One of the truisms of modern politics is that disunity is death. So it’s instructive that two years out from the scheduled return to democracy in Fiji, the forces ranged against the Bainimarama regime seem so determined to tear themselves apart. Hot on the heels of the SDL’s very public self-immolation with its call for a Christian state comes news of a massive power struggle within the ranks of the Fiji Labour Party. It involves the Labour leader and former prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, on the one hand and the National Secretary of the Fiji Trades Union Congress, Felix Anthony, on the other. And in the middle, the source of their bitter and very public falling out – Chaudhry’s son, Rajendra, the abrasive and highly ambitious lawyer and man about town.
The short of it is that the wily “Mahen” evidently wants to install “Rajen” as his successor – to eventually lead the Labour Party. All well and good if you think that family dynasties are the best expression of democratic rule. It happened in Singapore when Lee Hsien Loong followed in the steps of his famous father Lee Kuan Yew. But it most often happens in unsavoury dictatorships like Syria, where Bashar al-Assad inherited the apparatus for killing and torture set up his father, Hafez, or in hellholes like Haiti, where “Baby Doc” Duvalier took over from “Papa Doc” before the country decided enough was enough.
Last weekend – according to Felix Anthony -delegates to the Labour Party conference in Nadi were treated to the unedifying spectacle of an undemocratic stitch-up. He says that Mahendra Chaudhry – Labour’s Secretary General – at first agreed to defer a vote for the party’s executive positions but then went ahead and conducted it using the signatures of “cronies” gathered by his son. In a statement headed “Fiji Labour Party No Longer Represents Workers”, Anthony launches a blistering attack on his former ally. He accuses Labour of being caught in a “quagmire of deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy.” And he portrays Mahendra Chaudhry as a dictator determined to turn his back on the party’s grassroots and establish a family dynasty in which power is handed to his son.
The statement is so extraordinary in laying bare the Labour Party’s inner workings that the main part deserves to be republished in full. The emphasis towards the end is ours.
“The FLP has had a string of controversies involving senior members of the Party. These conditions call for a re-thinking of our options and political strategy. With this in mind, I had discussions with the Party Leader on a few occasions and on the morning of the Delegates Conference in Nadi last Saturday, 25th August, 2012, an agreement was reached that we needed greater consultation on ensuring that we had credible people as office bearers of the Party. The election to be held on that day was to be deferred to allow this course of action.
During the meeting I spoke at length on the need for the Party to return to its roots and become truly multiracial and that the Party makes it mandatory that all Branches must include all races and people from all walks of life.
I spoke on improving internal democracy within the Party and greater tolerance for differing views and positions. I highlighted my concerns on the fact that many well-educated, professional and people of good standing had over the period left the Party because there was no tolerance for debate, opposing views and any questions was interpreted as a challenge to the leadership.
I suggested that the Party must reach out to these people and attempt to get them back on board so that the Party can re-invent itself and be on a stronger footing to meet the challenges of the time.
I also raised concerns at the lack of Worker Representatives in the Party structures. Some of these issues would have required a Constitutional change which is not difficult. These matters were totally ignored as the Party leader and his Son thought they were unimportant to discuss.
The National Treasurer attempted to present a financial report by simply reading from some paper which made no sense to anyone. I again raised concern at the report and suggested that it be withheld and a proper report be presented to the Executive Committee.
I again stressed that the Party has come under considerable scrutiny on financial matters and there was a need for greater transparency and accountability. While this was not received well by the Leader and his cronies, the matter was eventually referred to the Executive Committee.
In the next cunningly calculated move, which has been the hallmark of the leader, he proceeded to read a motion signed by some branches to conduct elections. It is believed that the son worked behind the scene to get signatures from cronies and those who were hired as delegates. The process was over within a couple of minutes. I abstained and asked for this to be reflected in the minutes.
Again we witnessed the total manipulation of the process which is not new to the Party. Here we have a Party that preaches democracy but its practices and its operations are totally opposite to the very principles of democracy. In utter frustration and disgust, I decided to walk out of the meeting.
Those who were in the meeting would have observed the father-and-son domination on each and every discussion and allowed little room for anyone else to have their say.
My interventions were only possible as I had to stand my ground and make a point but on every other issue, Rajendra Chaudhry was allowed to have a comment before anyone else was allowed a voice. This is the antithesis of transparency and democracy.
The current lineup of officials of the Party is weak at best and none of these officers have shown any real commitment to the Party other than to the Leader only. The leadership does not represent workers nor can we rely upon them to give workers a credible voice.
Let me remind those that have forgotten that here was the Leader of the Fiji Labour Party who in March, 2007 recommended 5 percent across the board reduction in Public Service salary and wages as the then Minister of Finance announced as part of the policy measures in the 2007 Mini Budget.
He now has the temerity to talk about the hard times that workers face. If he thinks that people have short memories he is sadly mistaken once again.
The Party sadly has become the personal property of Mahendra Chaudhry. Eighty percent of the delegates are National Farmers Union officials or members. The other 15 percent are the leader’s cronies who survive in politics at his behest. The Executive Committee of the Party is no different. Now he has all his people in the Management Board. His Son, apart from being the legal adviser appointed by the Leader himself, is now also the spokesperson.
The Labour Party that we the workers formed has been hijacked and used as a personal property to advance the personal agenda of the leader and his son.
The party has really become irrelevant and is on a downward slide and will see its demise in a very short span of time.
The possible succession of Rajendra Chaudhry as the leader is an absolute disaster. This will be another reason for the ultimate demise of the party. Brash, abrupt and uncouth reaction to people is a far cry from the polished, responsive style of the founding fathers’ of the party. Fiji is too small a country to emulate the dynastic succession of autocratic countries as seen in Libya.
Felix Anthony
National Secretary
FTUC
In the annals of Fiji politics, there have been few more astonishing attacks on a political leader from within. What the country will make of Felix Anthony’s outburst remains to be seen. But there’s one thing Labour can’t escape – that other truism of politics that no political party can govern a country if it cannot govern itself.
POSTSCRIPT 29/8: Mahendra Chaudhry has released the following statement in response to Anthony’s attack, escalating the war of words to accuse him of malice and dishonesty:
Felix Anthony’s statement to the media titled “Fiji Labour Party no longer represents workers” has to be the biggest joke of the year as the Party has been a consistent and diligent voice advocating workers’ rights and welfare over the years.
His statement, therefore, that Labour “can no longer be relied on to give workers a credible voice in the hard times they are facing”, is simply malicious and dishonest.
FLP’s record in standing up for the interests of the workers and the poor of this nation, cannot be challenged. The same cannot be said of Felix Anthony’s own leadership of the trade union movement which leaves a lot to be desired.
Indeed, FLP understands that his statement to the media is not an officially sanctioned FTUC release but the personal comments of Felix Anthony.
It is a pity that Mr Anthony has decided to air his disappointments in public. His comments about the conduct of the FLP Annual Delegates Conference in Nadi on Saturday are a pack of lies.
He came to the meeting with a pre-planned agenda but could not get support from the delegates.
It was he who wanted the election of office bearers deferred but the delegates wanted elections held – after all, the ADC was held after a span of three years and elections were long overdue, executive positions left vacant had to be filled.
Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry rubbished claims by Felix Anthony that he and his son dominated the conference on every issue.
“Felix spoke the longest and the loudest. He came with a divisive agenda but failed to receive support from delegates and left before the conference concluded,” Mr Chaudhry said.
This is certainly not the first time Felix Anthony has gone public with his challenge to the Labour leadership. He tried this in 2006 and failed. He and five other dissident members brought considerable disrepute to the Party and had to be disciplined. Felix later apologized and was taken back but received a strong reprimand.
“The Fiji Labour Party has a lot of other more important matters to attend to than waste its time over such malicious and frivolous comments,” Mr Chaudhry said.
Mahendra Chaudhry
Leader
Mahen or Rajen ARE NOT the leaders of the Indian community. They represent the bumb Ba farmers and the Indian community with class 6 or below education.
Whatever these father/son say SHOULD NOT BE REFLECTED AS THE VOICE OF THE GENERAL INDIAN POPULATION period.
Prasad don’t insult those of us that didn’t get a chance to go to school! Stupidity is also an attribute of the educated! The Chodorys are a fine example of it no different from those who followed Speight into parliament!
Mahen and Rajen have effectively captured the party by stacking it with cronies.
Father and son are indulging in the same machinations and dirty back-door dealings that saw chaudhry in-law sachida sharma nepotistically appointed to senate in defiance party directive.
mahen and rajen do as they please, old-fart FLP executives too scared too challenge them.
Sachida, mahen and rajen as family form a formidable team. They are well positioned to dominate affairs, organise and conduct fundraising in the name of th epoor etc.
mahen is only for himself and his family, no one else, as evidenced by the 5% pay cut this so-called workers’ champion recommended for Public Service workers, and how he shamelessly commandeered $AUD3million raised in farmers’ name to personal bank account.
Chaudhry have, over the years, purged the party off intellectuals. It is left with ghar phatoo (cowardly) mahen yes-men with low intelligence.
That party is there to serve mahen and family first and foremost is becoming ever so clear.
Somebody in FLP needs to grow balls and stand beside felix to oust the corrupt leadership or FLP as a multiracial, workers’ party is doomed.
Did anybody believed Mahen when he said he resigned from the Frank government. A month earlier a Labasa Businessman disclosed the Chaudari got the kick in the butt and had to jump by a certain date or he was to be pushed.
Yes before that date Chaudary said he resigned (according to Mahen AT HIS OWN DECISION) hahahaha. Those farmers Ba must be the only ones that believed Chordhari!
– A month B4 coup the Qarase govt announced in parliament that they were investigating a member for stashing millions overseas.
HOW QUICKLY CHORDARI JOINED THE COUP GOVT AND ANNOUNCED AN AMNESTY FOR TAXDODGERS LIKE HIMSELF.
His importance to hide his millions was more important- he did not give 2 hoots if the coup was marketed as INDIAN COUP or the wrath the Indian community faced if this coup failed. INDIANS CAN COUNT THEIR STARS FRANK WAS STRONG or because to this one shameful bastard they would have paid very dearly.
INDIANS SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT
What a so called leader!
According to recent FLP statement, “anti poor and anti worker measures arbitrarily decreed by the regime lead to escalating levels of poverty. The FLP conference expressed strong disapproval of the harsh measures inflicted by the interim administration.
What about FLP leader mahen’s “harsh”measure to cut 5% off public service workers salary when he was interim finance minister? What about him “arbitrarily” stashing in personal account $3 million party collected in the name of the poor? These actions also contributed “rising poverty”. When can we have a statement from gutless and hypocritical FLP on these issues?
The fact of the matter is that it is far easier to sit outside of government and criticize about everything. When it is time to run it yourself things are should i say a little different. Mahendra “numscull” Chaudhary makes it sound like he will make the skies rain with money and the good times will roll in as soon as he is given power and sadly some in society dumber then him actually buy his BS. The reality is to run a small economy like Fiji requires a hell of a lot of effort then one things. Government does not have a tap to keep drawing money from. Chaudhary learnt this the hard way when he finally got in the drivers seat and that is why he resorted to cutting pay as this was one option left to him to save money. Mr. Chor if you are reading this please have some shame you scheming bastard. Retire and save the abused people of this great country some anguish from seeing your sorry ass again in politics. Or and yes please take your pompus ASS of a son with you please. It must have been a cold day in Hell when he was conceived.
@ Graham,
I love this topic. have been waiting for a long time. Now its here. I am gonna have a ball at this.
Mr Chaudary, come 2014 elections,will make a promise of a farmers bank(again),him solving of land lease issues (again) or blaming NFP(again) and Mr Reddy (again) for the woes of the Indian community, blaming Qarase (again)or NFP (again) for the economic woes despite his disastrous performance as a finance minister under Frank , promise to raise funds for struggling farmers and he WILL be back!
The voters from Ba will be impressed!! (COMMENT EDITED)
Chaudary will promise to make the poor rich- BY MAKING THE RICH POOR!
Watch him attack Guji businessmen claiming they are looters and he will fix them!
Calling NFP a Guji party is also his old winner dialog for those dumb FLP farmers/followers
@ Nath,
You may be making some valid points about caste politics here, but refrain from generalising and calling innocent farmers Dumb…..there maybe some hard core supportes and hangers-on….and FLP may be their employment source…..you are making some good points bro…..but just cool it on the farmers and other citizens of Fiji.
Remember the bad old days when Reddy was pitching “Indians” against “Muslims” because of Saddiq Koya……( Flower and Dove factions of Politics)….
Target politicians and not the people…..( of course the auguements will lead to …..well it is the people who support the politicians)…..I believe time and good work will be there for the people to see….some won’t but a majority will.
Kind Regards
It wasn’t Reddy, it was Karam Chand Ramrakha F/n Odin Ramrakha who in 1977 brought in religion to ensure the Flower faction dominated the Dove faction.
Thanks mate, Reddy was the leader and the buck stopped with him..yea but you are right….we have to now ensure that these things don’t happen again…there will be the dividing forces…some people are just like that…
We have a big fight ahead of us…..and the need to obliterate FLP/NFP, the Generals, SDL and all past parties….it is possible…
I think it is a blessing that these things are cropping up now for the people to see for themselves….let them fight for that gives us an insight into the workings of these groups/the people/their mindset and at the apprpriate time, there should be a massive response…..folks are wiser now.
It is a good thing to sometimes bring up the past as a reminder to the people that if we are not careful and have not taken up the opportunity presented to us by this government, history will repeat.
I believe what is happening now is a good memory jogging of the rot that was.
We will fight these guys…..
Thanks Sami
After years of serving as one of Chaudaris yes man, Felix has finally found the courage to say no.
Oh no, he just read the mood of the people…more dangerous that Chaudhry..
A lot of people would, in light of travesty especially within an organisation display an act of disagreement either by way of a written complaint or a statement to that effect. Felix Anthony on the other hand chose an all-out when it was obvious his views weren’t going to be considered by the FLP management board – why hasn’t the FTUC previously publicized it’s disagreements with the way things were being handled by the FLP, if really, it’s concerns were the workers’ plights? Why blame the one political party of not working for the workers’ advantage when FTUC in its capacity alone with its 300,000 (as claimed by its President) strong membership not done something more drastic and emboldening when it knew that FLP wasn’t standing up for the workers? The FTUC is a Fiji-wide organisation very capable of fighting it’s own battles, if what the two in leadership portray is true – they don’t need a political party to boost it’s momentum! Don’t they have the advantage of international affiliations, parties of which we hear wield great influence within their own governments? FTUC should do its own bidding instead of crying over spilt milk.
The great sleuth of investigative journalism is right below – the story is true – the facts to the smallest detail – Mahend was kicked out of Cabinet; from Fiji Sun August 2008
Fiji to have new Finance Minister
Chaudhry to be replaced by end of August
By VICTOR LAL
The interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry is most likely to be relieved of his Cabinet portfolio by the end of August. The leader of the Fiji Labour Party was allegedly handed his marching orders shortly before the interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama flew out to China on Wednesday.
The letter was personally signed by Commodore Bainimarama and Mr Chaudhry is expected to vacate his Cabinet office by 22 August. The Commodore was forced to finally wield the axe after the big oil companies allegedly threatened to slap the interim regime with whopping compensation claims following the recent hike in petroleum products.
According to a highly reliable source in the Prime Minister’s office, the Prices and Incomes Board wanted incremental increases in the fuel as requested by the oil companies. The Ministry of Finance allegedly continually blocked it until last week when huge price increase was announced, attracting a national outcry from the general public and other stakeholders.
The all powerful Military Council called upon Commodore Bainimarama to act, for the Council felt that the latest response from the oil companies could de-generate into another damaging standoff, similar to that which took place between the interim regime and the Fiji Bus Operators, and the water bottling industry. “The government cannot, and does not, want to be bogged down in another high-profile damaging stand-off, especially with the all powerful oil companies in Fiji,” said another source in the Military Council.
The source said Mr Chaudhry has allegedly indicated to Commodore Bainimarama that along with him Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi and Tom Ricketts will also step down from the Cabinet, as well as FLP supporters in the NCBBF and those on government statutory boards. But it is not the first time Mr Chaudhry, the source said, has spelled out his intentions.
He had expressed similar intentions when he was allegedly dismissed as Finance Minister last month. According to the two sources in the PM’s office and the Military Council, there were a lot of fireworks with regards to Mr Chaudhry last month. He was actually “fired” as Minister for Finance and his termination letter was delivered to his home.
According to the two sources, Mr Chaudhry was allegedly in the shower and the letter was in an unsealed envelope, so a family member read the letter and passed it onto Mrs Chaudhry. When Mr Chaudhry came out of the shower, the family were all very upset. Mr Chaudhry assured them that he knew nothing about this termination letter.
Anyway, the next morning, according to the two sources, Mr Chaudhry was allegedly summoned to Government Buildings to meet with Military Director of Legal Services, Colonel Aziz Mohammed, at 10:00am. In that meeting Mr Chaudhry allegedly told Colonel Aziz that if he went, others connected with the FLP will also withdraw their support from the interim regime.
Colonel Aziz allegedly immediately called Commodore Bainimarama who was in meetings with the Military Council at his residence and informed him of this new development. The Commodore immediately requested that Mr Chaudhry come and meet him at his home, at which meeting the termination letter was rescinded, according to the two sources.
Will we witness a repeat performance; we will just have to wait until 22 August?
Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry resigned from the
interim government (IG) on August 18 following weeks of speculation
that his head was on the chopping block for mismanaging the economy
and harassing overseas investors
This was from US Embassy in Fiji.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
The Chaudhrys and rough justice
By VICTOR LAL
The Chaudhrys (Mahendra and Rajendra), Jokapeci Koroi, along with Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi and others are guilty of contempt of court for flagrantly and arrogantly disregarding the rule of law in the country and should, therefore, be hauled before Justice Roger Coventry to explain their actions.The punishment for contempt ranges from hefty fines to imprisonment.What evidence is there to hold them for contempt over their determination to discipline the so-called ‘Gang of Five’ – Krishna Datt, Poseci Bune, Felix Anthony, Agni Deo Singh and Atu Emberson-Bain for undermining the FLP’s leadership? In order to answer the above question, let us briefly examine the sequence of events. On the eve of the FLP national council meeting in Ba, Rajendra Chaudhry appeared on behalf of his father and Mrs Koroi to inform Justice Coventry that the disciplinary charges against the five had been withdrawn. What he legally did on behalf of his clients was to give an undertaking to the High Court that as far as his father and Mrs Koroi were concerned, the matter was effectively and judicially closed. And yet, despite the undertaking, the matter of disciplining the five was raised and even voted upon. In the eyes of the law if a person who gives an undertaking to the court subsequently breaches any of the terms in it, he may be held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined, or have his assets seized.In this case, it is clear that since the issue of disciplining the five resurfaced at the Ba meeting and was even voted upon, both Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi (and their lawyer Rajendra Chaudhry’s) actions are tantamount to contempt of court. But Rajendra Chaudhry claims the decision by the national council to discipline the five Labour executives is not contempt, for his father and Mrs Koroi “took no part in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the council”.Chaudhry junior said the two Labour leaders withdrew the charges against the five laid in July, and based on that fact, he was “fairly confident” that the contempt of court issue would not stick. However, the fact of the matter is that both Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi allowed the matter to be discussed at all during the meeting. There is no evidence to suggest that neither the two leaders nor Rajendra Chaudhry briefed the meeting of the undertaking that was given to Justice Coventry. That itself may even constitute a dereliction of duty on the part of Rajendra Chaudhry to advise his clients of the meaning and implication of the undertaking, and which could form a separate investigation by the Fiji Law Society for alleged professional misconduct. His father claims that the motion to discuss disciplinary action against the five was called by the Sigatoka and Lautoka branches. He also said he had not been served with the court order at the time of the Ba meeting. Why? Was it because his son, acting as the FLP lawyer had not, as legal convention requires, conveyed to his clients what had taken place in the High Court? Did Mahendra Chaudhry instruct his son to obtain a further clarification from Justice Coventry whether the matter could be discussed at all at the Ba meeting? After all, the FLP leader has a history of “high courts and boycotts” when he feels there has been a breach of the law. It was not very long ago when Justice Coventry had thrown out his writ to stop the recent general election. The validity of the High Court undertaking is not in question. It is quite clear that all three (the Chaudhrys and Mrs Koroi) are in contempt for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the undertaking was adhered to – a failure so gross as to demonstrate a disregard for the importance which should have been attached to the High Court undertaking. His clients walking out of the meeting when the matter of disciplining was raised is not a testimony to their commitment to the undertaking to the court. It is abundantly obvious that the walkout was all stage managed for the political underlings to take charge of the disciplinary process.Who called the Ba meeting? Who drew up the agenda for the meeting? Who authorised the handing over of the chairmanship of the meeting once Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi walked out? What was, and what was not, to be discussed at the meeting? Let us look at their roles from a layman’s point of view, by presenting an alternative scenario. It was known, say, for some time that a fierce row had been brewing between the ‘Gang of Five’ and Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi, with the two threatening to finish the five off with cane knives if they ever visited Ba. But it was eventually decided to settle the row peacefully over rice and curry meal, to be witnessed by their friends and foes. The five then agreed to the invitation for meal provided the cane knives were not present in the house.Their lawyer, in order to reassure them, even appeared before a High Court judge and gave an undertaking that his clients had not only withdrawn their threats but had also banished the lethal cane knives. The five finally arrive at the house as planned. In the course of the meal, two of the guests suddenly pull out the cane knives to carry out the previous threats. Instead of stopping them, Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi, simply run out of the house. The five are murdered. In their defence, the two claim that they took no part in the killings, even though they had called the five for the meal into the house, and had even assured the High Court. And in the next breath they argue that although they had given an undertaking to the High Court that they would not wield the cane knives, they had never promised that other guests would not do so. In any case, when the cane knives were suddenly pulled out, they decided to walk out of the house.In the eyes of the law, their defence would be rejected, and they would be found guilty of conspiring to murder. After all, it was they who hosted the feast. It was they who had promised to banish the cane knives. It was therefore their duty to ensure that the cane knives were not present in the house nor any visitors were allowed to come with their own. What took place at the Ba meeting was nothing short of a conspiracy to politically murder the ‘Gang of Five’. It was a flagrant disregard of the implicit undertaking that was given to Justice Coventry. It was an attempt to dish out rough justice to the ‘Gang of Five’. It was contempt of court.There are two types of contempt of court: criminal and civil. In order to find out whether the Chaudhrys and Mrs Koroi are guilty of civil contempt, one has to take into account whether the civil contempt involved disobedience to a court order or breach of an undertaking given to the court in civil proceedings. There is no doubt that by allowing the disciplinary proceedings to go ahead (the one in Ba and now later in Nadi), Mahendra Chaudhry and Mrs Koroi are, in my opinion, in contempt of court. Mr Vayeshnoi claims that FLP leader Chaudhry has drafted the charges. The Ba meeting mirrors the events surrounding the dismissal of Mahendra Chaudhry as Prime Minister during the hostage crisis. The late President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, in order to assume emergency powers to deal with the hostage crisis, had dismissed Mr Chaudhry and appointed the former FLP Labour Minister Ratu Tevita Momoedonu in his place on 27 May 2000 so that Ratu Momoedonu could ‘advise’ the President to suspend Parliament and assume emergency powers.Upon tendering the requisite advice which took only a few minutes, Ratu Momoedonu promptly resigned. On 14 March 2001, Ratu Momedonu was once again appointed as PM when the Appeals Court had ruled that the interim government was illegal, and had ordered Mr Chaudhry’s 1999 government should be reinstated. The new President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, instead re-appointed his nephew Ratu Momedonu in order for the latter to render his formal advice to the President to dissolve Parliament and call a general election, which duly took place.Mr Chaudhry bitterly condemned both the Presidents, describing their actions as nothing but legal backhands to deprive him of the Prime Ministership. What about the Ba meeting? Democracy cannot flourish where one group is able to ride rough shod over the rule of law in the country. In Mahendra Chaudhry’s case, he has made the court his most popular legal hunting ground since 2000. It is time Justice Roger Coventry called him up to explain to the High Court and the nation why there should be two laws – one for the Labour leader, and one for others.And if there is a contempt of court, he should not hesitate to dish out the severest punishment (even imprisonment) to Mahendra Chaudhry, and Mrs Koroi (and others who took part in the disciplinary proceedings and are still doing so) for failing to practise what they have been preaching the country to uphold – the rule of law and fair play.
Stick a fork in the Labour party, they’re done-both in Fiji and Australia.
July 28, 2010
Russell Hunter, former editor-in-chief of the Fiji Sun, interviewed after Chaudhry was charged in 2010 with money laundering, tax evasion and failing to declare foreign currency:
“A close intimate and favourite of the dictator, Mr Chaudhry nevertheless had no lack of political enemies, and it was they who began surreptitiously circulating documents that claimed Frank’s financial messiah was somewhat less than pure.
“When he and his cabinet hostages were released by a prison-bound George Speight (10 years ago), Mr Chaudhry embarked on a worldwide tour spreading the word about the legitimacy of his cause as an elected prime minister and raising funds for the ‘poor Indians’ suffering in Fiji as a result of Speight’s abortive coup.
It’s not quite clear exactly how much was raised, as Mr Chaudhry received the money, much of it in cash, himself.”
Eventually Fiji Sun identified Mr Chaudhry as the “minister with overseas millions.
Said Hunter:
“As (Victor) Lal’s inquiries continued, the story took weird twists and turns.
“I received a visit late one night in January 2008 from a person I knew only slightly. This person handed me a plain brown envelope with the full tax records of Mahendra Chaudhry, revealing that the authorities knew about” his fund-raising efforts, but had not pursued him over the issue. The fact Mr Chaudhry was at that time the minister responsible for the taxation authority may or may not have been relevant.”
Good morning fellas,,,,,,
I suppose Victor Lal, Brij Lal, Russel Hunter and the faggots at coup 4.5 will be up in arms here. So come on, poke the (COMMENT EDITED) Chodhary’s behind and let him have it here,
Jukebx
No one has written and shaped our thinking as Victor Lal has for several years – Fijia newspaper readers had been orphaned by the regime’s banishment of him from the Fiji Sun. The likes of Victor Lal have stood up for rights and condemned wrongs as long as I can remember – going long before 1987 coups. Stop being smart jack-arse in cyberspace – pay heavy price in defense of freedom of speech etc – if Victor Lal and Russell Hunter had not exposed Mahend’s millions you would be wiping his backside with your dhoti and hero worshiping him- I am no cheerleader for C4/5 but they have told us more things than any one of you – and are still telling us things we dont want to hear or know – have respect for other peoples views and positions
Victor Lal and my ass- put it together equals Blogger’s face.
For legal reasons, I would ask everyone to moderate their comments in relation to Mr Chaudhry. I’m having to remove or edit some postings because they go beyond the bounds of fair comment and are defamatory. You can say what you like about his political views but Mr Chaudhry has not been convicted of any crime.
Blogger,,,
You have missed the point here you piglet.
I have not said anything against Victor La and Russel Hunter. I acknowledge the two gentlemen in exposing Chodhary’s fallouts.
I am not a Chodhary “worshipper” I am SVT follower, Chodhary was never my cup of tea.
And yeah, I am not a sympathiser of 4.5 like you.
And stop hiding under Kaitani’s skirt you piglet.
Give my regards to Timoci @ 4.5. We went ot school together
Blogger
Victor lal may have shaped your thinkingnoy ours you peabrain.
Yes he did and I am grateful to his informative and critical writings for several years now; it just shows how shallow and pea brained you chaps are – grow up you twisted souls – just because he is not supporting your murderous and thieving pig, he is NOT one of you. Shame!
Come on Blogger. At least give us some credit for our intelligence.
To claim that Victor Lal’s writings helped shaped our thinking is verging on the absurd.
For me personally I take his writings with a grain of salt because underpinning all his pieces is a sense of vengeance (jealousy?) against all those who have aspired to high office.
Victor suffers from what is referred to as the ‘tall poppy’ syndrome. It comes through strongly in all his writings. That you cant see that says much about your own intelligence and analytical capacity.
Pious and others abusing Victor Lal and others – allowed by Graham Davis when it suits him to put down other rivals – reminds me of the saying, “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds”.
Keep your minds closed for pro-regime propaganda – until the elections are held in 2014?
To Blogger:
Victor Lal has done some good work, but he also displayed a bitchy, petty-minded, vain and nasty attitude at times. For someone with a journalistic background, he is pretty naive to think everyone will agree with him, all of the time. He doesn’t seem to understand that if you put yourself in the public eye and make comments publicly, you are bound to attract some criticism, especially in Fiji, where opinions are highly divided. If you can’t take the heat, don’t open your mouth.
How long did you spend in journalism, Victor?
@ Blogger
I am not abusing Victor. Just telling you what I think of his articles and what his problem is.
Dont be so protective and blind. Even blind Freddy can see through Victor’s writings. His vanity in promoting all that Oxford stuff etc is all about the politics of self-promotion. Cant you see that?
Interesting times.
Ok everybody its football finals times,Go West Coast Eagles !!
Go Melbourne Storm!!
Agreed
These father and son combination does not represent the true Fiji indofijian thoughts – I dont think any father will push his son to this extent.Their combination is like the old movie (Dostana) where the cop uprehends the crimnal and the layer is ready to free the criminal, here cop is FICAC and the lawyer (used to be currently suspended from practice) Rajen and as educated public you know the criminal – refer Hariyana fund issue where was the money found.
Mahen claimed it was a personal gift then how come he is leader of people even in corrupt govt leaders share their loot with some followers here it was more of family matter ….. looting deposited in daughters A/C.
To FLP leader n follower for my past 3 election I voted for so called Vara now these election I have asked not only 5 volets from my house but also from my friends not to be given to FLP… Our aim is for a true Fiji the harmony Fiji had during Tui Nayau ( Ratu Sir K.T.Mara) 17 years in office. LONG LIVE FIJI