The South Pacific media has been wracked by deep division over how journalists should respond to the 2006 Fiji coup and Frank Bainimarama’s continuing hold on power. The last gathering in Vanuatu three years ago of members of PINA – the Pacific Islands News Association – was marred by bitter infighting, so much so that a group of mainly Polynesian delegates broke away and set up a rival organisation, the Pacific Islands Media Association ( PasiMA) There were unprecedented scenes of acrimony at the conference venue in Port Vila. One prominent delegate threatened to kill another. And the then editor of the Fiji Times, Netani Rika, stormed out in protest at the presence of two representatives of Fiji’s information ministry, one of whom was reduced to tears by the vitriol aimed in her direction. It clearly wasn’t the most pacific of occasions. And many delegates expected more of the same at the 2012 PINA summit in Fiji – the cause of all the trouble in the first place.
Yet three years on, the hand of sweet reason appears to have descended on the region’s media professionals, judging from events at Pacific Harbour, the rain-drenched summit venue. The deeply religious head of the PINA secretariat, Fiji’s Matai Akauola, cast it as the hand of God bringing peace to his fractured media flock. Either way, the 2012 PINA summit was notable for healing some of the deep divisions of the past. By week’s end, mutterings of a further bitter showdown had evaporated and in their closing comments, delegates preached reconciliation and unity. Instead of the feared disaster, the summit proved to be a triumph for the quietly spoken PINA president, Vanuatu’s Moses Stevens, who was re-elected for another term. Chief among the peacemakers was the deputy chair of the breakaway PasiMA group –the influential Tongan publisher, Kalafi Moala – who ignored a last minute call for a boycott from some of his Polynesian colleagues. There were still some notable absentees, including anyone from Radio NZ International. Yet the final turnout of around 180 media professionals and NGO observers clearly re-establishes PINA’s mana as the pre-eminent voice of Pacific journalism.
In their response to events in Fiji, Pacific journalists have been split along the same lines as their governments. On the one side are the Melanesians – Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu – who are largely sympathetic. And on the other, the Polynesians – Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands and Niue – who take a more insistent line on democracy and media freedom in common with their Australian and NZ colleagues. There was certainly a palpable thawing of attitudes over the week, according to Professor David Robie, the director of the influential Pacific Media Centre at Auckland’s University of Technology. He described the summit as a “turning point” in bringing the Melanesians and Polynesians together again and asserting the celebrated “Pacific Way” of resolving differences. For his part, Matai Akaoula said he’d “prayed long and hard for a PINA miracle” and was grateful that those prayers had been answered.
So what changed aside from the warm Fijian hospitality, which appeared to mollify even the most diehard of its traditional critics? Undoubtedly, there was a dawning recognition of the realpolitik on the ground in Fiji, which many delegates were exposed to for the first time. More than five years after his coup, Frank Bainimarama remains in power and clearly has the acceptance, if not the support, of many of his countrymen. He’s also been embraced by his fellow Melanesian leaders, appears to run a competent government, says he’s committed to a multiracial future and seems intent on keeping his promise to return Fiji to a purer form of democracy before September, 2014. None of this was evident at the time of the PINA ructions three years ago.
In a clear sign of how sentiment has shifted, the 2012 summit was opened by none other than the Fijian leader himself. However uncomfortable it may have been for some of those present, Bainimarama’s speech was heard in respectful silence and he even drew applause when he said that too many Pacific journalists were “used and abused” and deserved better pay. While the Radio Australia reporter, Bruce Hill, publicly complained that there was no opportunity afforded for the journalists present to question Bainimarama, even private criticism of the Fijian leader among the delegates was muted. Kalafi Moala – an eminence grise of Pacific journalism – pronounced himself “genuinely impressed” with the Fijian leader. He said it was clear that Fiji was being “well governed” and there had been “a noticeable improvement in race relations” since he’d last visited the country.
A principal thorn of contention has been removed – the strict media censorship that Bainimarama imposed in the wake of his coup. Now that military censors have been withdrawn from the country’s newsrooms, the Fiji media has been taking the first tentative steps towards regaining its once vigorous voice. Media outlets have begun reporting comments by regime critics whose own voices have long been suppressed, including former prime ministers Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudhry. Yet many local journalists remain fearful of retribution under the punitive decrees that have replaced the censor’s red pen. While Fiji’s leaders can say what they like about their opponents under new defamation laws, the same does not apply in reverse.
It was noticeable that Fijian panelists at PINA such as Fred Wesley, the current editor of the Fiji Times, were apt to choose their words carefully when it came to commenting on their relations with the regime. Small wonder when the government has already filed six formal complaints about the Fiji Times to the country’s new Media Authority since censorship was lifted in January. These assert that in successive stories, the FT failed to display balance by not seeking an official response to articles critical of the government. It’s seemingly not enough to reflect balance within the same news cycle. The regime wants it in the same story on the same day.
The same trepidation has accompanied Bainimarama’s insistence – restated in his PINA speech – that while the local media “does not have to be pro-government, it must be pro-Fiji”. He told the gathering that he’d been given the phrase by Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, and “completely agreed” with the sentiment. The media’s job, he said, was to “inform the citizenry, inspire constructive public debate and help fight corruption”. But what does it really mean to be “pro-Fiji” in Bainimarama’s dictatorship”? “L’etat c’est moi” – the state is me – France’s Sun King, Louis XIV, famously declared. Does the same apply in Fiji? Does it preclude criticism of Bainimarama himself? In the uncertain aftermath of the formal lifting of censorship, the average working journalist is still walking on eggshells, acutely conscious that it hasn’t taken much to be branded “anti-Fiji” in the past. Has overt censorship in Fiji merely been replaced by an insidious form of self-censorship? While none of this was canvassed formally in the PINA sessions, it was certainly the subject of much conjecture behind the scenes.
The sole public slanging match came courtesy of Radio Australia when – in an interview with Bruce Hill for Pacific Beat – a Papua New Guinea government official, Paulius Korini, maintained that it wasn’t the job of journalists to challenge governments. An enraged Kalafi Moala – who was once jailed by the Tongan Government for precisely such a challenge –appeared on a subsequent Pacific Beat segment branding his fellow islander “arrogant and ignorant”, stridently asserting that challenging governments was, in fact, one of the media’s key roles. Yet aside from this flare-up, controversy at PINA was noticeably absent, so much so that Bruce Hill complained to participants in another RA panel discussion that “it was like attending a vicar’s tea party”.
The AUT’s David Robie observed that without Hill’s presence, there would have been little dissention at PINA. Robie described the PNG-Moala fracas as a construct of “western-style conflict journalism”. Hill, he said, had set out to generate controversy by seeking a contentious opinion and then using it to generate more controversy. This, of course, is routine journalistic practice in Australia and NZ. But it goes to the heart of the continuing debate about whether the form of journalism practiced in the advanced democracies is appropriate for developing countries such as those in the Pacific, where the words “constructive” and “positive” are routinely a prerequisite for any criticism of government.
One negative Pacific journalists appear to share with their western counterparts is diminishing trust and respect in the eyes of media consumers. It was my task to address this issue at PINA’s opening session. And while I was able to point to clear research that most westerners no longer trust their media, no such research exists in the Pacific. So I asked for a show of hands on the question: “Who in the room comes from a country where journalists are admired, trusted and respected, where if you were to say ‘trust me I’m a journalist’, people wouldn’t crack up laughing?”
It’s instructive that none of the delegates from the Pacific’s bigger players – Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga, the Solomons and Vanuatu – raised their hands. The Samoan prime minister’s loquacious media advisor raised his, as did some of the smallest players – from the Cook Islands, tiny Niue and a Kanak radio journalist from New Caledonia. In population terms, these are minnows. So on arguably the most important issue of all for journalists the world over– the loss of credibility with their readers, viewers and listeners – Pacific journalists are clearly no different from anyone else.
This article has subsequently appeared in The Australian, the Fiji Sun and Pacific Scoop NZ.
This is good and I liked, “Who in the room comes from a country where journalists are admired, trusted and respected, where if you were to say ‘trust me I’m a journalist’, people wouldn’t crack up laughing?”
Graham,
I have a question for you I am asking out of interest and not an attempt to score points.
You wrote about how the Fiji media is finding its feet and trying to see what they can write and what they cannot write. To date there is no definition of Public interest and as you yourself say no one knows what is meant by Pro Fiji.
I would say I am Pro Fiji but Bainimarama, although I do not know his definition, would say I am not and would have me up for sedition or a run round QEB. I would certainly fall foul of the Public Order Amendment Decree for saying I do not believe the Fiji economy will ever grow whilst Bainimarama is in power.
My question is that with this level of self censorship will the constitution Consultations be truly open to all comments and moving forward will all politicians be able to speak openly? After all one of the norms of democracy is to attack the record of your competitors. In this case the state of the Fiji economy under the stewardship of Bainimarama is rife for criticism but will politicians be allowed to criticize and will the media publish such comments knowing there is a risk they will be seen as anti-Fijian.
‘… appears to run a competent government …’
I am sorry but that is too broad a statement to let go unchecked, and too unsupported by reality: like, my particular headache of the moment – where is my new passport?!
@ Charlie Charters
Go get your original UK or Aussie passport (whichever applies). Fiji having problems with contracted producers of Fiji passports at the moment. Please dont try and sling this off as Government inefficeincy because many people will think that you are guilty of sour grapes because of your connexions. Enuf said.
Kathy – please just debate the point I raised, not the entirely irrelevant point of what ‘connexions’ I might have. Whatever these ‘connexions’ you imagine I have, they are entirely irrelevant to how I make up my mind.
We are a family of six Fiji citizens, and I am the guardian of a further three Fijians on scholarships here in the UK. If any of us lose our passport against which return flights to Fiji have been booked…. hence the observation I would ask you to debate: Does the immigration department’s management of the passport-printing contracts strike you as ‘competent’? Yes, no, maybe.
Explanatory note: For those of you who may be puzzled by this exchange, Charlie Charters is the son-in-law of Mere Samisoni, the prominent Suva businesswoman and former MP in the deposed Qarase government, who is currently facing charges of plotting to burn down the capital.
We know how journalists dramatise, exaggerate and hype things in news stories for effect. The phenomena is called ‘journalese’. Looks like some journalists also behave in this manner in person, given Netani Rika’s dramatic and overdone walkout at PINA Vanuatu. The action reeked of pomposity, self-righteousness and self-importance (this by someone who constantly accused Chaudhry of arrogance). It’s about time Netani Rika and the news media in Fiji took a good, hard look at their own behaviour and thought deeply about how much they themselves are responsible for the predicament they face today. Rika and the media like to protray themselves as unfailing, faultless knights in shining armour. Just go back to the archives and look at The Fiji Times record of tardy, unprofessional and downright biased journalism.
The most shameful and disgusting legacy is Fiji Times’ practice of skirt journalism exposed by Thakur Ranjit Singh in his empirical study of the Fiji Times coverage of the Chaudhry Government.
Reporter Margret Wise, who had a relationship with PM Rabuka, who lost in the elections to Chaudhry, was assigned to cover Chaudhry stories, day in day out. This was a deliberate plot against Chaudhry by then editor in chief Russell Hunter, Netani Rika and margret wise, who all had an axe to grind against Chaudhry.
It makes one sick to the stomach to see Rika and Hunter posturing as champions of media freedom when they, more than anyone else, compromised this freedom by their insidiousness.
What we need is proper enquiry into the conduct of the Fiji Times, particularly the conduct of Hunter and his colonised minion, Rika. There is a lot of dirt to be uncovered.
At the Fiji Times there was a pattern of practising skirt journalism. Another female journalist who had an affair with Rabuka used to get front page scoops printed by the paper. These are all recorded facts. This is a good example of how the media can corrupt and damage society and then turns around and blames government when lack of ethics and professional is the heart of the problem.
Russell Hunter and his naive and obedient sidekick Netani Rika, blinded by their hate for Chaudhry and racist, anti-Indian attitudes, have done more to damage media freedom than anyone else.
In the end they they too became the victims of their prejudices and were consumed by their own hatred.
@ Graham, thanks for that clarification. I don’t know whether you have much experience in the mother-in-law department, but when you fall in love you’re falling in love with the daughter. Fortunately for me, I happen to have a remarkable mother in law who I do care for deeply, but with whom I have had and continue to have sharp disagreements, about all manner of contemporary issues, as well as the Qarase premiership, and the Rabuka government before that. More than anything we disagreed over what I saw as the number of complete charlatans or Ballu Khan-types who seemed to inveigle their way into the decision-making process of both governments. I could never see what value they added. I suspect there are just as many similar flies buzzing around this government.
But all of that is by the by: Graham, you said this government was ‘competent’ and I asked by what metric of competency would you judge the immigration department’s performance: in a blaze of publicity and recrimination – to cancel a passport printing contract with de la Rue in order to sign – cue, another blaze of publicity and self-congratulation – with Oberthur, only now – cue, anger, dismay and disbelief – to refer the whole matter to the Solicitor-General because of possible non-performance. And still we have no passports. ‘Competence: a) The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability, b) A specific range of skill, knowledge, or ability.
Fiji media and politics is child’s play..come to samoa graham, it’s a whole different world to mediocre Fiji..
Bula Terry, nice to see you here. By way of further explanation, dear reader, Terry Tavita runs the government newspaper in Samoa and is media advisor to the Samoan Prime Minister and long time Bainimarama foe, Tuila’epa Malielegaoi. He placed a formal bid at Pacific Harbour for the next PINA summit to be held in Apia.
Terry, I hope you don’t mind me giving you some advice, however impertinent and gratuitous it might seem. It may be better not to keep attacking Fiji by describing the media there as “child ‘s play” and the country as “mediocre”. My understanding is that you don’t have PINA in the bag and we certainly wouldn’t want to see your bid derailed. Everyone is so looking forward to coming to Samoa to witness the grown-up nature of your own country and the general excellence to which you allude. Best wishes to you.
last time I looked I wasn’t the only big mouth there..hehe..don’t worry, I don’t rate you much either graham..you’re a farking clueless idiot..
Terry Tavita is well known for having a big, foul, racist mouth and a little brain to match. Like his his autocratic PM, bending over backwards to please Australia and New Zealand. By discrediting Fiji, trying to improve own geopolitical status. Samoan PM fancies himself as some sort of leader in the region. Only in his own mind. Before making retarded comments about Fiji, take a long hard look you own ‘democracy’ Terry.
I’d already sent out an email to my colleagues here, nobody wants anything to do with the current PINA people..even had my best intentions for PINA questioned..looks like PINA Samoa is already on the rails..well, I tried my best..moses and matai really have some soul searching to do where PINA went wrong..
@ Terry Tavita
This is typical vacuous banter that Samoans engage in to try and convince the region and the world that they are superior to all other Pacific islanders. They do this quite regularly to put down, for example, the Tongans to support Samoan claims that they are the original inhabitants of the Pacific, selectively ignoring along the way, the archaeological evidence of the Lapita migration and sceintific studies of the mitochondrial DNA in the genomes of Pacific islands peoples. Now Tavita is trying this old Samoan ploy to shamefully put down Fiji and the Fijians.
Let me just use two historical facts to dispel any notions of Fijian ‘mediocrity’ vis a vis Fijians.
First, in 2011 it took a Fijian lass by the name of Alisi Rabukawaqa to travel to Apia and win the Miss South Pacific title against challenges from all other Pacific Island countries, including the best that the two Samoa’s could muster. In winning the title, Alisi showed superior intellect, poise, beauty and grace. As they say in Fiji “va’cava that?”
Second, Tavita and his boss PM Tuila’epa, should go revise the history of their own country. I suggest they go read the headlines of the “Auckland Weekly News” of 17 September 1914 which read ” German Samoan flag captured by soldiers from Fiji”.
When NZ mounted the ‘Samoan Squadron’ in 1914 to go kick the Germans out of German Samoa, it called into Suva and took on 10 soldiers from Fiji as well as 10 Samoan interpreters. When they landed in Apia the soldiers from Fiji rushed forward to the German government complex centred around the courthouse and hauled down the German flag. They replaced it with the Union Jack. The Fiji soldier who actually hauled down the German flag was Private HF Batley of Suva.
That action virtually signalled the surrrender of the German colonial power in Samoa. The German Governor of samoa 9Dr Schulz) and five of his senior staff were repatriated to Fiji as prisoners. Formore of this action read the book by Christine Liava’a titled ‘Qaravi Nai Tavi : Soldiers from Fiji in the Great War”.
So here we have Tavita claiming Fiji of ‘mediocrity’ when the facts of history prove otherwise. From Tavita and Tuila’epa, there is no acknowledgement or words of appreciation of Fiji at its diificult time, just an outrageous and unjustified and shallow sense of triumphalism that resonates with the era of Mussolini in Italy.
Not the standard we expect of fellow Pacific Islanders.
Vinaka
Very surprised to see junket queen Lahari at the PINA after her relentless attempts to condemn and bring PINA down.
Lisa is a good person with good intentions..she also turned up at Pacific Harbour to face the PINA music..if you are going to make personal attacks, then put your name to it..don’t be a typical Fijian coward..that’s why your country is in such sh!t..
Second paragraph should read:
“Let me just use two historical facts to dispel any notions of Fijian ‘mediocrity’ vis a vis Samoans”.
it’s not a samoa versus fiji thing..politics is ingrained in the samoan dna and the media thinking in samoa is much more robust, much more advanced than Fiji..
@ Terry
Were those soldiers from Fiji who pulled the German flag from your courthouse complex in August 1914 and so helped give you Samoans your freedom, your ‘typical Fijian cowards’?
oh please, our ancestors, died, fought tooth-and-nail against two colonial powers to win us our freedom..that’s why our independence it is so important to us..don’t try to take credit you don’t deserve..
@ Tavita
No Tavita, we are not trying to claim credit for your hard won freedoms. We in Fiji are aware of the Samoan civil wars between Mataafa & Tamasese and the partisan role the Germans played in the conflicts. It is Pacific History 101.
What you need to do is acknowledge that your freedom was ultimately won mainly by Samoans themselves but also with the help of others eg NZ, UK, US, Australia and Fiji. They all had a role in liberating you at some stage of your history.
A little bit of humility coupled with a sense of gratitude to those who helped put you where you are today, will earn you a lot of respect.
Remember Tavita, if you and your PM Tuila’epa want to be treated with respect, then you have to show it first. Referring to Fiji and Fijians (all races in Fiji now are entitled to be referred to as such) with such words as ‘mediocrity’, ‘typical Fijian cowards’ and that Fiji as a country ‘is shit’ etc, will hardly win you the respect from the region that you and Tuila’epa so desperately seek.
Like many others in Fiji, we are shocked with the level of contempt you and Tuila’epa hold towards Fiji. We did not realise how deep-seated your hate is for us. For our part (and I think I speak on behalf of all of Fiji) we regard the Samoans with great affection and would never use such terms against you and your wonderful people and culture. Many of us have Samoan blood in our veins. So you have hurt us deeply by your inconsiderate references to us.
By it perhaps a good thing that you have come on this site and used the derogatory terms you have chosen to use. As PM Tuila’epa’s media advisor (or whatever your official title) we are now know where all the negative comments from Samoa towards Fiji is emanating from – straight from bitter and twisted advisors like yourself.
I hope that you will settle and revise your views about Fiji and the Fijian people in short time.
Your Aiga
Kathy
@kathy
you need to stop pretending and get real dear..don’t get angry at me, I did not take your freedoms away..Baini did..get angry at him instead..let’s see, no parliament, no representative government, no good governance, no elections, no rule of law, no speech no media freedoms, no credible public service, no creditable judiciary, coup-installed military dictator..yep, that’s pretty sh!t..me bitter?..oh please..get a grip, I’m helping you dear..am I being rude..no, I’m being very direct so you that silly confused pretentious head of yours clearly understands..also, if you’re really samoan, then you learn to value your freedoms from a very young age..because your ancestors fought and died for it so you can be free today..
@ Tavita
Peace brother. We of your ainga in Fiti love you. O’ sobo. Feel very sorry now
God Bless
Kathy
So Kathy, are u giving up on the Samoans?
A population of around 200,000, over 90% of which are natives. Hardly multi-racial!…
Certainly whats overwhelmingly engrained in your DNA is sheer stupidity…Go on, keep making a fool of yourself dimwit!
My suspicions regarding the state of mind of some Samoans have been solidified by Tavita…very wise indeed..lol!
Graham,
Any chance you could answer my question.
I am seriously interested in your views as to whether the state of the Fiji media will ensure an open discussion on the constitution and also allow the political parties to debate properly in the run up to the election?
You were at PINA, you have spoken to a number of Fiji journalists and I am sure you have spoken to the Ministry of Information. I know you will have thought about this issue and I would value hearing your opinion,
“Guy” ( not your real name ), will you please stop asking me questions that are beyond my remit. You asked me once and I ignored it but you persist. It is self evident that I do not speak for the Fiji Government or any section of the Fiji media. You should direct your enquiries to them.
Graham,
I was not asking you to speak on the part of the Government I was asking for your views and opinions as an expert commentator.
You seem well qualified to have an opinion on this topic. You are journalist, you were born in Fiji, you have reported on many elections around the world, you have a lot of opinions on Fiji. All of the above make you well qualified to comment on whether the current media climate in Fiji will allow for free discussions during the constitution consultations and during the elections.
Though this was not an open topic at the conference you wrote in your article “Has overt censorship in Fiji merely been replaced by an insidious form of self-censorship? While none of this was canvassed formally in the PINA sessions, it was certainly the subject of much conjecture behind the scenes.”
That implies that you discussed this topic in private at the conference. After all this is by far and away the most important media question in Fiji at the moment.
You will have a well informed opinion on this matter and that is why I ask for your opinion. I repeat I did not ask you for the regime’s opinion. I think I already have a clear understanding of where they come from.
Regime has allowed the media toi open up slightly. Media is getting bolder. Things might get back to the good old days, when political parties used media to issue threats and intimidation, like ‘there will be bloodshed if we do not win’. Voting used to be free and fair in Fiji, no Agriculture Scam, with the chiefs ‘not issuing’ any orders on their free-thinking subjects about who they should vote or not vote for. I recall a story in The Fiji Times during 2005 elections, when an unknown was given prominent space with picture on P3 to vent hate and make comments like he would ‘cut of his own head’ rather than see the Labour-Coalition come to power, and make other emotional and inciteful statements. This man and his comments did not meet any criteria the media usually use to determine what is news. So why and how did he get so much prominence in the Fiji Times? Never mind, all will be fine and dandy once the media restrictions are lifted and we will free and ‘open discussions’.
This is no response to me.
You do not even touch on the question, you just go on to talk about what was wrong before as if that makes what is wrong now, right.
But let’s look at your response.
The agriculture scam. We now have the dictator’s development scam. If any province wants government money for infrastructure or development they must support the dictator. Instead of bribery we now have blackmail. Is that a step forward or backwards?
Chiefs issuing orders on who to vote for. The biggest political intimidation in 2006 was not from the chiefs or the media but the military. The RFMF sent teams of soldiers to every village in Fiji telling them not to vote SDL. The villagers did not bow down to this threat and voted SDL in droves anyway.
The media’s job is to report the politician’s rhetoric. Whether you agree with the politicians views or not. My question is whether the non regime politicians will get a fair hearing and whether the media will report their statements fairly?
At the moment it is debatable as to what will happen and the reason I am asking this question of Graham is that he will have a well thought out opinion on the matter. I may or may not agree with his opinion but I will be better informed after reading it.
Guy, your questions and article are cleverly framed to give the impression that Fiji was a bastion if democracy under the Qarase government and that the Fiji media is a paragon of fairness and balance. This is misleading and cannot go unchallenged.
The Qarase government made a mockery of democracy, such as deportation of a public prosecutor who was winning too many coup convictions, and the planned pardon for the coupists. The government also had a draconian media bill ready for tabling. There are a litany of other illegalities and discriminations carried out under the banner of democracy. As for the media, the less said the better.
You are insinuating that the Qarase Govt is a faultless vicim. Stop propagating this rubbish please.
If anyone is the victim, it is the people of Fiji, let down the Qarase Govt’s arrogance and stupidity to underestimate the resolve of the military and trying to pit the Fijian people against the army. You must have head of the term, ‘tyranny of the majority’. Your Qarase govt was the living embodiment of it.
You are not ignorant – you are deliberately being selective because you clearly have an agenda to portray the Qarase Govt in a positive light.
This cannot go unchallenged. I am trying to provide a context for the mess that Fiji is in today, for which the Qarase Govt is also culpable.
@Response to Guy
I am not sure where I say good things about Qarase and democracy. I agree with you whole heartedly the Agricultural scam was anti democratic, an abuse of office and the main perpetrators should be in prison. No politician was convicted even with the full force of a FICAC investigation. The one civil servant who was imprisoned is now working hand in hand with Bainimarama.
However, you brought up the agricultural scam and the chief’s influence over the voters seemingly as a way of justifying the actions of the Pacific’s one and only dictator. I merely pointed out 2 similarly anti democratic actions on the part of Bainimarama. Just because Qarase committed illegal acts does not mean Bainimarama should break the law as well. Bainimarama told us all repeatedly he was conducting a cleanup campaign. To me that means he will be clean as well. But he himself is clearly one of those dirty politicians he so often talks about.
Just look at all the justifications that Frank had in 2006 for his coup, in every case he has committed the same crime as Qarase or made the situation even worse.
Frank talks about true democracy as all dictators. True democracy allows them to lead unchallenged wherever they want to go. Anything that stops them is undemocratic.
Open your eyes. If it looks like a dictator and sounds like a dictator it is a dictator.
The coup is the worse of the two evils, but the reality is that it happened, and we have to move on, and hope for the best in elections in 2014. Qarase made unforgivable errors (just as Chaudhry did in 1999) and both do not deserve to govern (if they return, we deserve the people we elect).
Qarase, as a hardened ultra-nationalist, surrounded himself with like people – birds of a feather…. Takiveikata was, but one, plotted the mutiny because he was left out of the power equation. Callously and deviously used young soldiers and his vanua. How much longer are the likes of Guy going to turn a blind eye to people like Taliveikata, who are the real problem in society?
Don’t insinuate Indians are to blame; some Fijians are their people’s own worst enemy.
Qarase Govt was woking on one discriminatory Bill after another, when there really was no need to. Not satisfied that Indians were leaving the country in droves and were no longer a political threat, the Qarase mob seemed bent on oppressing, humiliating (famous Indians like weeds comment) and pushing the Indians out to sea. Fijians should, of course, be first among equals, but the core problem is greed, hatred racism, selfishness among leaders while pretending to work for common Fijians and proclaiming Christianity – examples abound.
I repeat – the indians are a spent force. their numbers will continue to decline. This demographic rend was evident long before the 1987, but misrepresented by politicians and media. The country is in Fijian hands. Stop demonising Indians, they are leaving and will continue to leave. There will never be another Indian PM. Full stop.
Qarase mob continue to demonise Indians in the hope of upheaval because the longer Bainimarama is in power, the lesser their chances of retaining govt. Mere samisoni has been charged for plotting to burn suva. What for? who will benefit? Ordinary Fijians? Or Qarase mafia?
The country is better of having elections in 2014 than an uprising today. all efforts should be directed towards supporting elections 2014, which is he best way out for the country rather than bleating on and on about the corrupt, racist Qarase regime whose arrogance combined with stupidity is partly responsible for our problems.
If only Qarase had been a better leader for all his subjects, things would have been better; a united Fiji would have stood against the coup. Problems arise when as PM you have one eye on the country and one eye on how you can remain in power in perpetuity and use your position to improve your financial stock by meddling with shares in Fijian Holdings. There were just too many sharks in powerful positions who stod profit by exploiting racial divide – I do not have to go into the details – its all there on the record.
guy bula
You do ask some interesting questions and I do think we are now at a sensitive stage where all fiji citizens should be thinking about the character of the proposed new constitution, particularly to what extent it is “guided” democracy in the singaporean model or a more classical “representative” model in say the australian sense.
I am sure that you would agree that the consistent and recurring theme of Fiji politics since 1987 has been the instability caused by ethnonationalists. I would be interested to know how you would in the context of a new constitutional environment be seeking to ensure that groups like this are not able to subvert the democratic process ?