The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is a cornerstone of international law yet that principle is being flagrantly breached by Samoa in its dealings with Fiji. In a remarkable development, the Samoan Government has publicly endorsed a campaign spearheaded by the renegade Fijian military officer, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara, to overthrow the government of Fijian leader Frank Bainimarama. In doing so, it’s set the scene for an even bigger rift between the two countries with potentially serious consequences for the entire region.
Bainimarama is not only Fiji’s prime minister but the current chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), which links Fiji with Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Kanaks of New Caledonia. There’s already a clear fault line between the Melanesians and their Polynesian neighbours in Pacific regional forums. But now a long-standing sense of unease has turned to anger that one of the biggest and most influential Polynesian nations has seen fit to cast aside traditional notions of sovereignty and become a partisan player in Fiji’s domestic affairs.
This is the photograph that has sparked consternation about a imminent deterioration in the already strained relations between Fiji and Samoa. It shows the Samoan prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielelagaoi (right), meeting two of Frank Bainimarama’s arch enemies in an Australian hotel suite. In the centre is Tevita Mara, the son of Fiji’s founding father, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, who made a dramatic escape to Tonga last month after he fell out with Bainimarama and was charged with sedition. And on the left is Bainimarama’s former land force commander, Jone Baledrokadroka, who left for Australia four years ago after he too fell out with Bainimarama and has been conducting a concerted anti-regime campaign ever since while on a fellowship at the Australian National University.
Both these men – exiles committed to Bainimarama’s destruction -now enjoy the explicit encouragement of an influential, mainstream Pacific leader. In a weekend statement, Tevita Mara said the Samoan prime minister had given his support to the pro-democracy movement and a ten-point plan for elections in Fiji as soon as possible, as opposed to Bainimarama’s election timetable of 2014. “I welcome his support and this meeting was part of the process of isolating the Bainimarama regime internationally, regionally and locally within Fiji”, Mara said.
For his part, Tuilaepe confirmed his endorsement of Mara’s campaign in an interview with Radio Australia: “I tend to look at the defection and the pro-active role he (Mara) is playing now as part of the process of a solution initiated by the Fijians themselves, and in this situation, it’s so important because here is a person who was a former colleague of Bainimarama who has seen the light and decided to leave and is now taking the leading role in promoting democracy”.
The Samoan leader also called for tougher sanctions on Fiji aimed at provoking a popular uprising. “The sanctions are not enough to shake the people, to realise that the kind of government that is ruling their lives is not the right one. There should be additional sanctions. Once the people realise that the sanctions are making their lives difficult, then it will motivate them to take the necessary action”, he said.
Tuilaepa went on to criticise the influential Australian think-tank, The Lowy Institute, for suggesting that Canberra alter its current hard-line stance and reengage with Fiji. And he launched an extraordinary attack on the Bainimarama government’s domestic policies. “It is causing havoc, the treasury is empty and the government is extending its illegal activities into the use of (the) National Provident Fund” – a clear inference that Bainimarama is raiding the superannuation savings of ordinary Fijians to finance his regime.
All this means that Fiji is on a collision course with its two closest Polynesian neighbours. Already furious with Tonga for sending one of its patrol boats to “rescue” Mara from within Fiji waters, the Bainimarama regime is now being provoked by Tuilaepa’s intervention. And he’s compounded the offence by inviting Mara to visit Apia next month for further consultations. This is in stark contrast to the attitude of the Solomons Government, which said Mara wasn’t welcome there because it wanted to preserve its relations with Fiji.
The fact that the Tuilaepa/Mara/Baledrokadroka meeting took place in Canberra has fueled suspicions in Fiji that Australia is the hand in the glove of this new alliance. It lifted its ban on Mara entering the country to enable him to address pro-democracy rallies in spite of accusations that he’d abused pro-democracy activists in the wake of the 2006 coup, in which he played a key role. Are Australia and New Zealand using Samoa as a stalking horse to try to bring about regime change in Fiji? Is Tevita Mara being specifically groomed as an alternative Fijian leader in waiting? The ever lively coconut radio is abuzz with speculation about what it all might mean.
For the moment, Frank Bainimarama is striking a nonchalant pose about the threat Mara presents, thumbing his nose at the chief last week by visiting his home village in the Lau group and securing an apology from Mara’s clan for his errant behaviour. Until now, he’s also dismissed Tuilaepa as “an Aussie and Kiwi stooge” whose sole achievement has been “to force Samoan motorists to drive on the other side of the road”. A Fiji Government spokesperson said Bainimarama wasn’t planning to issue a statement on his Samoan counterpart’s latest comments. But now that Tuilaepa has openly encouraged a domestic rebellion against his leadership, that nonchalance will be sorely tested.
It’s certainly regarded as “irresponsible and potentially dangerous” by Australian academic Richard Herr, adjunct professor of governance and ethics at the Fiji National University and the author of a landmark report on Fiji 18 months ago for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
“When Toke Talagi, the Prime Minister of Niue, urged Fijians to rise up and overthrow the regime during the Cairns Pacific Forum in 2009, it was regarded as embarrassing and inflammatory and the then Australian prime minister -now foreign minister – Kevin Rudd, sought to tone it down”, Herr told Grubsheet.
“This is potentially just as inflammatory and dangerous and yet there’s been no public response thus far from Australia that might help defuse what is certainly an irresponsible intervention by the Samoan leader”, Herr said.
There is no Samoan diplomatic representative in Suva with whom Fiji can lodge an official protest. But there’s certainly a view that when one Pacific leader chooses to call for the overthrow of another while on Australian soil, then it would be perfectly legitimate for the Fiji Government to call in Australia’s representative and formally ask if that is also Canberra’s position.
Already, Fijian and Tongan naval vessels are engaged in a tense stand-off over the ownership of Minerva Reef, a coral outcrop with rich fishing grounds that’s claimed by both countries. That dispute has been exacerbated by Tonga’s action in sending one of its patrol boats to pluck Tevita Mara from the clutches of Fijian justice. Now that he’s also being feted by the Samoans, Fiji’s relations with its near neighbours will come under even more strain. All of a sudden, the Pacific of legend is looking anything but.
This article has subsequently appeared in The Australian, the Fiji Sun, the Samoa Observer, and Pacific Scoop New Zealand.
The Samoan prime minister has since issued a statement that includes the following:
I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on a recent article by a certain Graham Davis that my statements on Fiji is (sic) creating a rift between Polynesians and Melanesians. I’ve also been briefed of (sic) the article’s contents. People – especially academics – read too much into this so-called Polynesian versus Melanesian thinking. Let me put it in a simple context we can all understand.
A toad and a frog were arguing on the doorstep. One argues he is much more handsome than the other. Along comes a pretty girl, looks at the pair, screams ‘AUOI!’, stomps on both of them and runs away. Moral of the story? We live in the same pond and nobody really cares about our differences.
Good day.
Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi
A quaint retort, though one that chooses to ignore the central issues. The Samoan leader is establishing himself as something of a showman and eccentric, as evidenced by his comments on the glory of the country’s transsexuals.
Graham,
Where is the consistency in your argument? I hear you criticizing the Samoan PM for interfering in an internal affair. But I don’t hear you criticizing the Solomon’s PM. He talked on the same issue but had a different point of view. Are you saying that it is ok for outside PM’s to talk on this issue if they support the regime but they are not allowed to if they don’t. Surely that goes against the rules of journalism about being objective.
It is well known that you and Smith Johns have a close relationship and that you scratch each other’s backs. I assume this article like all the others supporting the Bainimarama regime is your way of repaying Smith Johns’ favor to you.
I have a question for you. You obviously know there are human rights abuses taking place in Fiji on a daily basis. There are no checks and balances such as the media or the judiciary. Where do you draw the line?
Is it 1 beating, 10 beatings, 100 beatings or 1,000 beatings?
Is it 1 murder, 10 murders, or 100 murders?
What level of human rights abuses do we have to reach before you withdraw your unquestioning support for Bainimarama’s dictatorship?
Frank is here to stay….Oz and Kiwi can harp all they want. Fhinally !!! they get their match.
Harp all and what all you can..nothing is changing. Where were the so called democracy movers in year 2000 when democratically elected Prime Minister of Fiji was toppled by illegal coup by 21st Century off-springs of cannibals.
Real democracy is being done now by Frank Bainimarama. He ensures that everyone in Fiji will get equal treatment, everyone will be able call themselves as Fijians, no longer will be race base elections, no free bees to crooks, real democracy.
Where is democracy in NZ and Oz. Aborigines sent to extinction, Maoris cant even form their own government in elections – extinct.
Now we have 2 Pac Isles who cant even afford to call their currency – as a dollar. Fiji had the balls to go from British Pounds to its own dollar. Samoa has its own “tala” while I have to research to see what Tonga uses…Conch Shell !!!
Remember Fiji has Indians as its next top population. Indian brains control the economy. Indian brains control most big countries economy of the world.
Oz, NZ, Tonga, Samoa and all the rest of the band wagons …try hard or try dying.
Kai India, I have to say that I see your comment as very unfortunate and provocative for its suggestion of Indian supremacy in Fiji. You crow about the setback to indigenous supremacists and then launch into your own completely unacceptable extremist rant.
This is not about Indians controlling anyone but being regarded as equal citizens, just like anyone else in Fiji. If you honestly hold the opinions you do, then you are part of the problem in Fiji. You come across as a Hindu nationalist with your statement about ‘Indian brains” controlling most of the world’s economies.
The way you put your case and talk about “kai india” rather than the correct “kai idia” in the Fijian language lead me to smell a rat here. Are you really a genuine kai dia or an indigenous extremist trying to whip up emotions? Either way, you are way out of line.
Pardon me, Guy,but where is the consistency in your own argument? Of course one national leader praising another or withholding criticism isn’t regarded as provocative. That’s axiomatic and I can scarcely believe your line of reasoning. But for one national leader to call for the overthrow of another is a serious matter in international affairs and that’s what Tuilaepa has done.
The fact that he’s called for a popular revolt in Fiji shows just how irresponsible the Samoan leader is and how disconnected from reality. Were ordinary Fijians to heed his call, then the resulting bloodshed can’t be imagined. Because no popular revolt can succeed without the military and the violent overthrow of Bainimarama himself. And we saw how many lives were lost even in the brief rebellion of the 2000 mutiny. Are you seriously arguing that this is a responsible position for any Pacific leader to take?
To set the record straight, Sharon Smith Johns and I have a purely professional relationship. Contrary to your assertion, we do not “scratch each other’s backs”. I met her when I requested an interview with Frank Bainimarama for The Australian newspaper last year and have had precisely three encounters since, all on the same visit – one of them in the prime minister’s office, one in her office and one in the lounge of a Suva hotel. All quite normal for someone dealing with the Fiji Government’s official spokesperson. Not once did she offer up her back to be scratched, nor would I have presumed to do so myself.
As I’ve said before, I don’t condone human rights abuses anywhere, including Fiji. I support the Bainimarama Government’s stated multiracial agenda over what I believe to be the racist policies of the SDL. I will reconsider that support if and when there’s any change to its position that all Fiji citizens should be equal or its promise to hold one man, one vote elections in 2014.
Thank you for your comment.
Graham
As you know by now, there has been a recent posting on Coup 4.5 which purports to show an email exchange between you and Ms Smith – Jones.
Since you stated categorically in your reply to Guy Threllfell that:
“contrary to your assertion, we do not ‘scratch each other’s backs’”
I’m intrigued by C4.5’s publishing an email which claims that you wrote:
‘Hi Sharon, you’ll be interested in my latest Grubsheet posting. And thanks again, for helping Wooley. Cheers GD’
I sympathise with you since either the post is false and therefore malicious, or it’s true and is therefore a breach of your privacy.
Nevertheless it’s out in the public realm so please excuse me for asking if it is false. If it’s not and Ms Smith – Jones did in fact do you a small favour, why did you deny Mr Threllfell’s claim?
I would respect your right not to reply and wouldn’t draw any inferences from that.
Jon, yes, I thanked Sharon Smith Johns for assisting someone else in the media who I’d pointed in her direction. I also alerted her to the piece I’d written. All normal, given her role as permanent secretary for information.
So, yes, my note is genuine. But, no, this was not a thank you note for a personal favour, as Ratu Mara asserts. Let me repeat: Sharon Smith Johns and I are have a professional relationship and do not “scratch each other’s backs”. I have met her three times and all on one visit to Suva to interview the PM a year ago. And she has never granted me a personal favour.
I’m simply not in a position to know how my note came into the public arena. Similarly, I’m not in a position to validate any other purported correspondence or comment on its source. Is it genuine? Who knows. Has it been falsified and cut and pasted onto a genuine email from me? Who knows.
All I can say is that the tenor of some of the other correspondence seems decidedly odd to me and I find the notion that the PM would pass it onto Ratu Mara totally bizarre. Roko Ului has seen fit to misrepresent me in his statement. So I’d venture that he has an even greater motive to do so in the case of the PM.
As evidenced by his response to Michael Field’s article branding him simply another coup maker, Ratu Mara is clearly sensitive and seems to be attacking anyone who doesn’t join his little glee club. I leave readers to draw their own conclusions.
Graham,
Ratu Ului Mara’s comments will be taken by many people to have more credibility than yours for the simple fact of 1) his standing in Fijian society,2) long family history of political involvement,3) close working relationship with Bainimarama,4) intricate knowledge of the coup and the objectives of the regime.
Now that he has had a change of heart and now questions the personal motives of Bainimarama and the objectives of his coup, would it not be in your best interest to meet with him in order to draw relevant conclusions?
After all, we can not berate his “arch enemies”, Cl Baledrokadroka, SDL ministers and vowed anti coup proponents Jon Frankel and Brij Lal for doing just that.
Wilson, well that’s a matter of opinion. Can you explain what personal axe I have to grind in Fiji? How do I benefit from the opinions I express? The answer is – none.
The same cannot be said of Roko Ului. You think he has more credibility than me and that’s your right. But I hardly think you can speak for most people in Fiji.They can make up their own minds on the basis of what they see.
im a fijian i dont support ului……i dont agree frank but roko ului is a
thats it his family history in fiji politics …..roko ului greed for power…..
Graham
Mr Malielelagaoi’s actions seem to have earned for Australia your suspicion of being ‘the hand in the glove of this new alliance’ although quite what you think that alliance stands for isn’t made clear in your article.
Is the alliance that of several nations standing against a dictatorial regime that took power at the point of a gun – or is the alliance that of several nations standing against an avowed non racist who wishes to see a common voter role in a democratic Fiji society rid of its feudal chiefly system?
If, as I suspect they may feel, it’s the former, then I submit that the alliance’s stand is entirely consistent with that of NATO in its treatment of Gadaffi. Although it has to be said that the F16’s loaded with high explosive over Libya will be somewhat more effective than seagulls loaded with guano over Fiji.
If, as I suspect you might think, it’s the latter – then the countries of the alliance deserve to be rightly pilloried for their actions. And none more so than the Solomon Islands whose crafty stance in refusing Ratu Tevita the right to travel there will have done more to drive a wedge between Melanesian homogeneity than almost any other action since Vanuatu’s last year.
As you’ll appreciate, the Solomon’s refusal to allow Ratu Tevita visiting rights has robbed our judicial system of the opportunity to apply for his extradition and actually get somewhere with their application. Their cunning knows no bounds and, I suggest, is very much part of the Pacific of legend that you feel is becoming lost.
Jon, I draw your attention to Richard Herr’s comments about the apparent change in attitude by Australia to other Pacific leaders calling for a popular uprising in Fiji.
The fact is that the Samoan prime minister called for the overthrow of the Fiji Government on Australian soil. Is this also the official position of the Australian Government? It’s a question that’s quite legitimate to ask under the circumstances.
I can’t begin to read the minds of members of the Solomons Government. You say they are cunning. I think they quite understandably don’t want to be dragged into a Fijian domestic issue when they are the meat in the sandwich and have so many problems of their own.
Graham
I agree that it’s legitimate to question whether or not it’s the official (or even the unofficial) position of the Australian government. However I don’t doubt for a moment that you and several others have already done so and, by virtue of your silence on the matter, haven’t received an answer.
In view of the liklihood of continued silence from the Australian government on this, I will be looking forward to your and Dr Herr’s interpretations of that silence – approval for Australia’s apparent laissez faire regard for free speech as long as it doesn’t transgress the law, or reproach of a (relatively) powerful country for not stepping in and warning a smaller nation to mind its p’s and q’s?
Graham,
So let me get this straight you are of the opinion that no leader should criticize the actions of another government under any circumstances. Is it not a Government’s duty to speak out about human rights abuses in Dictatorships? Is it wrong for Governments to criticize Human Rights abuses in countries such as Burma? If that is OK then surely it is OK for the Samoan PM to speak out about Human Rights abuses in a neighboring country. If that country is also a dictatorship then surely it is his duty support regime change.
I asked before where do you draw the line in what is an acceptable level of Human Rights abuse and you fudged your answer. I ask again where do you draw the line? You obviously feel that Frank’s dictatorship is acceptable but I assume you think the one in Burma is not. I might of course be wrong in my assumption.
Please give me a straight answer and don’t hide behind the inadequacies of the SDL government. We all know it was bad, but now after 4.5 years of Frank, Qarase is beginning to look quite good.
We had freedom of speech
We had a free media
We had Government borrowing of only $250m per annum not the current $500m+
We had growth in the economy
We had a sugar industry of 330,000 tons per annum not the paltry 130,000 tons of today
We had an FNPF that was paying out 15% returns
We had reducing poverty levels
We had democracy (However imperfect) instead of a dictatorship
We could have removed Qarase by now in an election. We have to wait for 2014 for Frank. But we do not know for sure there will be an election, we have no idea of the constitution. You are putting a lot of a faith in a man who has reneged on 2 election dates already.
Again Graham come clean and tell us where you draw the line?
Guy, your preemptory tone is offensive. I’ve already told you where I draw the line at human rights abuses. Before they begin. No human rights abuse is acceptable and each one is to be condemned, including those under the Bainimarama regime.
I happen to think that racial equality is a human right and this was being systematically abused by the Qarase government through a legislative program that made the i’taukei more equal than anyone else in Fiji.
It is acceptable for Tuilaepa to criticise the Bainimarama regime. It is not acceptable to call for its overthrow through a popular rebellion triggered by tougher sanctions that incite ordinary people to resort to extraordinary measures. Anyone with half a brain knows that this would lead to bloodshed in Fiji. As Richard Herr says, it’s both irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
You are entitled to your other opinions. And I am entitled to mine.
Graham,
So now we are getting somewhere. As I understand it you are giving your unqualified support to Bainimarama because Qarase was abusing human rights as well.
Since when do 2 wrongs make a right?
You believe that Bainimarama is going to give us a superior form of democracy in 2014. The only way to reach democratic nirvana is by way of a dictatorship with no freedom of speech (Human Rights abuse) Media Censorship (Human Rights abuse) Physical abuse (Human Rights abuse) Lawfare (Human Rights Abuse), I could go on. All achieved by the power of the gun.
The dictator you give so much credit to has lied on multiple occasions about elections in the past. How do you know he is telling the truth now? It does not matter to you if you are wrong, you live in Australia and the only effect to you, Mr. Davis, will be egg on your face and with a quick swoosh of a baby wipe you will be clean again and able to write whatever you like because you live in the free world. For the people Fiji, if you are wrong, it means living continuously with a dictator, it means continuing human rights abuses, it means increasing poverty. You might think it is a risk worth taking because you have nothing to lose. The people of Fiji have everything to lose.
He has already stated that only certain people will be allowed to stand in elections. He has already stated that political manifestos must be developed out of the People’s Charter. It does not sound very democratic to me. But at least we won’t have Qarase in power.
Do you really believe Bainimarama and the AG will give up power willingly? History tells it is very rare for a dictator to give up power voluntarily, rarer still when the dictator enjoys the trappings of power so obviously.
I think you have been duped Mr. Davis and you have lost sight of what is right and what is wrong.
Bula Graham,
I personally think that your singling out of Kaitani and persistent rejection of the 2000 coup is a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the flaws of the current coup. I do not see you singling out unsavory characters such as failed SVT politicians, Filipe Bole, Inoke Kubuabola, Jim Ahkoy, Berenado Vunibobo and others for taking an illegal oath of Allegiance.
Incidentally, these names are synonymous with that other, “racist coup” of 1987 and every other “anti Indian” campaign and corruption scandal since then. Are these the individuals Bainimarama (and yourself) are hoping to be at the forefront of a better “anti racial” democracy? What a joke!!!
Guy is right, you really have been hoodwinked!!
Wilson, I’m starting to think Charles Singh is correct in his appraisal of you in the comments section of another posting when he says you’re an extremist posing as a moderate. So, no, we haven’t been hoodwinked at all. As the old saying goes – looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.
Looks like a Dictator, rants like a Dictator, is a Dictator
Graham,
You have gone all quiet. I am trying to do what a good journalist would do and get a straight answer to my question.
You have already said “I’ve already told you where I draw the line at human rights abuses. Before they begin. No human rights abuse is acceptable and each one is to be condemned, including those under the Bainimarama regime.”
You agree there are human rights abuses going on under Bainimarama’s dictatorship and still you support the regime.
Please let us know at what level of human rights abuse will you withdraw your support?
That is the question and I would like to hear your answer.
Guy
Funnily enough, Guy, I do have other things to do than to have my hands hovering over the keyboard waiting to respond to your latest demand.
I repeat: I deplore any human rights abuse. If there was systematic abuse under the Bainimarama regime, of course it would influence me. But there is no evidence of that, despite your claims to the contrary.
Graham,
Just to be clear you deplore all human rights abuses but you will continue to support the Bainimarama dictatorship because its human rights abuses are not systematic. How do you define systematic? is that daily, weekly, or monthly abuse.
But hang on it should not matter because you deplore all human rights abuses. So you must be denying any human rights have happened in Fiji under Bainimarama”s dictatorship.
Guy
If you want to know who was abusing human rights under Bainimarama, then look no further, just ask Roko Ului.I know because he was the one who kicked me in the ribs when we were taken up for questioning.I did not see Bainimarama there, only Roko Ului and his qoons.
Semesa,
I am truly sorry you were brutalised in this way and I hope Roko ului pays for it when the time comes.
Graham,
Here is a clear case of physical abuse in the Bainimarama dictatorship. In your book the beating of Semesa does not justify you in withdrawing your support of the regime because it is not systematic. How many Semesa’s need to step forward before you withdraw your support of Bainimarama?
Semesa,
Please see the email address of the head of Amnesty International in New Zealand. I suggest you send your allegations before Roko ului gets to New Zealand.
patrick.holmes at amnesty.org.nz
The only way we can stop the abuse is by making the culprits understand they cannot get away with it.
We also need people who do not condone this sort of behavior to withdraw their support from the regime.
I heard from someone that a report on Fiji by Amnesty Intl sometime just after the 2006 coup was penned in Singapore from mainstream media reports. GD can you or anyone else confirm this rumour?
Vinaka Kai India,the day frank took over was the day we were saved, from the corrupt qarase kiwi aussie domination, corrupt from the core. it must be hard when you lose all your hard earned corrupt life,,as is happening.We dont need samoa and tonga, peddlers they are. kiwis and aussies too have been raping us on all fronts – he he , no more baby….
Tuipaepa you faafafine
Vinaka Semesa, Ratu ULUKAU is a liar and should be ashamed.
Tuilaepa is a stooge and Aussie and kiwi yes man.
Tuilaepa,Baledrokadroka and ului should perform a threesome
As a Samoan, i don’t agree with our PM Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi approach towards Fiji, but as expected it isn’t a surprise Polynesian nations have generally towed line of NZ and Australia. As you Graham and others like American Samoa rep to US Congress Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin have said about Fiji problems, unlike other pacific nations, Fiji is not a homogenous society. There are about 350,000 Indians now living with some 400,000 Fijians, unfortunately the issue of dominance of Indo-Fijians was one the reasons why the previous 3 coups in Fiji were carried out prior to fourth coup by Frank Bainimarama in 2006. Fiji did not have any coups in its first 17 years of independence as Ratu Kamasese Mara was able to build alliances. NZ and Australia over the years have not appreciated the history of Fiji hence their lack of understanding to why coups happen in Fiji and racial divide that has been going on for many years. I think with one man one vote being introduced for elections in 2014, it’s a big step forward from the racial strife that has engulfed Fiji for many years. Samoa also had the same problem as Fiji during their colonial rule by NZ, where some were equal and others were not. The full blooded Samoans were classified as Natives, whilst those who were part Samoan were known as Europeans. Like Fiji, our colonial rulers imposed strong restrictions on Europeans from being Matai (chiefs) or having access to customary land in Samoa. But on the other hand those who were classified as Europeans had more rights than Samoans, for example they could buy alcohol whilst Samoans were not allowed, their kids went to the top schools of the country and Samoans kids did. And most important of all they were allowed to work in the public service, but the so called Natives were barred. So Samoa has had a bit of experience with racism. It wasn’t until close in independence that some Europeans relinquished their European status and identified themselves as Samoans, but this was more of a political move so that they could be represented in the legislative council. Although when independence came some those who were classified as Europeans still continue to do and those who were classified as Natives were now called Samoans. But as the years went by more and more Europeans who are part Samoans started to return to Samoan ancestry and starting to take on matai title as matai could only vote in elections prior to 1991 when universal suffrage was finally introduced by the HRPP government, one of the reasons why they still continue to classified as Europeans was because they were detached from their Samoan families, hence why an individual roll was created. But those running for those individual seats have slightly decreased over years. The part Samoans are running in seats that are more generally Samoans seats. There has been a sense of pride by part Samoans to be called Samoans and I can say that Samoa Parliament about 45% of MP’s are those who or sons and daughters who used be classified as Europeans. Remember there are only 2 seats are for the individual voters (formerly known as European seats) and the rest are 47 are Samoans or traditional seats. So I believe just as Samoa has overcome its racial issues, Fiji will. I mean in the future we might see an Indo-Fijian representing an electorate that has 80% indigenous population and same as vice versa. Race should not be an issue. Samoa first Prime Minister Fiame Mataafa Faumuina Mulinuu the second said in Samoan when his first Cabinet government got started in October 1959. “Afai e iai se tagata Samoa e faailoga lanu ma tusitusilima ma faapea mai, o ai lea, a’o ai lea, sa sili i lena tagata ona le fanau mai!? Which literally translates “ If there is a Samoan person who is racist and points his/her fingers that this particular
sorry just to correct an error i just realised about european kids going to top school, whilst the so called native did not.well the majority i mean, very few did manage to get in, but for those who manage to gain entry to top schools of the country at the time, again there was a clear demarcation of where you fit in. English-speaking classes sat on desks while Samoan classes sat on the mat. So if there was one achievement by Tuilaepa was absolutely abolishing this favouritism and preferential treatment of education.
just to finish what our first premier said as i hadnt completed before posting it up, ““Afai e iai se tagata Samoa e faailoga lanu ma tusitusilima ma faapea mai, o ai lea, a’o ai lea, sa sili i lena tagata ona le fanau mai!? Which literally translates “ If there is a Samoan person who is racist and points his/her fingers that this particular person should not be here, there or that they are, than that person should not have been born.
Graham don’t waste you time talking to dopes, Roko Ului & Baledrokadroka haven’t said anything about their own activities when they were in the RFMF, so far its all Voreqe and what were they roles garden boys or just shining Voreqes shoes!
People sucking up to Roko Ului now this is the very person who threatened to get his aunt the Roko Tui Dreketi taken up to the camp in Nabua so where the hell is bloodties people want to comment about on this site? Just another arrogant wanna be Chief!
t be sure of the time ,you can check it on the internet about Michaels, in case of your loss.
Then take white paint and make stitch marks along the
edge (little dashes along the edge) If you wanted you can outline the heart in black as well.
The staff person I talked to thought it would be best for me to come
into the store so that I could review their whole list of birthday party
crafts, each with a different cost.
WTF