What’s in the report by the Constitutional Review Commission that was handed to the President, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, yesterday and is now going to cabinet and the parliament for consideration?
The Prime Minister knows because here’s a government-supplied photo of him reading it. Yet the rest of us aren’t allowed to know and into that vacuum has been thrown something that threatens to blow the nation’s social cohesion apart.
(SEE UPDATE BELOW: THE PRIME MINISTER HAS BEEN FORCED TO CALL FOR CALM AMID AN UPROAR).
The mainstream media were banned from yesterday’s event at State House but almost immediately after it happened, the News Director of CFL-Fiji Village, Vijay Narayan, published the following explosive headline and supposed CRC recommendation.
Straight away, Grubsheet published our own headline and an article in which we urged Hindus, Muslims and other religious minorities to band together with other Fijians of goodwill to fight the abolition of the secular state.
With it, we published a government-released photo carried by Fiji Village of the handover of the CRC Report which contained not a single member of the minorities, drawing the logical conclusion that this was hardly an exercise in inclusivity.
Was it our story and its strident tone that consequently set off a furious exercise in back-peddling? Because it wasn’t long before Vijay Narayan changed his headline and the body of his story to remove any mention of the secular state being removed.
And there was a new photo suddenly being circulated that contained non-iTaukei members of the CRC, along with their iTaukei colleagues.
Can there have really been two photos taken – one of the iTaukei members of the team and one of the entire team?
What on earth is going on, Fiji? Well your guess is as good as mine. But the government better tell us what the precise position is as soon as possible or there is going to be an almighty kerfuffle.
QUESTION: Is the secular state provision of the 2013 Constitution going to be removed? Yes or No. Because it better be “no” or Hindus, Muslims and others have every right to fear that the road ahead is being paved for the imposition of a Christian state and they need to fight like hell to oppose it.
Here’s the provision of the 2013 Constitution as it stands – clearly stating that the State favours no one religion in Fiji.
As Vijay Narayan and CFL-Fiji Village reported it earlier yesterday, that section is gone. No secular state anymore and the state free to favour Christianity.
Yet when his story referred to “religious freedom being guaranteed”, it presumably means that the following section of the 2013 Constitution remains.
QUESTION: So can the government get away with retaining Section 22 guaranteeing religious freedom but abolishing Section 4 guaranteeing that the State will butt out of religion and give all religions the same status?
ANSWER: Only In its dreams. And if this is actually what is proposed, there is going to be the mother of all showdowns.
As one senior Indo-Fijian lawyer told Grubsheet last night: “If the State can favour one religion, where does it end? Does it mean, for instance, that Christians will get preference for government jobs? This needs to be clarified urgently and cannot be allowed to fester”, he said.
Yet this government is in the business of letting things fester, allowing the prospect of the secular state being abolished to be dangled in front of its Christian supporters and causing a great deal of disquiet among the minorities.
Incredibly, this is what the Acting Attorney General, Siromi Turaga, has told the nation. As good as saying “never you mind about what we are planning. You’ll find out in due course”.
_______________
______________
It isn’t good enough. There are three provisions of the 2013 Constitution that are non-negotiable as far as most members of the minorities are concerned.
- the common and equal citizenry (all citizens with the same rights and opportunities)
- the common identity (all citizens able to call themselves “Fijian”)
- and the secular state (no particular religion favoured by the state).
We already know from what was disclosed yesterday that we are all to be called “Fijian” for the moment but that is to be subject to a period of national discussion. I beg your pardon? What kind of supreme law is that? It is surely either L-A-W or it is not.
As for the common and equal citizenry provisions, we so far have no idea of what is proposed. But when it comes to the secular state, any suggestion that it be abolished is simply unacceptable. And unless the Coalition wants a holy war – not literal but certainly figurative – it had better back off.
The Prime Minister needs to tell us precisely what is in that report he was reading yesterday. Because there is already alarm about what is envisaged and the nation cannot afford to be plunged into religious conflict, with all that would mean for national unity, when it is already fragile enough under this government.
___________________
Some mainstream media coverage, starting with today’s Fiji Times. That ostrich, Fred, is at it again, burying his head in the sand.
Nothing at all on the front page as the nation’s traditional newspaper of record falls into line with Siromi Turaga’s call to let sleeping dogs lie. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor).
But inside the paper, that nice picture of the Prime Minister with his head buried in the report that you and I are not allowed to see. (Until it leaks).
Next, the equally un-inquisitive Fiji Sun.
More information from FBC News but no clarity on the secular state.
And finally Vijay’s new approved version of his original story, with reference to the secular state deleted.
Media freedom Fiji style. The right to ask but not receive.
And for what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.
(With apologies to the author of that most succinct of dinner-time Christian graces).
UPDATE TUESDAY 1000 FIJI TIME
As predicted, all hell has broken loose and the Prime Minister has been forced into a public statement calling on Fijians to “remain calm”.
He says the Constitutional Review Commission’s recommendations are not government decisions. But here’s the latest photo to surface of the head of government physically handing the CRC’s recommendations to the President.
If the recommendations are not the government’s, why is he officially presenting the report and not the CRC Chairman Sevuloni Valenitabua?
The usual slither from the Snake. Just answer the question, Prime Minister.
Are you intending the abolish the secular state? Yes or no.
And for God’s sake, stop your slithering. Because no-one is going to remain calm when their religious beliefs are threatened by someone who has the gall to quote the Christian holy book.
“I Corinthians 16:14 reminds us: “Let all that you do be done in love”.
Yeah, sure. Just like your rape of democracy in 1987, your racist policies on your return to power in 2022 and your corruption, including your refusal to disclose the source of your gold Rolex.
Hypocrite!
Sadly, none of the government’s behaviour to date gives us any trust in the process of public consultation or development of this draft constitution.
The current lack of transparency and defensive posturing by the government only adds to the level of mistrust.
This government are all about manipulating the optics and narrative, whilst persistently doing whatever the hell suits the elite minority of iTaukei politicians and chiefs.
How they go about the referendum is a huge watch this space, but most of us are expecting more of the same.
Sadly, the non Christian denominations: Arya Samaj, Muslim League, Sangam, Sanatan Dharma etc are impotent, the leadership too afraid, intimidated and without any balls to speak on such important issues.
They seem to spend time cultivating corrupt governments and politicians, inviting individuals to mandirs and mosques, to religious festivals and taking part in meaningless inter-faith circuses.
Can they not learn from individuals like Reverend Choi, James Bhagwan and other Christian faiths which have bravely championed for their rights, justice and other social issues. That has paid off.
Our leaders are engaged in petty squabbles, dislodging each other and fighting for posts in their insular organisations. There has hardly been any debate and discussion on nation building and fighting for the rights of the people they purport to represent.
With due respect to our elected MPs, they will speak on behalf of legitimate voices coming from the grassroots. And there is nothing coming from these groups. Hiding behind their religious scripts and foundation, the current leadership of these organisations must be held responsible for the insults and rights being stolen from us.
Frankly there is little hope.
Thought to just add some technical information to this very hot and angry and scary subject.
In the courts at least, the only real exercise of Fiji’s ‘new’ secular state provisions to-date has concerned religious school principals, and whether religious schools could insist on a religiously-specific headteacher to be appointed (and salaried) by the MoE.
[I’m excluding the one other potential case, Grace Road’s appeal to Religious Freedom in deportation defenses, that point to their naming as a ‘cult’ as proof of state discrimination].
This schools issue had been through the courts before, in Qarase’s time, when the SDL wanted to foist a Christian principal on a Hindu school. Going all the way to the Appeals Court, the judge found in favour of the Hindu school, declaring that, among other factors, religious ritual knowledge and skill (not simply ‘identity’) may be a relevant factor – amongst others – in a principal’s completion of their job, and should be included as a consideration (though not a deciding one) in MoE’s selections.
In the post-2013 case, this time cutting the other way across the ethnic divide and concerning an Adventist school, this fine tuning of the ‘religion’ question was largely abandoned, where religion is simply understood as ‘identity’ and the Adventist school had to accept a non-Adventist principal. Simply, MoE can’t discriminate in hires on religion. Extensive efforts were made to find ways to keep the school and MoE talking all the way to the final hire, but ultimately, MoE have final say, and religion can’t be a consideration. The ‘secular state’ reform had locked the door on viewing ‘religion’ with a subtlety that treated it as something more than just ‘identity’.
Now, under Qarase, Fiji wasn’t a ‘secular state’ per se – though its wasn’t really a ‘Christian state’ either. The 1997 Constitution has lots of Christian recognition in the preamble, but in the justicable text it say ‘religion and state separate’ – even if later there is the added caveat that the ‘worship and reverence of God’ is important for good governance.
This Christian-recognising preamble never affected judicial decision-making (see for example, Justice Winter in McCoskar versus the State, where he refused Qarase’s demand to overturn the same-sex rights in the 1997 text because it violated this Christian recognition – he even says Fiji is a ‘secular state’ in his judgement).
In sum, Fiji’s secular-Christian state question has much less to do with how law and courts will protect religious freedom. Indeed, courts are even capable of drawing from a country’s ‘Christian identity’ to buttress minority, religious freedom protections or limit state theocracy. A Samoa High Court judgement did this just a few years ago, stating that because Samoa is a Christian country, and because Christianity is separate from the state (Caesar to Caesar…etc), then this was a reason for limiting state interference into religious affairs. [there have been other judgements going the other way too, mind]
Court judgements on religion are reliably ambivalent, because ‘religion’, the public/private line, or other related legal concepts such as ‘public order’ or ‘neutrality’ can all be interpreted in so many different ways. Compare how ‘secularism’ is variously understood and enforced in USA, Senegal, Ireland and Turkey.
We can even see cases where ‘secular state’ laws are not only quite poor at blocking religious intolerance, sometimes they enable it. Indian and the BJP have mobilised very effectively against Muslims despite – and sometimes through – its secular constitution, and the same is often said of France.
Because of this considerable scope for judicial interpretation across the secular-religious state spectrum, there space for Fiji’s religious actors of various stripes to have their grievances heard fairly (it not always favourably) within and through a secular state – or in another universe – a Christian state too.
The problem – and this is where I agree with you Graham – is historical and political. Yash Ghai (slowly) came to learn that there was something deeply provocative about this word ‘secular’ to Taukei ears – even when many Christian submissions were just fine with church-state separation and religious freedom. The association of ‘secular’ with pre-Christian ‘cannibal darkness’, rather than the modern notion of practical rationality, was widespread across the 2012 process village and church-group submissions.
ASK never should have reinserted the term ‘secular’ after YG had included the secular clauses but decisively omitted the term. Now getting rid of the term ‘secular state’ is going to be a classic case of ‘baby with the bathwater’ – likely leading to a jettisoning of its highly symbolic provisions too, Given how binary and polemical this how debate has become, will only serve as a green light to the nasty Christian identity politics of the past.
Frank and his batch of 2006 were the last real soldiers.
KALOUNIWAI and his current enablers are a bunch of eunuchs.
“rights being stolen from us”.
“They seem to spend time cultivating corrupt governments and politicians, inviting individuals to mandirs and mosques, to religious festivals and taking part in meaningless inter-faith circuses”.
So in effect what you are saying is that the government , in attempting to end the secular state of affairs is morally and ethically impinging on the religious freedoms of these minorities who are engaged in the godly practices mentioned above in your words that I quoted…….
Well in that case then I’m all for it! End the secular State No need for any more of that nonsense….Full steam ahead. You have just pointed out exactly why it’s a good idea.
Cheers…Good sense prevails…onwards and upwards RAMBO!
Abt 1% of the adult population expressed an opinion to this CRC, not all of their views were accepted, it’s hardly a fair representation of a cross section of our community, just a case of a political minority imposing its will on a peace loving majority!!!
Yeah… exactly. The last thing we want in Fiji is a bunch of imams masquerading as gay parading rainbow advocates.
Look we , and clearly this government sees the writing on the wall. Just take a look around the world at the woke culture that has permeated the ranks of society. Disgusting, immoral, unconventional, unethical, sinful, derogatory and not reflective of the majority in ANY way , shape of form!
Practice your book in your house just make sure you assimilate into the culture of the day when you are out and about. Otherwise stay home.
“Disgusting, immoral, unconventional, unethical, sinful, derogatory…” Pretty much sums up much of the Coalition government, doesn’t it?
Lynda Tabuya, Aseri Radrodro, Biman Prasad. Illicit sex, drug taking, domestic violence, unwanted sexual attention etc.
“Not reflective of the majority in ANY way”? Then why does the majority put up with it? Lesson: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw boulders.
Only a stone’s throw away from going back to the 87 styled Sunday ban as well.
Rabuka has certainly made good on his promise to his extremist supporters to finish what he started nearly 40 years ago.
And he’s made a huge sum of money in the process. If he dies (we can only hope) while holding office, state funded funeral and a huge payout to his family is on the cards.
This development is deeply troubling, with serious implications for the nation’s stability and future.
The current immediate concern about removing Fiji’s constitutional commitment to a secular state cannot be separated from the country’s painful political history. The foundations for this moment were laid by the 1987 coups, which elevated an ethnonationalist political project and profoundly weakened the idea of an equal, inclusive citizenship. The 2000 coup deepened those divisions and gave further momentum to forces seeking to define Fiji’s political order through ethnicity and religion rather than equal rights for all citizens.
That history matters because the secular-state provision is not a technical constitutional detail. It is a safeguard for every Fijian—iTaukei, Indo-Fijian, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and those of other faiths or none. It does not diminish religion; it requires the State to treat all religions equally and prevents public power from being used to elevate one faith, community or belief above another.
Fiji’s 2013 Constitution expressly frames religious liberty as a founding principle and requires separation of religion and State, including equal treatment of all faiths.
The Constitution Review Commission process must therefore be transparent, inclusive and firmly anchored in human rights, equal citizenship and social cohesion. Reports indicate that the Great Council of Chiefs has proposed repealing the secular-state provision, alongside other major constitutional changes. Those are proposals, not settled law—but their gravity demands a clear explanation of what is being proposed, why it is being proposed, and what protections would remain for religious minorities and non-believers.
It is also deeply troubling that such consequential change appears to be gaining political oxygen while the public is asked to trust vague assurances that religious freedom will somehow remain protected. In a diverse society, religious freedom is most secure when the State is neutral—not when the constitutional guarantee of neutrality is removed. Civil-society organisations have rightly warned that abandoning secularism risks exclusion, discrimination and the politicisation of religion.
The leaders of the coalition, including Biman Prasad and the NFP, have a particular responsibility to state their position unequivocally. Silence, ambiguity or procedural manoeuvring on an issue of this magnitude will be interpreted as acquiescence.
The public deserves to know:
• Does the Government support retaining Fiji as a secular state?
• Will it reject any proposal that gives constitutional preference to one religion?
• Will it protect the equal status, dignity and citizenship of every Fijian?
• Will any constitutional reform proceed only through a genuinely participatory, transparent and democratically legitimate process?
Fiji cannot afford to revisit the divisive politics that have caused so much trauma mistrust, loss of talent and the loss of country’s direction. The country’s future must be built on common and equal citizenship, not on a return to the political logic of 1987 or 2000. This is not merely a debate about constitutional wording. It is a test of whether Fiji remains a home of equal belonging for all its people.
God Bless Fiji
First and foremost a secular state doesnt represent the interests of the country. It was a lazy blanket that the previous gvt threw over the constitution to garner favorable public opinion. The interests of the State are vested in the authority of governance. That authority must be the supreme authority when it comes to regulating and maintaining control over a belief sector that has the potential to ignite if left un harnessed . The “current” admin had not demonstrated and preference or bias towards any religion across the spectrum so there is no reason to “assume” that their intent is to impose its self in this domain.
The double handling of legislation is best summarized by maintaining section 22 which still prevents minorities from having to conform to any other religion but their own.
Your storm in a teacup posturing is totally uncalled for and your argument lacks merit.
I would suggest reading the sections again and if you are still confused ask a lawyer to explain it to you….Interpetation is amiss with you lot unfortunately.
“K”, you have written your last in these columns. A broken record that I have tolerated but no longer.
Give me a real name and I will reconsider. But I normally don’t box with shadows and never have.
The unrelenting nature of your interventions plus the fact that you came out of nowhere suggests a professional campaign rather than a normal reader contribution.
So until you can be authenticated, bugger off.
My idea is not to put anything in the constitution but make this really simple:
1. If you are Christian you don’t pay tax
2. If you are not Christian then you must pay tax x2
This way we will shape the future of Fiji through tax holidays and exemptions as this has been shown to work well.