GD writes: I gave CommonMan – our grassroots columnist in the vanua – anonymity for a very good reason – so that without fear of retribution, he could speak plainly on behalf of common people about the power structures that govern iTaukei life. Whether they are working, whether they are benefiting the majority and not just the elite and how they can be improved for the well-being of all indigenous people.
A single paragraph from his call this week for the reform of the chiefly system sums up the startling chasm between the hereditary members of the Great Council of Chiefs and the people they claim to represent, who in many instances, it seems, resent the power that is wielded over them.
“I have to be blunt. My chief has no leadership qualities whatsoever. He was appointed because he was of a certain bloodline. Most chiefs are chosen along that main criterion. It will only lead to the demise of the iTaukei.“
Qori. How many ordinary iTaukei feel free to express such a sentiment? How rare is it to see grassroots opinion like this reflected in the mainstream media in Fiji?
Read on for another enlightening contribution from CommonMan – who is not only opening the eyes of many of his own people but giving Fijians of all backgrounds extraordinary insights into the minds of ordinary iTaukei that they won’t get anywhere else. Because the chiefs usually make sure of it.
————————————
COALITION POLICY, THE NATIVE LANDS COMMISSION, THE MATAQALI & THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS
My Mataqali and Yavusa “legally” installed our tribal and clan chief (Turaga ni Yavusa & Mataqali) this week. Notice that I did not use the term ‘traditional.’ Why? Because he was not installed the traditional way, as is the normal modus operandi.
The Native Lands Commission essentially sauntered in and appointed him, bypassing all customary protocols. Why? Because it is part of the Coalition government’s policy for the supposed advancement and development of the iTaukei, the filling of all vacant feudal positions. This week, it was the turn of Nadroga & Navosa provinces.
To the iTaukei, when the NLC arrives, it is as if God himself has come down to earth; there is so much reverence for the institution. They are perceived as the sacred keepers of our ancient records, of lands, origins of tribes and clans, genealogical lines, etc.
But what the NLC fails to realise is that the vanua is a competent vetting institution. If a position has not been filled, there is a good reason. Most probably, it is because the vanua has not found a suitable candidate from the chiefly family ready to assume the duties the position demands. Usually, it is the vanua at the bose vanua that gives the final approval.
To bypass all vetting protocols is to invite disaster. Normally, a chief is first traditionally installed or buli vakavanua before he is then registered with the NLC. The Coalition’s policy basically reverses it. And in so doing, continues a trend of incursion.
On the one hand, it has used traditional customs as ‘matanigasau’, in the secular governance system to subvert the rule of law or vakavanuataka na matanitu. On the other hand, as with these appointments, it has used secular authority to nullify the power of the vanua or vakamatanitutaka na vanua, secularising the traditional.
I have to be blunt. My chief has no leadership qualities whatsoever. He was appointed because he was of a certain bloodline. Most chiefs are chosen along that main criterion. It will only lead to the demise of the iTaukei.
It is high time that the educated, traveled, cosmopolitan leaders, as we have now in the GCC (Ro Naulu Mataitini, Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka, Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, Ro Teimumu Kepa) and their academic advisors (Dr Steve Ratuva, Dr Movono, etc) started to modernise, meritocratise and democratise chiefly appointments.
Instead of bloodlines, the most educated, wisest, most knowledgeable, visionary, hardworking within the Mataqali or Yavusa should be chosen to become chief. In pre-history, tests were given, and the best became chief. The famous ‘Veitaucici mai Walu’ in Verata, or a footrace between the seven sons of Rokomoutu, decided who became the next Ratu mai Verata. In my yavutu, being a maritime vanua, it is said that the best sailor who could traverse a given oceanic course was installed as chief, irrespective of his family line.
In addition to the above, at a minimum a chief should have a strong family foundation; my chief is a divorcee and is now married to his third wife.
He should have his own home/house. My chief does not live in his house. He lives in his brother’s house; his first wife, kids, and grand-kids occupy his house. If your family life is in tatters, how can you expect to lead the vanua or expect them to respect you?
He should have a farm and livestock. My chief has neither. A self-sufficient chief is integral; otherwise, his decisions will keel towards the hand that feeds him. That was also the case with his predecessor.
Chiefly positions should not be lifetime appointments but have term limits of five to 10 years. If a chief cannot perform the functions of his office, he should be removed. My late chief thought only of himself and those who fed him.
The divisions and malaise within the Mataqali stem from his corrupt leadership in both land and financial issues, even though he’s been deceased for nearly a decade. Even though his corruption was blatant, there was no removal process, and so it led to the disintegration of our vanua. A self-sufficient chief cannot be bought.
Chiefs should also participate in courses on good governance and management, and at least have the numeracy and literacy qualification equivalent to a Year 13 education.
What are the signs of a weak leadership? The village is unkempt, unclean and overgrown as people refrain from performing their communal duties. Farms are neglected. Attendance at communal functions is low. Very few attend the bose vakoro and bose vanua. A general feeling of helplessness, discomfort and unease that pervades all communal interactions. There is no direction, vision and purpose.
Traditional communal living is an intricate web of interwoven and interdependent responsibilities and duties. What affects one has an outwardly rippling effect on all. But bad leadership cripples everything.
This is why vetting and final approval by the vanua is necessary. This Coalition policy just created more problems than it tried to solve. Do not fix what’s not broken. Just because no chief is installed does not mean there is a problem within the vanua.
As the Coalition government pushes to fill vacant positions across Nadroga and Navosa, we are witnessing a “legal” installation process that feels more like an administrative takeover. By prioritising bloodline over character and allowing the NLC to bypass the traditional vetting of the vanua, the state is effectively secularising our sacred leadership. When a chief is appointed without the prerequisite of a stable home, self-sufficiency, or the respect of his community, it invites a form of malaise—evident in neglected farms and empty village meetings.
To prevent the disintegration of our social fabric, we must look to modernisation efforts and adopt a meritocratic approach. The GCC should take the lead in this.
Just as our ancestors tested their leaders through maritime skill or endurance, today’s chiefs should be vetted for their education, vision, and integrity. This Coalition policy of “filling vacancies” for the sake of development fails to realise that an empty seat is often better than one occupied by a leader who cannot inspire his people. To save the iTaukei structure, we must return the power of final approval to the vanua and ensure that leadership is earned by merit, not just inherited by law.
Now onto Part 2 of my last article 13 days ago on the challenges facing Land Owning Units.
Here it is again for those who might have missed it.
The GCC composition itself is not representative of the Land Owning Units. The current set-up is province-based. Each Provincial Council selects four chiefs for the GCC. A total of 54 chiefs.
In most cases, the paramount chief of each province has an automatic qualification. This is true for Nadroga/Navosa, Serua, Namosi, Tailevu, Naitasiri, Rewa, Cakaudrove, Bua, Macuata and Lau. Which means the rest of the chiefs within that demarcation ‘fight’ out the remaining three positions.
For the provinces with no head, the Provincial Council, together with the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs and the Bose ni Yasana, select who becomes a representative. Kadavu, Ra, Lomaiviti and Ba do not have paramount provincial chiefs.
So, for all the lectures about the importance of decolonisation, it is the colonial administrative boundaries themselves that determine GCC membership.
But the use of provincial boundaries as the chief determinant of GCC membership produces two kinds of disenfranchisement. One, disenfranchisement of land. Two, disenfranchisement of resources. This is important because chiefs are paid via leases, royalties and premiums derived from lands and resources, so representation must somehow align with that.
As a result, many LOUs with large landholdings and resources are under-represented. For instance, a clan in Vanua Levu with the largest piece of land owned by any LOU in the country, over 9000acres, does not have a rep. Or two Mataqali LOUs in coastal Nadroga and Tailevu, on whose lands sits a combined 3000 acres of mature mahogany – one of the biggest in the country – also have no reps.
This also means that a small cabal of chiefs holds sway and has hegemony over all decisions affecting the 1,305 Yavusa, 4,345 Mataqali, and 15,200 Tokatoka, and their lands and resources across the country.
But the GCC is also a tool of alienation. It continues the early colonial policy of isolationism of the highland chiefs from representation in the corridors of power. It is, I suspect, the chief motivation behind the popular social media content provider Bis Moce’s creation of a political party based out of the highlands of Ba.
The chiefs of Colo or the highlands waged the last civil war in Fiji in 1876, because they did not recognise that Cakobau or the 13 other chiefs who were signatories had the mandate or power to represent all iTaukei. All of the signatories were either coastal or island chiefs; there was no chief from the interior. They had also made known their stance at various meetings with other chiefs and colonialists between 1872 – 1874. The coastal chiefs signed the Deed anyway.
It was why Sir Arthur Gordon divided Colo up into three administrative provinces, Colo North, Colo East and Colo West between 1876 – 1893. Divide and conquer, an old colonial tool of subjugation.
But it was another chief, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, who completely abolished the three Colo provinces and absorbed them into the provinces of Ba, Namosi, Serua, Ra and Naitasiri. He was worried they would rebel against the iTaukei Lands Trust Act of 1940, which would essentially surrender iTaukei autonomy over land and resources to the iTaukei Land Trust Board.
To this day, the Colo chiefs have not had one member in the GCC to represent the concerns of the highlands. It has always been coastal and maritime chiefs. And it could be one reason why Colo is underdeveloped. Under FijiFirst, most Colo chiefs sided with Frank Bainimarama because they saw him as a fellow rebel who did not represent the status quo that had isolated them.
It is also quite interesting that one of the recommendations to the GCC by the NLC Review Consultation Team that had traversed the breadth of the 14 provinces was the re-establishment of the Colo provinces. This seemed to be one of their key findings from the study done in the highlands. The GCC seems to have conveniently forgotten the issue. And in so doing, continued the colonial policy of isolation.
A viral video featuring a district elder has cast a spotlight on the continual intentional administrative fragmentation plaguing Navatusila in Colo Navosa, a region deeply rooted in Fiji’s history. For history buffs, Navatusila and its chief, the Tui Navatusila, had been front and centre of two prominent historical events pre- and post-Cession. One, the killing of the English missionary Rev. Thomas Baker in 1867 and the Colo Civil War about a decade later.
The elder’s testimony reveals a community partitioned by bureaucracy: residents must navigate Nadi for healthcare, Sigatoka for education, Keiyasi for agriculture and policing, and the District Officer at Nadarivatu for provincial development.
The GCC in this context can be a useful tool for spotlighting these kinds of issues and bringing about administrative reforms to enable development.
In conclusion, the current province-based composition of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), a legacy of colonial administrative boundaries, fundamentally fails to provide equitable representation for all Land Owning Units. Its outmoded or archaic structure creates significant disenfranchisement of both land and resources, as representation is misaligned with where landholdings and associated wealth (leases, royalties) actually lie.
A small circle of coastal and island chiefs maintains a disproportionate hegemony over decisions affecting thousands of Yavusa, Mataqali, and Tokatoka across the country. This structural bias perpetuates the historical isolation and underdevelopment of the interior (Colo) regions, whose chiefs were excluded from the original Deed of Cession and isolated, and the subservience of LOUs with resource capacities that can enable them to become economically independent.
The GCC’s oversight of key recommendations, such as the re-establishment of the Colo provinces, underscores a continued perpetuation of colonial policies of division and isolation, hindering inclusive governance for all iTaukei people.
Bravo and hats off for your views.
Does meritocracy apply to all walks of life in Fiji and apply to all aspects of life?
No favoritism based on ethnicity or accident of birth? Just ability?
CommonMan is very brave to even think along these lines.
To articulate such thoughts and publish it in such a public forum is an eye opener.
Does the mainstream media air it or bury it as an isolated rant?
Bravo CommonMan, bravo.
I propose that CommonMan be given a weekly commentary segment on other reputable news platforms as well, particularly outlets such as ABC or Radio New Zealand (RNZ). His commentary would provide an important grassroots perspective that resonates strongly with ordinary Fijians, both at home and abroad.
For safety and independence, his identity should remain confidential. With appropriate promotion, this platform could reach a wide Fijian audience and contribute meaningfully to public discourse, accountability, and civic awareness. All in the hope for a changed mindset and action for the betterment of Fiji and all Fijians.
When will “Conman” speak up about investigating the pedo President for impregnating a special needs underage girl under his care? There is just too much iTaukei words and bullshit about the traditions, culture and protocols.
All of his writings are as it the vulagi do not exist. It is again self-serving and racially prejudiced. There is nothing for the welfare of the whole of Fiji. It is all abut the iTaukei and how people love this rubbish is beyond me. He should ask for the dismantling of the GCC. That is the cause of all the troubles.
But I digress. Why doesn’t he speak up abut the pedo President? Why is he silent? I see a hypocrite here. Too much talk and hiding and no action. GD has provided a platform for a coward as far as I can see.
Listen up. I gave CommonMan a forum so that a commoner farmer in the vanua with extraordinary writing skills could write about whatever he chooses. I don’t tell him what to write and that is as it should be.
If he chooses to “investigate the pedo President for impregnating a special needs underage girl under his care”, that is up to him. I have reported on this issue on multiple occasions so it isn’t as if the issue that concerns you has been ignored.
Your accusation that CommonMan’s writing is “self-serving and racially prejudiced” is nonsense. He has specifically stood up for the right of all citizens to belong. He has also tackled some of the most controversial issues facing the nation directly and with an honesty notably lacking in our national leaders.
You say I have “provided a platform for a coward”. On the contrary. CommonMan is showing a very uncommon sensitivity to the needs of other Fijians and is taking a stand against the prejudices of the elite. Just as I was impressed when I met him face-to-face, I am very proud to have him as a weekly columnist here. He is giving voice to ordinary iTaukei in a manner which we can all learn from and I think your action in slamming him as a “coward” is not only grossly unfair but completely without foundation.
On the contrary, I think he has been very brave with this article in particular in standing up to the GCC and on behalf of iTaukei commoners, insisting on reforms to better reflect the aspirations of ordinary people. And he deserves to be read more widely and supported by Fijians of all backgrounds as an authentic voice of those whose voices have been routinely ignored as the elites gorge themselves at the trough of power and privilege.
No, I still think he is a coward “hiding under your skirt” and the anonymity of this platform which you have provided. I believe he will be more effective if he came out and spoke openly about the injustices in rubbish culture and tradition.
Just using iTaukei words and iTaukei customs will achieve nothing. It makes him just as bad as the other lot. Too much bullshit and too much hypocrisy.
As for the pedo President, I am sure there are many like him who will not speak up because of rubbish and fake tradition and culture. It is a good excuse for everything in Fiji. You know, “the vulagi will never understand our tradition and culture.” This excuse is getting a bit tired.
I will take up the pedo President case if someone can post the court charge sheet which apparently exists and has been posted on somewhere.
The CommonMan is not a coward nor an itaukei supremacist.
Far from it. This is an articulate, well-read, brave person with a handle on his culture and traditions. It must take significant time and effort to provide accurate and fact-based cultural commentary.
In fact the CommonMan is sticking his head out to provide rare insights in the inner workings and sticky points about his culture, traditions, and the vanua as it relates to chiefs, commoners, itaukei institutions, and the modern world. He owes no apologies simply because he speaks of his own people.
If anyone disagrees with the rare cultural insights, s/he is most welcome to offer a counter narrative – researched, fact-based, informative, educational, and well reasoned.
If what the CommonMan writes is not to anyone’s liking, another option is not to read his essays.
Don’t go away angry/upset. Just go away. Do your own thing.
The majority of readers here find CommonMan’s contributions not just valuable but also in public interest.
The CommonMan owes no one an apology.
So why aren’t you or any iTaukei taking on the case of the pedo President? Cowardice or tradition and culture ….. or both?
Too much talk and too much bullshit. That is another tradition and culture which needs changing. And I do not need to research nothing. There is nothing to research.
No non-itaukei in the mainstream media or anywhere else is doing so. Why should anyone else, and especially someone who isn’t in the media like CommonMan?
That is a pathetic response coming from you. Someone give me the facts and some evidence and I will pursue it, because all of you are just all talk. Maybe the whole pedo thing is just made up by someone’s imagination.
Now you are just being obstreperous and silly. You have had your say. The subject is closed.
The thoughtful questions raised by Common Man about the iTaukei chiefly system, its interesting paradoxes, and its approach to regional representation are very important for an inclusive conversation.
Any serious reading of Fiji history will tell you that the formal iTaukei administrative system we know today is a created system. So, for those who point out that the Great Council of Chiefs is a colonial creation, it’s helpful to remember that much of the broader chiefly and taukei administrative system were also intentionally developed over time.
Given this, it’s understandable that the current government’s approach of filling all positions within the existing chiefly structure might have some serious challenges. In practice, these systems have often been more flexible, and this should be seen as encouraging — it suggests there could be room to thoughtfully consider a range of updates, from reform such as introducing the merit principle to re-imagining its very role.
The current Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) as in the post May 2023 variant, operates under a traditional model that centers on the concept of “paramountcy.” This system reserves automatic seats for chiefs from 10 of Fiji’s 14 provinces, while marginalising other chiefs, such as those from the economically powerful Ba Province, and with each Provincial Council selecting members to reach a total of 54 chiefs.
Historically, the GCC has granted greater representation to coastal regions in eastern Fiji at the expense of resource-rich western provinces and the highland interior of Viti Levu. The provincial boundaries themselves stem from colonial times, creating a GCC that overlays traditional roles with colonial structures and often disconnecting the council from the communities it is meant to represent.
The GCC was re-established in May 2023 under strong influence from a consultancy team heavily lop-sided towards Bau, with half the team coming from Bau, including Chairman Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka, a proud Lasakau (Bau) man in Naitasiri, plus one other from Nakelo, Tailevu. This tilted its structure toward eastern Fiji, sidelining the more populous, resource-rich, and economically dominant west.
Additionally, the council’s organisation into the three confederacies — Kubuna, Burebasaga, and Tovata— while familiar, originated as Methodist Church administrative divisions later adopted for colonial governance. Today, this tripartite grouping is more an administrative habit than a reflection of pre-contact social reality.
Given these structural considerations and anomalies, the path ahead for chiefly representation could take one of three distinct directions, each with its own philosophical approach to tradition, governance, and modernity.
1. A Vanua-Based Model: A Council of Equals:
This reform-oriented approach envisions a GCC built directly on Fiji’s foundational social units — the vanua. It would recognize each of the 215 vanua, and their respective Turaga ni Vanua, as holding an equal seat at the table. This would create a direct and transparent link between the council and the grassroots custodians of land and tradition. To encourage broad participation and fresh perspectives, the chairmanship could be elected annually for a one-year term, with a focus on rotating leadership based on merit and the collective confidence of the members.
2. The Confederacy Model: A Rotating Leadership Council:
This model would reimagine the GCC as a repetition of the Confederacy of independent Kingdoms set up by Rt Seru Cakobau in 1867 with membership from independent kingdoms such as Bau, Bua, Cakaudrove, Macuata, Nadroga, Namosi, etc. Leadership could be organized in one of two collaborative ways: a fixed chair held by the Vunivalu of Bau, acknowledging a unique historical role as the leading chief in ceding Fiji to Great Britain in 1874. Alternatively, a rotating chairmanship, similar to systems used elsewhere, like in Malaysia, where the position rotates among the leading chiefs. This would promote inclusivity and shared responsibility, ensuring all major traditions feel represented at the highest level over time.
3. The Sunset Model: Recognising a Completed Role:
A third, more fundamental option is to formally dissolve the GCC as a national institution to revert back to the pre-2023 situation. There are many who would argue that the GCC’s absence from public life for over a decade following its suspension was not a national loss, suggesting its importance in public life has diminished. In fact, some may even argue that since its re-establishment, the GCC has attracted public derision rather than constructively contributing to policy advice for iTaukei or national advancement.
Under this model, the vital social and custodial roles of chiefs would continue unabated within their own vanua and provinces, decoupling local traditional leadership from a centralized political body that critics see as anachronistic. This option frames the GCC not as a timeless institution, but as one that served a specific historical purpose which may now be complete and needing to be replaced by new institutions to take Fiji forward into a new era.
These suggestions are offered in a spirit of constructive dialogue, from gradual reform to a full re-examination of the GCC’s purpose. Each path reflects a different vision for how tradition can best serve the iTaukei people and the future of Fiji.
That took immense courage. Vinaka CommonMan for sharing . Applaud you for being a voice of truth for your people.
Even esteemed indigenous academics pale in comparison to the innovative and authentic analysis that you have presented .
Your reasoned argument holds light to the fact that genuine leadership based on the scales of justice, fairness and cultural meritocracy can prove to be the key for the empowerment of the indigenous iTaukei people.
Bravo!
CW
The points you make Commonman are important ones. If a modern, efficient system of governance based on merit is not introduced, those communities where the old ways are entrenched will not advance. There are exceptions to the rule, but overall too much evidence of arrested development and decline.
Can I humbly suggest that instead of central government and the NLC or ILTB being involved in the selection of chiefs, this would be better left to the mataqali/yavusa to decide by secret ballot. For consideration is whether talented outsiders can also register for election, or as you suggest, only educated and accomplished individuals are eligible.
Our government by parliament is chosen by secret ballot, so why not leaders in the vanua as well. Just as MPs receive a salary, so too should elected chiefs – albeit on a lower and graded pay scale.
Rabuka himself owes his position to a secret ballot on the floor of Parliament, so what is good for him should be good for every other position of responsibility right down the chain to communities and villages.
Looking back through history, the hereditary system the coalition government is reintroducing was always a temporary solution endorsed minimalist indirect colonial rulers working with what they perceived were the existing structures. The priorities then would have been law and order, economic activity, administration and basic services.
But going back to the buli and chiefly system based on bloodlines is just ridiculous in this day and age. As suggested, a much better way is to elect the most capable. For a model, there is a village behind Vatukoula made up of people from all over the country who have worked things out.
There is also the related opportunity for well-managed development of Colo as a key for Fiji’s future. An opportunity perhaps to address a legacy of two Fiji’s: of coastal peoples who converted to Christianity first, and those in the misty mountains of the interior – the kaicolo who came to it later.
Back in the day when they emerged from the bush to visit the new settlements and farms in Suva, Rewa, Ba, you can imagine the kaicolo would have been a sight with their huge heads of hair and traditional dress.
After the unfortunate ends of Rev Baker in 1867 and Ba farmers Spiers and Mackintosh in 1871, and the deaths in retribution that followed, there must have been plenty of mutual suspicion, fear and ridicule. Administrator Brewster’s later home was burnt down and maybe carved up. Colo was put in the too-hard basket with arrested development the consequence.
Today the interior offers opportunities, for agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism, energy and transport infrastructure. The latter was even identified by Brewster at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. He put in bridal paths for horse-drawn transport and mapped out where a railway line could go through the interior. Think of how much wasted time and energy getting around the island would have been saved.
When the Americans arrived in World War II they immediately saw the obvious thing and offered to build a road directly from Nadi to Suva. That offer was declined and the opportunity to develop the interior of Viti Levu remains.
For that there and throughout Fiji there will also need to be a modern, efficient and fair system of local government backed by even-handed law for one and all.
And that road through the interior would be the best investment today.In fact the likes of AusAid & JICA, NZ Aid etc. should consider building it, owning it and place a toll on it until it’s paid off, then hand over to Government or FRA.
Side roads could connect the Nth & Sth Coasts, at say Sigatoka and Tavua or Rakiraki.
Make that a project and stop wasting valuable dollars on the inefficient and ineffective fat cats in Government, by way of budget support.
The direct route would have many benefits, across all sectors, besides,
the drive from Suva to Nadi has become extremely dangerous with all the road humps, heavy vehicles and crazy drivers.
Kudos to both CommonMan and Toma-na-ivi for sharing your history and knowledge that enlighten many of us.
Please continue to share your personal, cultural, historical, and traditional perspectives.
The above two pieces articulated by both are proof enough that we have a lot still to learn from each other and about each other.
Thank you for your thankless contributions and generous time in favor of our mulit-ethnic and multicultural society. 🙏
Rest assured, those of us less well versed with itaukei culture and history want to learn more.
That being said, I’d ignore the few ignorant, obstinate, belligerent, and ever pessimistic oddities who might pass less gracious remarks.
The idea of everything being iTaukei is rubbish. It is full of fancy and rubbish words pretending to represent culture and tradition. The whole way of thinking is based purely on racism. Nothing else. The idea of equality is foreign and will never be accepted. That is the whole truth.
Not only the whole of Fiji’s streets, waterways, drains and fields are full of rubbish, the heads of the people of Fiji is full of rubbish. Racism and fake faith has blinded everyone and everything. There is no turning back. Fiji is just a rubbish country. You can see it every time I come here. The main problem in any country are its people and Fiji is just full of rubbish people from the prominent lawyers, to the PM, to the President, to all the politicians, those in the judiciary the civil servants and the people on the streets.
Fiji is a lost cause. Fiji will never improve. The people of Fiji and I mean all the people of Fiji are crooks, shysters, scammers and brainless- from the top to the street sweeper. There is no hope. Fiji will just continue on a downward slide and that is what’s being taught to the next generation. There is no hope. Nothing will change after the next election whoever gets in. Fijians are a f**king useless people. I know because I experience it everyday.
Merry Christmas.
You aren’t “Idiots Everywhere” reincarnated, perchance? Because all this sounds very familiar.
I love the articles written by this anonymous common man. Unfortunately, at this time of the year, my comments are not in the spirit of the festive season.
As a non itaukei, we had known for decades that itaukei are their own worst enemy. Commonman now just confirms that itaukai are cannibalissing their own. Very soon with drugs, HIV and abyssmal leadership fuelled by greed, there wont be much pure itaukei left. Only those who identify as itaukei with maybe a smidgen of itaukei blood. The land will still be there but no itaukei left as they self destruct😭😱.