The restoration of the Great Council of Chiefs is one of the Coalition’s signature achievements yet also threatens to be hugely divisive, judging from some key elements of the long-awaited report into the GCC by a review panel headed by the former RFMF officer and Canberra academic, Dr Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka.
The report finds that the restoration of the GCC is supported by most iTaukei (60 odd per cent). Fair enough. But some of its conclusions have not only raised eyebrows among leaders of Fiji’s minorities, there is a distinct sense of deja vu that there may be trouble ahead – that some of the tensions that produced Frank Bainimarama‘s coup in 2006 and his unilateral decision to abolish the GCC are again brewing as the indigenous majority demands a bigger slice of the national cake.
Remember, the GCC is a body made up solely of hereditary chiefs – people whose power derives from an accident of birth rather than any record of personal or collective achievement. The Baledrodroka report doesn’t recommend any change to that. Aside from advocating greater participation of women and of youth as observers, there is to be no change to the GCC to open its membership up to distinguished iTaukei commoners let alone members of other ethnic communities in Fiji.
Grubsheet – for one – had hoped that a reconstituted GCC would be more a Great Council of Citizens, a properly representative body, including the chiefs, that would be a source of valuable advice to government on a range of social, economic, political and cultural issues. Indeed, I put that idea in writing to the Prime Minister before the last election, along with such suggestions as a back-to-basics approach to government in which the country’s scarce resources were directed most at essential services such as education and health and a program of austerity be embraced to claw back the dangerously high level of national debt.
Alas, we are getting no austerity and the same traditional model of the GCC – a back-to-the-future move to reintroduce the power and influence of the chiefs much as they have always operated, with the sole exception – and rightly so – of a prescribed number of women members. Worse, the rest of us are going to have to pay for it. The Report envisages the GCC being financed by a government grant until – and IF – the GCC can eventually become self sufficient. Can someone please show me where that was part of the plan before the last election?
Let’s just call this for what it is – a classic case of tax without representation. All Fijians pay through their taxes for a bunch of hereditary chiefs to have a disproportionate say in national life without any input from the nation as a whole. Grubsheet has already highlight the astonishing comment by the Qaranivalu – the High Chief of Naitasiri, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata – that it is the GCC, not parliament through our elected representatives, who should have the dominant say in national life. It is a fundamental challenge to the basis of Fijian democracy and is simply not on.
What is causing the most angst among non-iTaukei leaders are the sections of the report dealing with iTaukei economic empowerment. The fundamental premise of the document is that the iTaukei have been marginalised in their own country, that they are poorer than other communities and deserve a bigger slice of the national keke.
Whatever the statistics on poverty levels among the iTaukei, Fiji has to be the only nation in the world where the indigenous population owns more than 90 per cent of the land surface yet their leaders cannot translate that into income-generating ventures. By any rational analysis, the poorest of the poor in Fiji are surely landless members of the minorities who don’t have extended families and teitei to fall back on. Yet the GCC report falls into the trap of crying poor on behalf of the iTaukei without delegating any responsibility to the iTaukei themselves for their predicament.
We know that some iTaukei businesses are highly successful because they have embraced a sense of enterprise and initiative. But it very disappointing to read the authors of the report join the common whinge on the part of far too many iTaukei in suggesting that it is other communities – the dreaded “vulagi” – who are the instruments of their disempowerment.
We’re setting out those sections of the report below relating to economic empowerment for readers to make their own analysis. Yet arguably the most contentious part of the report isn’t in the main body of the document but in the annexure where it revives the argument that partly triggered the 2006 coup – the notion of iTaukei gaining control of their qoliqoli – the right to raise revenue from offshore resources such as fishing, surfing and tourism.
It was Laisenia Qarase’s insistence on introducing a Qoliqoli Bill and refusing to back down that was one of the principal reasons Frank Bainimarama gave to remove him at gunpoint. The GCC panel falls short of recommending that a new Qoliqoli Bill be introduced but there it is buried on page 89 of the report and at the very least, is a red flag to the nation as a whole that this issue hasn’t gone away.
First, the section on the qoliqoli issue and then extracts from the report relating to economic empowerment. They are already causing dyspepsia in non-iTaukei circles and we can be sure of a great deal of controversy behind the scenes even if the mainstream media in Fiji does what it always does – buries its head in the sand and fails to give the report the attention it deserves.
There are definitely positive aspects to this report – acceptance of the secular state for one – but any discussion of a revised Qoliqoli Bill is a pandora’s box that must never be opened simply because of its potential to kill the goose that lays the golden egg on which the entire Fijian economy depends – tourism. It is also inherently unjust that non-iTaukei Fijians be also required to pay to swim, surf or fish or even traverse waters claimed by landowning units.
The fact that the GCC review panel doesn’t rule it out is enough of an amber light because we know that indigenous supremacists like Sitiveni Rabuka and Siromi Turaga believe in it as an article of faith. We need more economic hardheads in this debate than fanatics because Fiji simply cannot make a go of itself in the world unless we are one nation, not a collection of bickering tribes.
NOTE: These are edited extracts from the report. It is too lengthy to publish the entire document on WordPress and it is to be hoped that the Fiji Times and the Fiji Sun – as well as the government’s information organs – do so.
A review panel headed by Dr Ratu Jone Baledrokadroka and including lawyer Graham Leung, who keeps being canvassed for official positions in government without it ever happening.
Easily the most contentious parts of the report that are raising alarm bells among the leaders of other communities.
Now back to the start:
My head hurts. I said so but I feel another coup in the air.
Can’t say much even though I’d like to. Leave it to my better half from Naitasiri. ………..
Good morning GD. Get some sleep!
You are needed to be well. You’re on the hop 24/7!!!
Hahaha, Tinai, lions don’t hop, they roar. I hope you are feeling better yourself or at least well enough to get some proper sleep.
Thank you GD. Oh yes lol. You are no timid rabbit that’s for SURE!!
No I’m still down ugh. 2.30am wake up is habitual now but it does mean I get your posts first. Back home to fiji in a few days. Interesting times……..
Keep up the great work of grubsheet! I shouldn’t read it straight away as I lay here fuming at the corruption and ignorance and stupidity of “those” fools!!!! That’s enough to keep me awake lol.
Goodnight GD!!! At least 6 hours sleep please. Says wannabe Dr Tinai!!!!!
“…there is a distinct sense of deja vu that there may be trouble ahead – that some of the tensions that produced Frank Bainimarama‘s coup in 2006 and his unilateral decision to abolish the GCC are again brewing as the indigenous majority demands a bigger slice of the national cake.”
We still don’t know the real reason that “produced” Bainimarama’s coup. The reason you stated above was concocted by a few and was the narrative that they used time and again to justify their actions.
It was the reason Bainimarama himself gave and the Qoliqoli Bill was axed. For the purposes of this debate, that is sufficient. Or otherwise a Qoliqoli Bill would already be part of the coalition government’s agenda.
Graham, despite the views held by haters of FRANK BAINIMARAMA, that too with utmost religious conviction, FIJI did prosper economically under his leadership while the GCC was abolished.
We’re getting a “reconstituted GCC”, what a hoot. This will be the same bunch of feudal post colonial brand of chiefs who will engineer their brand of social apartheid on their ITAUKEI subjects, who are just expected to be subservient because it will be laced with Christianity.
Just cobo and trod on peasant !
I can’t wait for it to be abolished again.
For those fortunate ones to young to remember the contentious Qoliqoli Bill, a copy can be found on Fiji Leaks.
Or follow this link:
https://www.fijileaks.com/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/qoliqoli_bill_2006.pdf
Read it and decide for yourselves.
My main concern was the powers given to the Qoliqoli “police.”
Many thanks for this. Important to understand precisely what was proposed at the time. And on any reading of this, small wonder that Frank Bainimarama objected. We are in very big trouble in Fiji if this raises its head again.
Unfortunately, I think it will. Taken as a whole, the GCC panel’s references to qoliqoli are a green light to radicals in the government like Siromi Turaga to press ahead with a new bill. A remember that some people like Sakiasi Ditoka were at the centre of the action around Laisenia Qarase in 2006.
Chiefs’ desire at cession was for a white person to save them from the consequences of their own actions (paying USA for damages and curtailing Ma’afu’s threat, who was invited in the first place due to his better warriors). Love how history is being modified as well.
Funny how the report uses the word “equitable” for wealth distribution.
Lend a tenth of the prime real estate held by any random Vanua to an ethnic Chinese, European, Indian or Korean and see how it out-performs the 90% in a few short years.
Oh? Banks won’t lend you any money? But there was a bank a few years ago that did so. And it was taken to the cleaners by the same “elite” that the iTLTB is now expected to be “safe-guarded” by.
I fully agree that all Fijians (inclusive of the iTaukei) deserve to be uplifted from poverty. But one should only get as big a slice of the cake as one’s contribution to it.
For once I am glad that my tax dollars won’t be paying for this group of accidental leaders to run their circus.
Rather pay a higher tax in a country which gives you good roads, education and social security than it being used in fiji for a bunch of self declared whiny lazy leaders to have a joy ride.
Read the TLTB is investing in Australia. Invest in Fiji and its land first. The words from the CEO is they invested “2M AUD which is equal to 1M FJD”. What math is that. These are the calibre of people the coalition put in.
Anyway, now the GCC is back so should restart the national mourning on how the itaukei are poor and the indians are rich. How the itaukei are slaves in their own land.
GCC should just step out and see the itaukei youths in the streets. Almost 90% pf prisoners are itaukei. Almost all burglaries caught on cctv are itaukei. All street fights itaukei…i hope you get my point.
Crying doesn’t empower your people. Neither does blaming another race. What empowers is education, teaching them to work hard from childhood. Teaching them to trust other humans and not brew hatred.
The generation that sits in office and in power was and is a lost cause. Too many nutty old heads making decesions for the vast majority of now educated “poor” itaukei. If the itaukei want to be prosperous….at the next poll see who you’re voting for. A young educated inclusive leader or a nutty old divisive vindictive accidental leader.
Also move out of Fiji if you can, its better in Australia and NZ. And you are worth your own value in muscle and brain here. No chief over your head demanding special treatment.
The exodus will accelerate as this unelected rabble take more money from the taxes paid to run their agenda, with the racism to be on full display under their direction.
Those who can, will leave and take with them their expertise, experience and knowhow. Those who remain either cannot leave or live in this fantasy world of the Government and the GCC will provide and they are the chosen people. Either way the standards will fall, the services and infrastructure will deteriorate and Fiji suffers.
The decision to scrap the GCC by the previous Government will be proved to be a correct one but by then Fijians may finally realize that the country is now owned by others, probably living in China.
GS, thank you for informing and facilitating public discourse on this ongoing complex issue. Regarding land issues arising from the review exclusively and resulting commentaries, I’ll limit my comment on the fact that only Taukei landowning units have a limited composition to Taukei people. It’s unfortunate that the struggle for proper treatment of customary property, its recognition, and governance can be heavily stigmatized, easily labeled as racist. The reality is that some of us own land due to our indigeneity and an unbroken ancestral connection, recognized both by law and the Constitution. These are social constructs defining Taukei people. However, not all of us can be Taukei, and consequently, customary owners. We are now part of a common citizenry in a multi-racial sovereign State, with inalienable rights and interests in customarily owned property and resources. So, is it racist to recognize only Taukeis as customary landowners under the law, allowing them to deal with their property subject to market forces? I would think this review is intended to enable landownership units better and others outside the ownership unit to deal with land in an orderly and fair manner. Similarly, is it wrong to advocate for traditional bodies to manage and govern it, or for the ownership group to make decisions regarding it while respecting and considering the interests of others? Historical records show that Taukei people have endeavored, through their own institutions, to make land available for public infrastructure, agriculture, and commercial interests etc. It is a fact that most commercial ventures in Fiji occurs through negotiated dealings on customary land, often with inadequate compensation. Some communities even lack sufficient land for sustenance and future needs. Is it openly racist for a particular race to consult and seek how best to govern their land and resources? To question historical injustices denying them fair returns, or to seek a deeper understanding of property rights and interests for better commercial leverage? Without grasping the issues surrounding customary property ownership, protection, and modern governance attempts, we risk overlooking the complexities of the two parallel tenure systems in operation. We must avoid inadvertently advocating for the marginalization of any race. Ultimately, it is my hope, that everyone stands to benefit from proposed “reforms.”
Itaukeis must realize that their prosperity must be through age old notion of hard work. No amount of postering for indigenous rights and economic advancement will be achieved through an institution such as GCC.
They must learn to roll up their sleeves and work hard and utilize resources for their economic advancement, it’s that simple.
Indians can never be blamed for their lack of economic advancement when iTaukei own 95% of land and rights to all resources.
Regarding the Qoliqoli bill, it is important to remember that these areas were always owned and are part of the resource holdings of a particular group wherever they are. In my village, we know where our fishing boundaries start and finish and that if other villages wish to fish them they need to come and ask and they do.
The fact that it pertains to the sea is really of little difference as fishing grounds have always been understood as owned in Fijian culture. Since it is owned, just like your house, car or whatever other property you may own, its use must be governed by some kind of protocol that respects that ownership and if necessary compensates it for any losses or benefits gained at its expense. Again just as you expect of a house you built and may rent.
You might say, but we did not build those fishing grounds. That is true but what we do is manage its sustenance, and our forefathers did this by practising restrictions to fishing in certain areas for periods to sustain the food sources within it and allow them to revive and not be victims of overfishing. A practice that we know is completely lost to the demands of commercial fishing which have very quickly decimated fishing areas and moved on to pillage other areas because their only goal is profit and not the health and livelihood of these areas.
So these areas have to be owned and are owned and the use of them have to be controlled. Now what we might discuss is how as a country we might pass laws to govern its use so that we can enjoy its benefits while protecting its health and wealth using traditional knowledge and sciences like Marine science. But what we cannot do is just decide to nationalise what essentially has been private property just because we might think as a democracy we have rights to all the resources within our EEZ for the benefit of national wealth. Democracy is not communism. If it is to survive with traditional knowledge, as it should as we were not without useful knowledge before Western ideas of statehood arrived, it must respect these traditions and look to work them, hopefully enhancing them, for the benefit of all rather than against them.
As for Bainimarama he was and is an idiot who at that time was escaping charges being placed against him for crimes and took up this Qoliqoli bill primed Coup d’etat at the behest of selfish and insular Tourism business people to escape prosecution. So leave that trash in the bin where it belongs and stop retrieving it every now and then when it suits you.
Listen up. As iTaukei, you already own more than 90 per cent cent of the land surface. You cannot reasonably exclude non-indigenous Fijians from those areas below the officially-designated shoreline. I am not saying this because it suits me. I gain no benefit personally whatsoever. But what you are advocating is just plain wrong and prejudicial to the rights of other citizens. And I would support another military intervention to prevent this tyranny of the majority from prevailing, just as I did in 2006.