr Duvuloco. That was done without George Speight’s knowledge but very much at Mr Duvuloco’s anger. He publicly and repeatedly swore at me in front of the crowd when I took over the microphone from him upon instruction from my colleagues. We later approached Speight and explained our action, which he accepted.
I was spokesperson for only one day and for the purpose of calming the crowd. I recall being personally threatened with a pistol by one of the nationalist militants when I took over the microphone from Mr Duvuloco. It was during my one-day role as spokesperson that I opened up the Parliamentary complex to the International Media who had been denied entry during the first day. I did this, recognising the need to keep the world informed of the mayhem inside the complex itself and the need to have dialogue with George Speight and his team.
Mr Davis’ unsubstantiated statement that I fled to Australia is also a fabrication and total misinformation. I never fled from Fiji. His unsubstantiated statement casts doubt of his professionalism and integrity. It is obvious that his blind support for Messers Khaiyum and Bainimarama has resulted in a highly distorted and fabricated diatribe against me in the Fiji Sun.
The truth is that on the very morning of the coup in 2006, I had left Fiji on an official Parliamentary assignment as Leader of the House, representing our Fiji Parliament in a two-day Conference organised by the Democratic Parliamentary Union [DPU] held in Taiwan on the 8th –10th of December, 2006. I only learnt of the military takeover of our Parliament on arrival at Sydney Airport. It was for an official Parliamentary engagement that I had left Fiji. I never “fled”.
Moreover, his comments regarding my support for the Truth and Reconciliation Bill as a means of preventing members of our Government from imprisonment, is another misinformation.It is public knowledge that I was the last of the Ministers in Qarase’s Government to be charged but subsequently cleared by the Fijian court on August 15th, 2005.
It is also public knowledge that had the proposed Reconciliation Bill been passed by Parliament, the only person who would have directly benefited from the Bill would have been Bainimarama himself, for reasons which I do not wish to make public at this stage.
It seems, however, the birds have finally come home to roost. Recent public revelations point to Bainimarama’s personal/official involvement not only in the execution of the 2000 coup but also the military involvement in its planning. For those, like myself, who had been made scapegoats and considered the fall guys for these sad events, we are waiting anxiously for these truths to surface. I am thankful to God for allowing someone like Roko Ului Mara to be exposing these truths for the world to see!
I consider Mr Davis’s decision to berate and question the sovereign rights of the Government of Australia in granting of the Permanent Residency Status for me, and my family, malicious and mischievous. Australia is honouring its obligation to protect me under international convention for my political beliefs. We are ever thankful to the Government of Australia for their help to us as a family in these very hard times we are going through.
Mr Davis has also questioned my role and agenda in the Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement. Well, I consider myself better off than Mr Davis to that effect. Being a victim of two political coups, why shouldn’t I rise publicly and fight against the tyranny and spirit of coups that is ruining my country, my people, and has isolated myself from my constituency and families in Fiji?
Mr Davis should know that “All that are necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I have publicly forgiven Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara in Canberra last Saturday. I have expressed my forgiveness for all that he did in 2006 against myself, and his action in deposing our Parliament and our elected SDL Government. I publicly pardoned Roko Ului and have called for our joint efforts in pursuing nothing but the truth. I have also reminded him of the Mordeccais counsel comment to Queen Esther: “Who knows, that you have become our Queen as such a time as these?”
Finally, we are all at a loss, that whilst we are focussing on the current status of political offences and atrocities committed against the State and people of Fiji, we have journalists like Mr Davis hell bent on flogging a dead horse in a failed attempt at defending the indefensible.
May God bless Fiji!
Congratulations on a classic piece of journalism that shatters Mara’s PR spin. What are these ANU academics doing being active political players in Fiji? They are being paid by Aussie taxpayers to teach, not agitate for the removal of a foreign government. Sack them.
Still can’t work out why Graham Davis can’t see the other side to this story, that any antiregime movement is going to be a collection of “odd bedfellows”. Yes, having Simi Kaitani on board isn’t the best look. But he’s just one figure of many that includes not only these academics but representatives of the SDL, The Methodist Church and the Great Council of Chiefs, Yes, everyone who hates Bainimarama but so what? They want democracy restored. Yes on their terms but so what again? Waiting till 2014 for an election is just too long. We need one now!
Mr Davis’ position is confused at best and downright hypocritical at worst for several reasons.
1) He writes of Mr Kaitani’s involvement in the 2000 coup, his subsequent trial for treason and then acknowledges that the court found him not guilty because of ‘lack of concrete evidence’. If the court found him not guilty then why does Mr Davis refer to ‘controversial circumstances’ when he was appointed a minister in the SDL government? Ministerial appointments always have an element of controversy and if the court had found him not guilty of treason then he was eligible to be appointed.
2) Why did Australia give Mr Kaitani residence? Presumably because, even if it might have appeared unpalatable from Mr Davis’ viewpoint, the fact that Mr Kaitani didn’t have a criminal record and had sufficient points to qualify for residency meant that Australia adhered to its own immigration laws and quotas and allowed him into the country legally.
3) Mr Davis then goes on, rather scurrilously in my opinion, to imply that the bona fides of Drs Fraenkel and Lal are in question (‘What steps has the Australian Government taken to establish the bona fides of these individuals?”). Their academic bona fides are impeccable, as Mr Davis well knows. And more importantly they have eloquently expressed a consistent opposition to ANY coup – both the 2006 as well as the 2000 coup. Mr Davis on the other hand seems to feel that some coups are ‘good’ (which presumably doesn’t make them coups in his eyes) and some coups are ‘bad’. Of course Mr Davis’ trenchant attitude may be as a result of personal antipathy he feels about Dr Fraenkel as a result of his having been on the receiving end of Dr Fraenkel’s ‘stream of invective’.
4) There is a certain irony in Mr Davis castigating the Australian government for giving refuge to a ‘coup maker’ (glibly overruling the court decision above) whilst he, at the same time, espouses the idea that the self same Australian government should deal with the latest coup makers.
5) Finally there is undoubted hypocrisy in Mr Davis implication that Mr Kaitani’s residence is a cause for concern while he himself is a beneficiary of the Australian government’s tolerance of his own support for coup makers
Jon, you are entitled to your opinion but let me respond point-by-point.
1/ Simione Kaitani’s involvement in the 2000 Speight coup is an established fact and is not disputed. He was subsequently found not guilty of treason in the form of taking an illegal oath – something quite separate. But the fact that he was a co-conspirator in that coup makes it axiomatic that his subsequent appointment to a ministerial office in the Qarase government was highly controversial.
2/ In this instance, the Australian Government granted residency to a person who participated in the illegal 2000 coup at the highest levels. Yet it now bars anyone entering the country – however blameless – who takes up even a civilian position in the Bainimarama government. This is a breathtaking double standard.
3/ I have not questioned the academic bona fides of Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal. But I very much question the notion that they can continue to act as dispassionate academic commentators on Fiji in the Australian media when they involve themselves in such an overtly partisan political exercise.
Jon Fraenkel has cast me as “an Australian-based supporter of the Bainimarama Government”. But I do not attend rallies supporting that government in the same way that he attends rallies as an active supporter of Bainimarama’s opponents.
Furthermore, agreeing to be photographed with someone who was an active participant in the 2000 Speight coup raises some perfectly valid questions about where his true allegiances lie. If -as you contend – Fraenkel and Lal oppose all coups, then why pose for a photograph with a notorious coup-maker? We are all entitled to an explanation because these are people whose academic salaries are paid by the Australian taxpayer and also appear on the national broadcaster as supposedly independent commentators.
4/ Dealt with previously or irrelevant.
5/ I am not a coup-maker – unlike Kaitani – so this point is entirely irrelevant.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks GD for opening up this issue for discussion and further scrutiny.
Why are ANU academic researchers taking such strong positions in this political bloodbath?
What is happening with the integrity of sound scholarly engagement at the ANU? Can Pacific scholarship at that institution be trusted or is it all tainted with the same kind of bias?
Another vocal ANU media star Jone Baledrokadroka has been unusually quite. What is his involvement in all of this?
Should Australian taxpayers money be going to people who would promote and preach radical political agitation from either side of the political divide, particularly from outside Fiji? This situation requires careful consideration and patience something that Fijians (in Fiji) know how to do very well for themselves.
Many people involved with Fiji on the ground at various levels understand what is going on and are working towards positive change despite the political and social climate in the country. Lets support them move towards peaceful and fair elections in Fiji. Archaic forms of political engagement and agitation should be relegated to the dustbin of History.
We should seriously ask the question whether the position taken and advice given by academics like Fraenkel and Lal will lead to a peaceful solution or violence and further social hardship for the people of Fiji.
Hello Concerned Observer.
Jone Baledrokadroka was also present at Saturday’s rally but I judged him less important than Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal in the context of this debate in that he’s been a constant presence at “Fiji Democracy and Freedom” events and makes no secret of his trenchant opposition to his former commander, Frank Bainimarama.
You can see pictures of him at the rally on the anti-regime blog Coup Four Point Five, along with a lot more detail of what transpired on the day, although without the back story I have tried to provide of the participants and their links to indigenous extremism.
I concur totally with your other observations. Much as Jon Fraenkel has complained about me describing the ANU as a “hot bed of anti-regime activity”, it’s now clear beyond doubt that this is precisely the case.
As you suggest, Fraenkel, Lal and Baledrokadroka – who is at the ANU on a fellowship – are clearly an Australian taxpayer-funded clique agitating for the overthrow of a foreign government. What they do in their own time is, of course, their business. But this is not the point.
In the case of Fraenkel and Lal, they appear in the media as ANU academics commentating in their professional capacity on events in Fiji. Fraenkel is invariably depicted as a Melanesian expert and Lal as a commentator and historian.
Readers and viewers are entitled to know if the opinions they proffer are based on normal standards of academic detachment or are slewed to suit their private political views. You’d have to say that based on Saturday’s events, there is now a very big question mark over the credibility of both men to portray themselves as independent commentators.
As published academic “experts” on the 2000 coup, they would have known Simione Kaitani’s background. That they were willing to be photographed with him strikes me as extraordinary. Like you – I’d imagine – I look forward to some kind of explanation.
Fraenkel is a pommie who still believes Fiji should revert to the institutions etc that the British left behind eg Great Council of Chiefs and all that glorified unworkable nonsense that the British imposed upon us before they skadoddled back to London in 1970. But to his credit Fraenkel feels that he has an obligation to sort out the wrongs British colonialism inflicted upon Fiji. The fact that he married an indigene makes him all the more passionate. That is understandable. But he…like all other former British neo-colonialists- is caught in an time warp. He is picking up where Fiji left off in 1970! Thats why he needs indigenous Fijians and psuedo-academics like Baledrokadroka to validate his (Fraenkels’ fractured and discombobulated views on Fiji).
Like Rokoului, Baledrokadroka is hardly an inspirational figure. They both are ex military officers who accepted the gravy train of the coups and now believe ex post facto, that democarcy is good; they both fell out with VB because of their ethno-nationalist leanings; they both abandonded their familes to cover their own ; they now expect ther Aussie tax payer to keep them without them ever contributing to the Australian tax base. Well in Australia we refer to them as bludgers!
Graham
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply, especially in view of what might have seemed my high handed criticism of you – for which I apologise.
However I don’t feel that your questioning Mr Kaitani’s residency status has any relevance in your article. Not only was he acquitted of treason by Justice Gates, but he wasn’t charged or convicted of any other involvement in the coup. I acknowledge he was a supporter of George Speight – but there were tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of those during 2000 many of whom have probably been granted various types of visas since then.
I believe that you would have better focussed on the peculiar decision of the Australian government to allow Ratu Tevita a visa, given his recently acquired Tongan citizenship and the supposed propensity for DFAT to thoroughly check the bona fides of people entering Australia, especially on questionably obtained travel documents
You’ve questioned Drs Fraenkel and Lal’s ability to act as dispassionate commentators by virtue of their attendance at a partisan political gathering. I confess that I don’t have either of their speeches but I’d prefer to wait until I’ve read what they had to say before passing comment on their partisanship. They may have been invited by the organisors to provide an academic viewpoint in what might otherwise have been an unbalanced outpouring of emotional political overtures from the other presenters. Certainly what I’ve read of their articles up until now leads me to think that their views would continue to show a steadfast opposition to coups, whoever may carry them out
That Dr Fraenkel should have cast you as an ‘Australian-based supporter of the Bainimarama Government’ would appear to be factual and not an attempt to slur you. The fact that he attends rallies and you don’t (either pro or anti government) is not a reason for you to castigate him. Rather I suggest (with respect) that since you’re a journalist it would be a good thing for you to also attend such rallies, if you’re within a reasonable distance of where they’re being held.
Dr Fraenkel’s posing with Mr Kaitani seems (from his expression) to not be something he was particularly in favour of at the time and may now even be something that he actively regrets doing (or not – who can tell?) However your inference that he’s doing so on taxpayer’s money is unworthy of you. This event was held over the weekend and he is entitled to use his spare time as he sees fit.
I don’t see how my point 4, the irony of your argument against the Australian government has been answered. Neither is it irrelevant – even civilians who have entered this government can fairly be described as coup supporters. You are unhappy that the Australians have accepted a supporter of the 2000 coup yet refuse to accept those who support the 2006 coup. Yet you appear to be espousing the reverse of same argument in your desire to discredit the Australian government’s stance. Basically my point is that if, to suit our own ends, we all rely on our own versions of ‘real politik’ (which itself is fundamentally hypocritical), then why should we expect governments to be any different? Hence my regard for Drs Fraenkel and Lal who didn’t support the 2000 coup and don’t support this one – notwithstanding that unfortunate photograph.
As far as point 5 goes I didn’t write, or infer, that you were a coup ‘maker’. I mentioned you supported coup makers (obviously referring to the 2006 coup only). Similarly Mr Kaitani was certainly a coup ‘supporter’, however if he was a coup ‘maker’ then it seems that the Fiji High Court didn’t view the evidence you have for this in the same light as you do.
I hope you don’t consider it pedantry to ask a journalist who is as widely read as you are to be slightly more careful when describing others.
Thank you Jon.
I don’t regard Simione Kaitani as a coup supporter. I regard him as a coup maker. The former implies a degree of detachment. The latter is an explicit description of someone with their hands – if not on the trigger – then on the tiller. He was at George Speight’s right hand both literally and figuratively, an integral part of the occupation of the parliament in 2000 and one of Speight’s henchmen.
We have this not just through the account of whistleblower Maciu Navakasuasua and then prime minister Mahen Chaudhry, who says Kaitaini was “one of the mob” holding him hostage. We have television pictures of him giving interviews on Speight’s behalf, advising Speight and calling on the crowd at the parliament to give Speight a rousing acclamation. None of this is in the slightest doubt.
Kaitaini was specifically charged with treason for taking an illegal oath as a Speight minister and that case collapsed through lack of concrete evidence. But that is beside the point. Just as many people involved in the events of 2000 were never charged with an offence, let alone convicted.
Kaintani doesn’t have to have had a conviction recorded against him to stand accused of being a mastermind of the 2000 coup. Just as Iliesa Duvuloco – the head of the Nationalist Party and allegedly, by Navakasusua’s account, the biggest conspirator of all – was able to escape the arm of the law.
As in many instances of this kind, it was invariably the small fish who got caught and the big ones who got away. Navakasuasua makes precisely this point at the end of the Channel Nine report I did in 2006, which I have provided a link to if you care to delve deeper.
As to the other points you make, I have addressed most if not all of these in my reply to “Concerned Observer”.
Does anyone know what Fraenkel was doing at the USP during 2000 Coup? Was he involved in gathering research data (from within the Speight compound) on Speight and his followers at the time? I wonder.
Is or has Lal been associated with any political parties within Fiji? If so who and in what capacity?
Both Lal and Fraenkel have large online/media footprints suggesting that they have very clear political bias when it comes to their position on Fiji. They have also both presented countless seminars at the ANU supporting their strong positions. Whether they both attended the weekend rally in their own time is beside the point I would have thought. The problem with their brand of politics is that if one does not agree with their position then they are automatically in the camp of a Bainimarama supporter. I would have thought that this is just simple minded school yard name calling, not a scholarly or analytical approach towards making an informed assessment of this imporant issue.
Mr Orton I donot know how you can determine from a photograph what Fraenkel was thinking or feeling at the time about Mr Kaitani. That is something that only Fraenkel can answer and who cares anyhow. One can draw a multitude of conclusions. The fact is the photo exists and it is not a good look.
My last question for now is, are we going to see Ratu Tevita Mara transformed into an instant overnight Academic with a research fellowship at the ANU?
Graham bula
I know Brij Lal has some legitimate grievances against the current regime and I think he was unfairly treated in his prompt despatch from Fiji. But he would know that despite the political restrictions that exist today, the consequent shutdown of the ethno nationalists and extremists is welcomed by most fiji citizens.
Fraenkel is just a canberra lap dog and like Gareth Evans demonstrates a chasm between intelligence and judgement. From all fiji citizens tell him to go and …..
And as for rokolui:
1) running booze in the lebanon
2) physical abuse of a number of pro democracy reps in 2006 – ask virisila buadromo what she thinks of him
3) rokolui is also guilty of a number of other matters that are yet to be public but if you follow the asset trail you will get an idea.
good article and dont let these canberra quislings try and write (bad) history
vinaka
Add to the list of “please explains” to Rokoului:
What did he do to screw up the amily life of Fiji’s one and only King ; Waisele Serevi!
Shame on You, Rokoului!
Bula vinaka Graham,
I read your article and hope this piece of advice will be taken to heart. At times, journalists diminish the credibility of their profession because of their skewed ethical and moral judgments about this coup, mainly due to self interests. It is a pity that your great journalistic technical skills are being ruined in your biased and troubling personal perceptions concerning the current coup situation in Fiji and of the military dictator, Bainimarama.
Your whole article on Ului Mara’s visit centered on, justifying one coup (2006) with another (2000). This argument is nothing new and was used as the centerpiece of the military propaganda campaign during and immediately after the tragic coup of 2006. I say propaganda because the objectives of the 2006 coup to date have been confusing and at best, contradictory for the same reasons he illegally removed President, Ratu Kamisese Mara on the 29th May, 2000 off Dakuibeqa (Richard Broadbridge, Close Up).
It is undeniable that pro-indigenous and anti corruption crusades are noble causes but in both these coups, laws were broken and crimes have been committed. The crimes of 2006 cannot be simply justified by those of 2000 therefore praising the actions of Bainimarama lends credence to those who praise the actions of Speight. Bainimarama’s crimes have been the most significant dilemma and negative factor dogging all of his actions and supporters since day one of the coup. It has served to stigmatize all other purportedly “good actions” produced by his junta. Even Bainimarama’s convoluted speeches about the need for “high moral values” are bankrupt because people view him as being a hypocrite and a person who is hell bent on escaping the wheels of justice by any means.
The saga of Bainimarama today is no different from H.C. Andersen’s tale of,”The Emperor with new clothes”. His increasing narcissism are being stroked by beguiling weavers in the background who promise him a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those whom they refer to as,” unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent”. Like Bainimarama, the Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. The hoodwink is complete when these swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects, many play along with the pretense.
We should be vigilant and honest to tell Bainimarama that his robes are but an illusion and his self interests should be given up for the sake of the nation. Ordinary people can see that Bainimarama’s crimes are evident and he’s regime is façade and all they want is for him to face justice. The return to normalcy cannot proceed until we also put pressure on the beguiling weavers in the background whose self interests serve as a barrier for the return of Fiji to normalcy.
Graham, you should make it your mission to relentlessly pursue justice for the many innocent victims Bainimarama have left in his destructive path since 2000 and in particular those who have had their lives violently and tragically taken away from them. I was privileged to have met your father, the esteemed Rev Davis who is a true man of the cloth and one who had genuine concern for the welfare of Fijians. I am sure he would be turning in his grave given that his eldest son is extolling the virtues of a dictator. A person who has no qualms about preaching the virtues of a corrupt free society yet on the other hand illegally receiving salaries, perks and perverting the course of justice.
Bula vinaka Wilson. You are free to interpret my stories any way you choose but I respectfully suggest that you are very wide of the mark.
I believe there’s a fundamental difference between the coups of 2000 and 2006. The former was supposedly a coup to uphold indigenous rights but, in fact, seems to have been carried out by a group of opportunists pursuing the spoils of office. What’s the evidence for that? That indigenous rights weren’t under any threat. It was a smokescreen for a much more grubby lunge for power.
The coup of 2006 – on the other hand – was to uphold the notion of a multiracial Fiji against what the military believed to be a clear and present threat. This was the legislative program of the Qarase government that would have created two nations – one for indigenous Fijians and one for the rest.
Now, you may argue otherwise and that’s your right. But this is how I and a great many other people see it and we are entitled to express that view.
Contrary to what you say, I don’t support coups of any sort. 1987, 2000 and 2006 have all been among the blackest periods in Fiji’s history. But I do support the notion of a multiracial Fiji in which all citizens have equal rights. While that remains the policy of the Bainimarama regime – and it sticks to its plan to return Fiji to democracy in 2014 – it’s perfectly natural for me to prefer that to the nationalist policies pursued by the SDL that produced this crisis in the first place.
I take great exception to you raising the name of my late father and using it as a stick to beat me with in this debate. Who’s your father and what does he think of you? For the record, my father spent his entire working life in Fiji pursuing the multiracial ideal. He also knew the Bainimarama family for 40 years and happened to have a very high opinion of their integrity. So the notion that he’d be “turning in his grave” over me expressing the opinions I do is not only completely offensive but completely wrong. I knew my father’s mind. You do not.
Bula Graham,
Once again you have avoided the issue of the rule of law and have failed to acknowledge that in 2006, Bainimarama committed treason and many other crimes since then. You do have a right to judge whether Speight and others were insincere in their cause and likewise others about Bainimarama’s. But sensible citizens who have a genuine concern for the welfare of the nation must always publically point out the illegal and unnecessary path they chose to pursue their objectives and most importantly strive relentlessly to bring them to justice. If Bainimarama is really genuine about equality under the law then he must step down and be judged by it like everyone else. No amount of justifications, pork barrelling and soothsaying will excuse Bainimarama from his crimes.
Military commanders are given a position of trust by the people and are sworn in under oath to protect their interests according to law. There is no provision under the constitution for Bainimarama to step outside those boundaries regardless of how heated the political arena may be. A perfect example of how all military persons should behave is highlighted by the following event.
During the turbulent period leading up to the last US elections, the contentious public political issue was the Iraq war. However, US military chiefs were very concerned by the so called generals’ revolt in 2006 demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary, as well as former officers who have written books attacking the Bush administration’s planning for and execution of the war in Iraq. In response, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a sensible word of advice which is relevant to Bainimarama and all serving RFMF officers. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from taking part in partisan politics.
Mullen warned all those in uniform to stay out of politics as the country approached a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.
“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times,” he wrote. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”
The war in Iraq already has exceeded the length of World War II and was the longest conflict the United States has fought with an all- volunteer military since the Revolutionary War.
“As the nation prepares to elect a new president,” Mullen wrote, “we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.
“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”
“I am not suggesting that military professionals abandon all personal opinions about modern social or political issues,” Mullen wrote. “What I am suggesting – indeed, what the nation expects – is that military personnel will, in the execution of the mission assigned to them, put aside their partisan leanings. Political opinions have no place in cockpit or camp or conference room.”
He noted that “part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests.”
“Military personnel are obligated to give their unvarnished, even critical, advice to their civilian leaders”, he said.
“If it’s followed, great,” Mullen said. “If it’s not, we only have two choices: obey the orders we have been given, carrying them out with the professionalism and loyalty they deserve, or vote with our feet.”
The US is blessed with level headed military chiefs who understand where their true allegiance lies.
Graham, again you must heed my advice concerning the issue of ethical and responsible journalism in light of the situation in Fiji. Many innocent people (other than SDL and “indigenous extremist”) have been needlessly hurt and even killed in this misguided coup. The illegal abductions and beatings of citizens still continue up at QEB just because they express a different view to those of the dictator. I expected someone of your family background and education to rise above the irrational promises of a dictator and not fall into the category of” trash journalism” by turning a blind eye to mess Bainimarama has created .
BTW, do not take offense to my comment of you and your father. Consider me a very close friend of his and someone who may have known a part of his mind which you were not exposed to. I am concerned about your state of mind and urge you to do what he would do, by speaking out when crimes are being committed against the people, when their rights have been suppressed, when chiefs are being harassed, when women are subject to humiliation, when politicians are tortured, when diplomats and journalists are harassed and expelled, when long serving civil servants are forced out of their jobs, when church ministers are being detained, when the church are prevented from their usual activities and the list goes on.
Be sensible son, start exposing the dictator fro who he really is and save your reputation and career.
Wilson, I have made it clear that I do not approve of any coup, nor of any human rights abuse, whatever the circumstances. Equally, I don’t support the continuing state of emergency nor the current restrictions on the media. I think it’s time they were lifted.
The regime – on the other hand – argues that they are still necessary because of the level of agitation by its opponents and the consequent threat to public order and the health of the economy. And that’s where it rests.
Yes, there is evidence of brutality by the Fiji military and extrajudicial killings in the wake of the 2000 mutiny. These are highly regrettable. But they do not appear to me to be as widespread as some of the government’s opponents claim. There is also evidence that Amnesty International’s reporter on Fiji, Apolosi Bose, is not the independent figure he professes to be. And in any event, I think appointing a Fijian national to examine the country’s human rights position is highly problematic in itself.
All these things you cite don’t detract from a central fact; that the Bainimarama regime has reversed the disgraceful racist program of the SDL government it removed and equality has been restored to citizens of all races. Any non-indigenous person is certainly more equal now than he or she was before December 2006 and decrees have been issued to strengthen the rights of women and certain minorities like the gay community.
I do not know who you are and presume you are using a pseudonym. So your claim to have known my father can’t be tested in my mind or anyone else’s. Frankly, your patronising tone and claim to have been privy to opinions held by my father that I don’t know about simply compounds the offensive nature of your previous posting, in which you claimed he’d be “turning in his grave” because of the views I express. Declare who you really are and your relationship with my father and we can have a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, the decent course of action is to leave him out of it.
Bula Graham,
At the outset I must say that Ilisoni Tamanikaira is my real name and you can confirm that with the NLC records in Suva. I have been posting my comments on various blog sites and Fiji Times columns ever since this tragic coup took place in 2006. I have worked with your dad at a professional level on various community based projects in Fiji and in Sydney so am quite rightly able to pass observations, comparisons and suggestions given our affinity with his legacy. A Fijian proverb about paternal similarities state that, “a coconut never falls far from its source” and am still figuring out what happened in your case.
Alexander Downer aptly labels those who attempt to defend Bainimarama’s criminal actions as “coup apologists”. It is unfortunate that your stance suggests that sometimes the means are perhaps not desirable but necessary to achieve a “good” end. The Greek writer Sophocles wrote “The end excuses any evil.”
The dangers surrounding this view is that it is purely subjective, for example 1) Who decides if an end is “important enough?”,2) Are the means justified to achieve an important end, EVEN IF the means cause more harm than the good in the end? 3) If so, who decides what “harm” and “good” are done? And finally, 4) the end excuses “any” evil Do you truly wish to stand with the term, ANY evil? What are not subjective here are the crimes Bainimarama has committed against innocent citizens and he will must justice in the end.
Remember that you are conversing with a person who is quite familiar with 1997 Constitution of Fiji and in particular the Bill of Rights contained within it. The BOR safeguards the rights of every citizen regardless of race,sexuality,status and so forth. Fiji has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world in regards to these matters, more so than countries like Australia who has none. To say that a basic right under a Bainimarama decree has more strength than a right contained within the BOR in the Constitution is absolutely nonsense and really Graham, how stupid can you be? The simple test is that a decree is purely arbitrary in nature therefore it does not express the will of the people nor can they have any real redress in a constitutional court of law if they break it to exercise a right. Good examples as you mentioned, are the Media decree and PER.
In conclusion, your versions of the “facts” surrounding the coup of 2000, reasons for the 2006 coup and the issue of rights (eg.non indigenous, women & gay protection etc) suggests that you have an extremely shallow understanding of the real issues concerning Fiji. Furthermore, how can you make objective observations as a journalist about Bainimarama when you choose to roll around in the mud with the pig?
Lift your game son, the role of the media is to always provide an alternate voice for the people and not for that of a self indulgent dictator.
Wilson bula
I have been reading your comments on this website and keep thinking to myself that you sound like a sensible person who like the rest of us wants a new non racial democracy in Fiji.
What is your vision of a new non racial democracy for Fiji ?
vinaka
Bula Bushmoko,
That is a very important question. The use of this term, “non racial democracy” has been thrown around a lot lately and it is a description formulated by pro coup supporters in response to Bainimarama’s comments about, a) what was wrong with the SDL policies prior to 2006 rather than, b) what was wrong about the constitutionally driven system of democracy that existed then. I make this very important distinction because Bainimarama and others in the regime were always at pains to justify the removal of (a) “good” democracy with (b) the “bad” SDL policies. ps…Also read my argument contained in the post to Graham Davis dated 19 June, 1. 21am on this theory.
But what is democracy? We can safely say that democracy today is the system of governance that gives every citizen the opportunity to vote and decide on the laws which they hope to be governed by. We can also safely say that prior to the coup of 2006, this system was in existence in Fiji and was protected under the 1997, Constitution of Fiji.
The 1997, Constitution of Fiji is then a very important instrument of law and contained within it are the guiding principles by which, “We the people”, chose to live. These principles can only be added to, amended and even repealed by, “we the people” through the process of national referendum and parliamentary confirmation. The constitutional infrastructures of the state such as the HOR, Executive and Judiciary including everyone who holds a constitutional position of office under an oath of allegiance, all work to safeguard the rights of and in particular the expressed wishes of the people. This includes, as General Mullins outlined, “political issues that may appear to be divisive, no matter how contentious they may be”.The processes of constitutional redress for any individual or group who may feel harmed by any political process or by fellow citizens must be allowed to function within the constitution and not by any so called arbitrary and illegal, “extra constitutional actions” such as a coup.
Bushmoko, I believe that an immediate return to constitutional democracy is vital before addressing the real underlying issues that lead to a coup. It is always good to address national issues from within the legal framework of “equal voice” and ‘credible consensus” rather than from within the feared surroundings of a coup.
I mentioned ” underlying issues” because regardless of what versions of democracy we choose to live under, the fundamental problems we have in Fiji are the lack of understanding for the principles of coexistence and tolerance within a democracy. These are important bases for building mutually acceptable relationships especially between the highly diverse communities such as ours. If the integrative system is to work–that is, if it is to be able to hold a diverse community together as a single entity (for example, a nation state)–there must be a certain level of tolerance between the different religious, ethnic, and/or racial groups living in within the state.
By tolerance, I mean a duty of care and respect towards each other and in particular, having faith in a democratic system of governance and in particular the rule of law. In the absence of tolerance and willing co-existence, societies will be in perpetual conflict, with each side trying to somehow get rid of the other, either by
1. forcing them to leave (as refugees),
2. through genocide, or
3. by one group completely dominating and de-humanizing the opposing group(s).
As we have seen, these are the conditions that have provided coup makers with an excuse to grab power and to solicit support with the usual rhetoric of promises and guarantees.
“I consider Mr Davis’s decision to berate and question the sovereign rights of the Government of Australia in granting of the Permanent Residency Status for me, and my family, malicious and mischievous. Australia is honouring its obligation to protect me under international convention for my political beliefs.”
This piece by Kaitani interests me. Is Australia funding, paying or supporting a group of Fijians it anticipation that they can act as some sort of Government in Exile.
If so – who is recieving this stipend?
I do not know whom is Kaitani trying to fool. It has been established beyond doubt that Kaitani was one of the perperators of 2000 coup. He even claimed this explicitly in one of Fiji Television’s programs. And if he has now taken up Australian PR, may I suggest his name be deleted from the register of indigenous Fijians.
The Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement in Australia is nothing but a team of greedy, selfish, racist and lazy crimnals who want to derail the good work Frank and his team is doing for Fiji.
Ratu Mara was a chief, the first PM, longest serving PM who always had a government made up of 99% Fijians yet by 1987, the majority Indigenous in the country were still living in poverty, they had the highest failure rate and highest dropouts from schools/institutations, made up majority in crime, drug use and in prison. The whole Fijian race apart from a selected minority was a failure thanks to this chief Mara and his chiefly team.
I can’t understand why Rabuka took so long to execute his coup. Probably because it was based on racist and not spiritual grounds as he claims in his book because Fiji than had an Indian PM (the first) who was doing very well and showed potentials to achieve a lot for the people. But even after Rabuka’s successful campaign and 12 years of government and adultry the Fijian population continued to suffer. Still no tap water or electricity in villages, still majority in crime, drugs and prison etc, etc.
Racist chiefs and leaders blamed Indians for the failures of their people. Rabuka, speight, and the likes are nothing but greedy, selfish and racist leaders taking advantage of a trusting Indigenous population.
This new Mara is just the same. His father stole fishing grounds from his own people which Frank will now return. It is a shame that our government is backing people like these but then what can they do being racists themselves.
Frank had achieved more in a few years that what all the Fijian leaders and Mara’s put togather in over a hundred years (since independance I mean)
Swadesh Singh,..Instead of making generalised and unproven statements about the above mentioned groups and individuals, try elaborating a bit further in sensible tones with credible evidence to prove your point.
SVT MP, Israel Leweniqila once replied to FLP MP Ganesh Chand in a similar circumstance during a parliamentary session,”It;s good to see that you are a fervent nationalist but you are in the wrong country”. “Fijian bashing” only serves to expose your racist attitudes and provides ammunition for some Fijians to hate Indians even more.
Who are you kidding, Wilson. Regardless of Swadesh’s comments, there has always been a pathologiocal hatred for Indians among a good number of indigenous Fijians. This includes some ”closet haters” masquerading as educated moderates. But the mask slips sometimes.
No matter what, Indians will never be accepted in Fiji. History had shown that time and agin. Some of the strongest coup critics have been Fiji Indians who spoke out and risked their lives. They were more vocal then many Fijian leaders, who kept their silence, or only spoke from the safety of another country. But still no appreciation. Just more talk of hating Indians. This is nothing new. Indians have always been bullied and called the vilest of things, including in parliament. Indians will always be convenient scapegoats.
Fiji has been a good home for Indians but all good things must come to an end. Indians should hightail out of that country ASAP. The warning bells should start sounding for Indians.These extremsists are everywhere, including the church. They will stop at nothing, They will incite their fellow Fijians , and even spread the hatred from the pulpit. Think Rwanda. Indian leaders should have one thing on their agenda – get their people out of Fiji.
Australia has no problems giving sanctuary to coupists like Kaitani so Australia would welcome Fiji-Indians, who are hard working and law abiding and will contribute to Australian society.
The extremists are so unchristaian and full of hatred it is sometime scary. Some display a Hitler-like fervour in his hatred for the Jews.The extremists will stop at nothing. They are prepred to kill and destroy. They will get their way in the end.
Fiji’s leaders should starting drawing up a long-term, gradual repartriation plan for Indians. This will ease some of the tensions.
The departure of Indians will solve all of Fiji’s problems and the country weill become a uptopia.
Charles Singh (any relation to Swadesh?),
You sound like the “extended” version of Swadesh. Again, you too have fallen victim to the usual stereotypical and racist perception of Fijians being the ” racist aggressors, law breakers and lazy” and Indians being the,”victim, law abiding and hardworking).
This type of thinking is an indication of one characteristic – ignorance!!
As for your grand plans for the repatriation of all Indians from Fiji? I think the majority of Indians would prefer to remain in Fiji amongst “the extremists” than to follow in your footsteps to Australia or India.
I believe that the majority of Indians in Fiji do not agree with this coup and in particular,the direct and illegal participation of prominent leaders such as, Mahendra Chaudary and fellow FLP leaders, the Shameem sisters,Khaiyum, Aziz and others. I know that Chaudary has since been kicked out by Bainimarama and like Ului Mara, has seen the folly of his ways but that does no excuse his treasonous acts in the first place.Every single one of these individual will eventually be brought to justice.
The illegal actions of Bainimarama and the support from his apologists only serve to perpetuate the coup culture.
Wilson,
I take exception to you justifying hatred for all Indians on the basis of a comment by one Indian. Unfortunately this attitude is all too common. To me it shows that hatred is simmering just below the surface. Why should anyone hate me for comments made by one Swadesh Singh? How unreasonable is that? It shows that Indians will always be picked on no matter what.
Indians want to remain in Fiji. But if they are going to be constantly blamed and accused and abused, what is the point of staying? Get out before things get worse.
Both poor Fijians and Indians are the victims of their selfish and manipulative leaders. The Fijians’ poor standard of living is a sad indictment on their churches and self-serving leaders letting young promising and talented Fijians down by dabbling in divisive politicis and preaching hatred.
The cane farmers are under that alleged crook, Chaudry’s spell, and too many Fijians are fooled by the Indian bogey and believe their leaders when they blame Indians for all their problems -urban-based educated Fijians manipulating their own people for their own selfish ends.
Fiji has trmendous potential, but both Indans and Fijians need to understand they need each other, comrpomise, and come to their senses before it is too late. Both sides have to speak out against the extemists in their midst in the strongest o terms.
We have not reached the the stage of the Solomon islands where reconcilation has become impsosibel because of the violence and killings, and hopefully we never will.
Charles Singh,
I do not wish to engage in debates about racial vilification but to say that Fijians blame Indians for all their problems is a generalisation. Don’t forget that it was Fijians who voted Rabuka out of office in 1999 and for that matter, many Fijian parties formed a coalition of sorts with the FLP to bring Chaudary to power.
To say that “rural Fijians are “dumb” and easily mislead by leaders like Rabuka is a really stupid comment and a misguided perception created by coup apologists and anti-indigenous campaigners.Have you been to a Fijian village to discuss national issues with it’s residents? You could be surprised at how aware they are of the political environment and in particular national issues that may affect their wellbeing.
However, I respect your views on wanting to seek repatriation to back to India or as you mentioned, Australia. But I need to question your sense of insecurity because you may be mislead by the propaganda of a self serving ” urban and educated” Indian leader.
.
All these comments do not detract from the fact that Bainimarama committed a grievous crime to be where he is today. He is exactly the type of so called leaders you are referring to as trying to hoodwink ordinary citizens to enhance his greed for power. The sensible majority can see past his nonsense because as Orton put it,”If he acts like a dictator, speaks like a dictator and looks like a dictator then he is a dictator. Surely you would have to agree that he and anyone who aided his misguided aspirations has to face justice for all the murders, tortures and damage to society they committed.
Tamanikaira don’t know what part of Fiji you lived in but go to to an Institutions -QVS club would be a good one to hear comments about Indo-Fijians as for the facts here they are racist aggressors including listening to sermons in Church on Sundays for the esteemed Talatalas. You should hear the sermons in church after the Alliance Party lost to the NFP and also to Labour! You must be living in dreamland if you have not come across the belitting of indo-Fijians, in the civil service the hospitals, in the police force in the army etc -go get a real life and stop kidding yourself. As for Kaitani what do you think he was doing in Parliament with George Speight playing marbles-he was there to feather his “own nest” no different from Mere Samisoni and the crew. Problem with us getting caught with our pants down is we always seem to have an answer for it in the case of Kaitani he was only charged for TREASON, an illegal oath been taken! He knows where he stood when Bainimarama took over he realised the cards was on the tables for him and his days numbered-best run to Assuie before shit hits the fan. If he can forgive Roko Ului than he shouldn’t have any problem forgiving Bainimarama-same rule of life applies for the rich and also the poor.
For such a small Island Nation the size of a dot on the World Map, events of the past decade are just too much of a fracas for us, the citizens of this paradise. The everyday kindness of the back roads more than makes up for the acts of greed in the headlines. It suffices to quote Oscar Wilde, “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people for the people”. it is nothing more than “mob rule” where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.
However, the poor will always have more than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
For all you power greedy impersonators of a true Fijian at heart, cogitate Abraham Lincoln when he said ” As I would not be a slave. so I would not be a master…”. This expresses my idea of DEMOCRACY!
I conclude with this….if you really care….come back to the common people and serve like a true master.
They were there.
In European custom it would be possible to walk away or turn ones back, in Fijian custom not possible.
One picture to generate so much debate, how refreshing.
They were there.
Three nights before the 2000 coup a neighbour of Qarase was disturbed enough by the traffic (4×4 Pajeros) arriving at 11 pm at night that he turned his lights off and peaked through his curtains. Vehicles were turning their lights off down the street before even arriving and coming to a stop. The numbers overflowed into the street.
Was this a one off poker night?
Was Mrs Qarase out of town and a stripper on show?
Who did not turn up for the party at Parliament?
He was there.
As way of explanation I have been told that Qarase got picked as PM by Frank because he attended all his public addresses.
How Frank or HA, or ha ha ha
Nobody is telling, because like the boxer said, “Wait for my comeback”
“Ears to the ground”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. You clearly have your ears to the ground and your head in the clouds. But that’s OK. Have a pleasant Sunday anyway.
To many chief not enough indian: Ratu Ului, Ratu Jone, Ratu Suli (Asshole) and etc..,all are ex- military with same mine set….to run or rule a organization, not qualify to varies job in the military Ratu Jone in Army Engineers- not even have clue or no engineering background or trade, Ratu Suli in Army Engineers (Cook & painter) or trade ..not qualify for both of them working as labour and Rau Ului not even qualify……because of that name Ratu Mara he got that job ….Shame to our fijian culture when you involve with work …..shame to our FIJI tommorrow with to many cheifs………….they all part of coup lock them up for good
Dr Brij Lal is a disgruntled person. Firstly, his constitution didn’t work in Fiji, then his NFP-backed party lost badly, then he got deported for poking his nose where he shouldn’t ever have.
He is one of those academics who can write a good thesis but is a 0/100 in a practical situation.
His constitution was undemocratic to start with. So how can democracy be achieved? That is why, Chaudhry was removed and Qarase – all while his hopeless constitution was in place. Bainimarama took the right step in throwing that out the window. It should be replaced by something that treats every citizen equally, gets rid of communal voting system altogether. And Fiji doesn’t need academics from ANU (feel like adding an S due to likes of Brij Lal) to write a better constitution.
Australia – Julia Gillard was a scared PM of a sovereign country who did not meet Dalai Lama, obviously scared of a country where democracy doesn’t exist.
NZ – similar hypocrisy where neither Australia nor NZ leaders have the guts to even mention the words democracy/elections/human rights on mainland China. But they try to bully Fiji because they can.
But Fiji is not ruled by gutless nuts like Samoan PM so they won’t accept any bullies.
@ Sharma i wonder which planet you come from?New Zealand and Australia a home to many former Fiji resident’s i am sure including you and enjoying benefit’s from the GOV.It is time to look beyond the barriers that man has set for us of Nationality and Color that make’s a true person so Bainimarama is not a true person his fake and miss leading many people i believe in that what change’s has he bring to my family in the village?, nothing false promise OMG @ Wilson your amazing i like your comments keep up the good work
@ Emer
Where is your village?
@ avatar I am from Nadrau Village land owner to Monasavu Dam but i reside overseas but my parents still resides there ..so there is no change since i left the village at the age of 15 thank’s to Qarase he did what needed most was elect
@ Emer
Thank you for sharing. Yes, strange that Monsavu was not connected to the eletricty grid ever since the hydro was built up there. I understand that this was the fault of the Alliance government under Ratu Mara and successive governments did nothing. What a shame.
Bula Graham,
When it comes to coups, everyone involved has a vested interested. The persistent and fundamental problem with your argument is that you try to justify the “rape” of people’s rights (and person) in Fiji with the promises that are spewing out of the mouth of the dictator Bainimarama, who is doing the rape. You see the suffering (and killing) of the people as an “inconvenience” on the path to realizing your claims of equal rights.You further accept that there is a place in Fiji’s politics for the barrel of the gun to protect your claims
To test your claim, can you please explain in detailed instances of when you have been treated “less equally” than others in Fiji. And if so, who did that to you and what laws were in place that were violated and also to protect you? Did you enter a complaint? To whom and what was the result? More importantly, was the illegal removal of the state, all its instruments of law and the subsequent crimes that followed, justification enough in fulfilling the percieved lack of equal rights afforded to you?
In another post, could you do an unbiased and detailed investigation into the conduct of Bainimarama as the military commander. 1) His actions during the coup of 2000 (Not George because we already know that and he has been jailed), 2) his illegal removal of Fiji’s President on May 19th,2000, 3) His part in the Muanikau Accord, 4) The real motives behind the 2001 mutiny and accusations pointing to Bainimarama for his actions/inactions including his role in the murders of the CRW soldiers, 5) The reasons behind the 2006 coup in relation to the Police investigations and imminent charges about to be laid against Bainimarama around Nov/ December 2006 in relation to points 1,2,3,4,5. Included could be the request for immunity from criminal prosecutions that was made to the SDL led Coalition in 2004 (What were the crimes?) by legal rep Major Tuanaisara, on behalf of Bainimarama and the result of that request? 6) The fallout with all those other “anti racist and pro equality” 2006 coup collaborators such as Chaudary, Bune, Driti,Mara, Ganilau and others.
Davis, please do your research from all credible sources other than from the dictator to get a balanced view in order to present a credible argument in public.
So, Wilson, it’s “Bula Graham” and then “Davis, do your research”. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Frankly, there’s no point in responding to this kind of diatribe. No matter how reasoned my response, I will simply get more of the same. It is you, regrettably, who needs to examine the facts. With terrorists in control of the parliament in 2000 and holding an elected prime minister hostage, Frank Bainimarama had no choice but to trick George Speight and his gruesome gang into surrendering. And after that, I would have broken every undertaking too. You’ll be aware of the old Fijian song about the moon over Muanikau. It’s still shining, accord or no accord. And since when has treachery been foreign to Fiji? Live by the sword, die by the sword – as they say.
Graham,
Your sidestepping of the real issues which may reveal the real reasons for the coup of 2006 and nature of the traitor is obvious because you don’t want to accept the truth. You admit that Frank had no choice but to decieve Speight? Then what were his reasons for decieving the President Ratu Mara on the 19th May at Dakuibeqa? And what are his reasons for decieving the Police and people of Fiji in promising not to carry out a coup? What of his promises after the coup of not profiting from it? What of his decieving everyone including the international community in promising an election in 2009? And what of his promises of accepting the Court of Appeal ruling regardless of the outcome in regards to the illegality of his coup? And what of his promises for a better and corrupt free society when he slaps on a media ban that shone the light on his own corruption and that sinister PER which takes away the voices of every citizen? Then there was the shamozzle surrounding the so called Peoples Charter, what happened to the wasted funds and the people who were conned into its membership? What about the promises of the Gestapo FICAC in uncovering corruption..are the corrupt and illegal regime’s activities exempt, such as the FNPF debacle and exhorbitant salaries?.
I am truely disappointed with your attitude Graham, given your family history in Fiji. Your blind faith in a conman,(who may yet decieve you too), is an indication of what are fool and misfit you really are. Furthermore, your lack of respect and remorse for all the victims of this tragic and misguided coup in an indication of your sinister and bastardised behaviour similar to that of the traitor, Bainimarama.
It is also obvous that you are an extended arm of the “Ministry of Misinformation” run by that other misguided Aussie in Fiji,SSmith and you fail to acknowledge whether you are recieving kickbacks for your media trash.
BTW, old Chinese saying about your coup collaboration, “Men in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly”…beware the sword!!
Wilson, the personal nature of your attack on me, the suggestion that I receive kickbacks from the regime and the none-too-subtle threat of violence implied in you final comment says much about the kind of person you are.
I’m not obliged to answer a series of non-sequitors from you on demand. My own views on Fiji are in these columns for everyone to see and are driven by my desire for Australia and NZ to re-engage with Fiji. If you don’t like them – which is your prerogative – go elsewhere.
The art of war is deception