Bula Fiji Coup Thank You Frank

FIJI PM ADDRESSES THE UN

2007-09-30T01:07:00.000-07:00

Statement Of The Prime Minister Of The Republic Of The Fiji Islands To The 62nd Session Of The United Nations General Assembly New York - Friday 28th September, 2007.
*******

Mr President,

On behalf of the people of Fiji, I extend to you, and this Assembly, our warm greetings: Ni sa Bula; Namaste.
We congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to the Presidency of this, the 62nd session of the General Assembly.

Mr. President,

I acknowledge the presence of His Excellency, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We extend to His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon, our warmest congratulations, as this is his first full Assembly as Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Already, in the brief period of your leadership, we note with gratitude the initiatives you have been taking to enhance momentum in the work of the UN.

Fiji particularly appreciates your policy of inclusiveness, and the attention that you have been giving to the vulnerable situation and the special needs of Small Island nations.

Mr. President,

At the outset, Fiji wishes to reiterate its unwavering commitment to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, pursuit of environmentally friendly and sustainable developmental activities and addressing the challenges of climate change.

As these issues have been widely debated in this august Assembly, I would like to take this opportunity to address issues of particular concern to Fiji.

Mr President,

UN-led Peacekeeping Operations is renowned world wide and has become the human face of this multi-lateral body in war torn and conflict prone regions of the world.

For its own part, Fiji continues to stand ready to shoulder the burden of advancing international peace.

In this regard, we have offered our services to the African Union-UN Hybrid Peacekeeping Operations in the Sudan. In the same vein, Fiji is committed to our collective resolve of enlarging the UN presence in Iraq. We are willing to contribute further towards this end should the need arise.

Today, the demand for peacekeeping continues to grow. With it comes the need for institutional reform to adequately cater for the ever changing nature of world conflict. Whilst reiterating Fiji's support to all reform efforts, including the latest initiative of the Secretary-General in reforming the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, I urge the Secretariat to continue to resist the politicization of UN Peacekeeping and to maintain the sanctity of its independence as a forum, wherein, the willing may volunteer their services freely, without bilateral mangling and interference.

Mr. President,

I now seek your indulgence, and that of this Assembly, to speak to you about the situation, particular circumstances, and the needs of Fiji at this stage of its nationhood as an independent, sovereign nation.

Fiji's overall situation is that, it is in a deep rut. It needs the understanding and support of the international community, to be able to move forward, to regain its dignity and its rightful place, as a responsible member of the international family of nations.

I am mindful, as I stand here today in your august presence, that you may see me as the military leader who removed an elected Government. I cannot begrudge that because that indeed is a fact.

I submit to you that although the Government of the day was removed from power last December, such action was taken with extreme reluctance.

I am not a politician, nor do I aspire to be one. I am certainly not much of a diplomat and I am not used to speaking at forums such as this. Therefore, in what I say, and how I may put this to you, if in any way I am remiss in regard to the protocols of this Assembly, I seek your understanding.

Mr. President,

By the time the Military intervened last December, Fiji's overall governance situation had regressed to a catastrophic level. The international community needs to fully understand the special local context of the Fiji situation.

Fiji became independent on 10th October, 1970, inheriting an institutional infrastructure that could, potentially, have evolved further and strengthened, to allow democracy to take root.

At that time, almost four decades ago, Fiji's future looked to be one of promise and potential. For instance, in terms of per capita incomes, Fiji was, then, in the same league as Malaysia and Thailand.

We, the people of Fiji, viewed our country with pride and dignity, and felt it was: "the way the world should be". And, for over a decade after achieving Independence, Fiji did continue to make steady progress, in economic development, education, reducing poverty and generally improving the living conditions of its people.

Yet, in 1970, Fiji started its journey as a young nation on a rather shaky foundation, with a raceâ€“based Constitution, one which rigidly compartmentalised our communities.

The "democracy" that came to be practised in Fiji was marked by divisive, adversarial, inward-looking, raced-based politics. The legacy of leadership, at both community and national levels, was a fractured nation.

Fiji's people were not allowed to share a common national identity.

Of the two major communities, indigenous Fijians were instilled with fear of dominance and dispossession by Indo-Fijians, and they desired protection of their status as the indigenous people. Indo-Fijians, on the other hand, felt alienated and marginalised, as second class citizens in their own country, the country of their birth, Fiji.

Mr. President

The dates 14 May and 25 September, in 1987 are fateful in Fiji's history and also for Fiji's Military Forces. The military coups of that year were motivated by an ethno-nationalist, racist supremacy agenda.

Those political, communal as well as military leaders, who were responsible for the coups and related actions in 1987, carry a very large burden, in their collective conscience: for the severe ruptures to the very fabric of Fiji society, and the dislocations and suffering, that they caused in the lives of many of Fiji's citizens.

Mr. President,

In May, 2000 Fiji suffered yet another major setback: again a group of ethno-nationalist opportunists, backed by a small errant group within the Fiji Military, overthrew the Government of the day.

As Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), I did not support or condone the coup.

I drew upon the structural and cultural organisation of the military to intervene, to restore order and a state of security.

The stand-off between the coup perpetrators and the military in May 2000 was potentially explosive at the time, and if not resolved, could have resulted in much bloodshed and even greater chaos.

As Military Commander, I played a key role in the handing over of executive authority back into civilian hands in the wake of the 2000 coup. This rested on a number of critical pre-conditions being met, in taking Fiji forward.

An Interim Government was appointed by His Excellency the President of Fiji, with Laisenia Qarase as caretaker Prime Minister. The Interim Government was tasked to pave the way to fresh general elections, to be held in September of 2001.The other fundamental conditions were: i) that all of the perpetrators of the May 2000 coup, including the military rebels, would be prosecuted; and ii) that the 2000 coup would be publicly renounced as racially motivated.

Mr. President,

It is tragic that Fiji's recovery from the brink of chaos in May 2000 did not endure.

In the past years, Fiji's overall governance took a dramatic turn for the worse. In particular this was characterised by the politicisation of the prison services and the criminal justice system. There was also a significant weakening of the key institutions of governance; a pervasive increase in corruption; serious economic decline combined with fiscal mismanagement; a sharp deterioration in the law and order situation; and a deepening of the racial divide in the country.

The convicted coup perpetrators were prematurely discharged from prison, and certain coup perpetrators and sympathisers were appointed as senior Government Ministers and Officials. There were also a series of legislations that were deeply divisive and overtly racist.

The 2001/2006 General Elections were not credible. They were characterized by massive rigging of votes with the incumbent government using the Stateâ€™s resources to buy support.

Fiji's overall situation by late 2006 had deteriorated sharply, heightened by massive corruption and lawlessness, a severe erosion of confidence, and an economy on the brink of collapse. Also, during the later part of 2006, Fiji's Military had to pay particular attention to certain external threats to the sovereignty of the Nation.

Under our current Constitution, Fiji's Military is charged with national security, defence, and also the well-being of Fiji's people. Under the circumstances, the military, under my stewardship, could not possibly see such an unacceptable situation unfold without seeking to address it.

Mr. President,

History is testament to how I did in fact respond to the situation. For almost four years I was strenuous in my efforts to constructively engage the elected leadership of the country, seeking it to reverse its courses of action that was taking the country down the path of destruction and abyss.

The protracted efforts that I had made to constructively engage with the previous Government came to no avail.

To the contrary, a prominent High Chief connected to the ruling SDL Party incited a mutiny within the Military, and attempts were made, not only to remove me, but also to eliminate me.

It was with the utmost of reluctance that Fiji's Military, under my leadership, removed the former government from power in December 2006.

There have been critics of this decision. In response to this criticism I say this. Fiji has a coup culture--- a history of civilian or military coups executed in the interests of a few and based on nationalism, racism and greed.

To remove this coup culture and to commit to democracy and the rule of law, policies which promote racial supremacy, and further the interests of economic and social elites, must be removed once and for all. Racism, elitism and disrespect for the law are undemocratic. They lead to hatred, violence, poverty and moral bankruptcy. We saw that in the years leading to World War TWO. We saw the genocide, the concentration camps, the rampant imperialism which resulted in turn, in the creation of the United Nations.

Mr. President,

Within a month of the removal of the previous government, the President of the Republic of Fiji resumed his constitutional authorities. On 5 January, 2007, the President appointed an Interim Government which is mandated to govern Fiji until a new government is duly elected.

With exception of myself, the make up of this Interim Government are all civilians. The Presidential mandate provides the framework within which the Interim Government, which I serve as Prime Minister, administers the affairs of the State.

We are resolved to take the measures necessary to convene a free and fair elections, as soon as practically possible. On this, the Interim Government is co-ordinating closely with Fijiâ€™s Forum member countries and the larger international community including the European Union.

There has been steady progress made in a number of areas pertaining to upholding of the existing Constitution, investigation into the alleged abuse of human rights, maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and preparatory work for the return of Fiji to Parliamentary democracy.

Mr. President,

Fiji's situation is not only complex; its problems are deep-rooted and structural. There are no quick or easy fixes. The country now is at a very critical cross- road: its situation could escalate into more serious deterioration and instability. It is imperative that any such greater disaster or civil strife is averted.

We, therefore, seek constructive dialogue and engagement with the international community, with all our bilateral and multilateral development partners, who we urge to work with us, to help support us, in addressing our fundamental problems, in moving Fiji forward.

Fiji needs the support of the International Community to develop a political and governance framework that is truly democratic, accountable, inclusive, equitable, non-racial, and which unifies Fiji's diverse communities as a nation.

This is indeed the larger and the most critical of challenges which Fiji now faces.

For our part, we are firmly resolved to tackle these challenges at least at four levels:

1. to restore stability, law and order, and confidence;
2. to strengthen institutions for good governance including transparency and accountability and an independent and effectively functioning judiciary;
3. to carry out major reforms in the economy to facilitate sustainable private sector-led growth; and
4. to convene free and fair general elections within a constitutional and governance framework that will ensure that parliamentary democracy is not only restored but can be sustained in Fiji.

To achieve all this, the Interim Government is preparing to launch a major national initiative, referred to as "the Peoples Charter for Change and Progress" (PCCP). Through the PCCP, the broad cross section of Fiji's people will be fully engaged and involved, through consultation and participation to develop a comprehensive agenda of actions and measures, as Fiji's own way of addressing its problems.

For the future, Fiji will look at making the necessary legal changes in the area of electoral reform, to ensure true equality at the polls. At present, all citizens have the right to vote for two candidates, one for a national seat of any ethnicity, and another from a communal raced based seat. This in turn has kept our races apart.

Although democracy in the form of electing a government was introduced in Fiji at the time of Independence, researchers and analysts have suggested that "Fijians live in a democracy with a mentality that belongs to the chiefly system." In essence this means that at election time, Fijians living in village and rural areas are culturally influenced to vote for the candidate selected for them by their chiefs, their provincial councils and their church ministers.

Mr President, this leads me to ask the question whether or not the countries which are demanding Fiji to immediately return to democracy really understand how distorted and unfair our system is both legally and culturally.

This must change; every person will be given the right to vote for only one candidate, irrespective of race or religion. This will send a message out to our people that Fiji's leadership no longer tolerates racial divisions and race-based politics.

All men and women are equal in dignity and in rights. Electoral reform in this respect will be looked at by a National Council for Building a Better Fiji which is designed to entrench the very principle on which the United Nations was founded.

The draft Peoples Charter that will emerge from such a national level undertaking, will provide the political and governance framework, with effective supporting and functioning institutions, to make Fiji a truly democratic and progressive nation.

The draft of the PCCP proposal was circulated widely within the country, inviting comments and suggestions.

Also, Mr. President, I personally wrote to the leaders of Fiji's bilateral and multi-lateral development partners on the PCCP initiative. This included the UN Secretary-General.

I am pleased to report that this initiative has in general been received with very strong support within Fiji, in particular from highly reputable and respected civil society and community leaders in the country.

The Peoples Charter, once formulated and adopted, will provide the strategic framework or fundamental foundation within which the Interim Government, and also successive elected governments, will be expected to operate.

In the current absence of an elected Parliament, there is the issue of legitimacy and mandates. To deal with this, the Interim Government is willing to consider putting the draft Peoples Charter to a Referendum to get the mandate of the people for the fundamental changes, including changes to the Constitution of Fiji, as may be considered necessary and appropriate.

Mr. President,

Fiji needs both financial and technical support from its bilateral and multilateral development partners to be able to effectively realise the vision that underpins the PCCP initiative.

Above all, we seek the understanding of the International Community, to help us rebuild our nation within the true spirit of internationally acceptable precepts of good governance, and a democracy that can be made to work, and be sustained, in Fiji. We must also thank those Governments that have stood by and supported Fiji in our hour of need. Fiji is indeed very grateful and is deeply touched by your understanding and goodwill.

Some in the international community including the closest of our neighbours in the Pacific have seen it fit to impose punitive measures upon Fiji. Of course we know that these powerful States are protecting their own economic and political interest in the region. However, we in Fiji are protecting our rights to democracy, and to strengthening our democratic institutions. These powerful States are undermining our attempts to rebuild our nation on strong foundations, and undermining our attempts to appoint people of merit and honesty to our State institutions, regardless of race and religion. Current sanctions target any person appointed by the interim government. This is hypocrisy at its worst on part of those States as they are clearly undermining our efforts to promote and practice good governance.

These actions, such as the travel bans, described as â€œsmartâ€ sanctions, have had a debilitating impact on our struggles to revive, to recover, and to reform.

Good governance requires effective functioning institutions. Since the coups of 1987, Fiji has suffered a massive exodus abroad of the countryâ€™s skilled and educated people. The major beneficiaries of the transfer of these quality human assets have been Australia and New Zealand; and from these neighbours in particular, we seek understanding and support. Our capacities and institutions have been severely eroded over the years. On all of this, we desperately need help; not a closing of doors.

Mr. President,

Please allow me to conclude my statement by re-affirming Fiji's commitment to the United Nations, and to the various UN conventions on human rights, rule of law, and democratic governance. Fiji does not seek any unwarranted exemptions from any of these obligations. All we seek is your deeper understanding of our particular circumstances and the complex situation of Fiji. And we seek that you work with us, assist us to rebuild, and move Fiji forward.

In closing, I take this opportunity to extend to His Excellency, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, an invitation to Fiji and indeed our Pacific region during his tenure.

I wish you well, Mr. President.

TAXMAN & THE IG MINISTER

2007-08-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

From: The Fiji Sun 8/15/2007 10:04:51 AM
(http://www.sun.com.fj/)

A minister in the Interim Government failed to lodge tax returns for three years and was later assessed $95,000 tax on undeclared income. The minister paid late lodgement penalties when the tax returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002 were finally delivered in 2003.

The records also show a dramatic increase in bank interest over the four years, indicating cash at bank building to more than $1 million.
All this material that came into my possession before the coup indicates that this particular minister may have evaded tax.

I have had the material examined by forensic accountants who indicated that while the files are entirely typical of tax evasion they do not by themselves prove it.
They said a thorough investigation would be necessary to establish the truth.
My file on the minister's tax affairs has been handed to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption.

My investigation covers income tax records covering a period of ten years.
In 2005, long before the current controversy that is raging over alleged tax evasion claims, I anonymously received a brown envelope whose contents clearly reveal that the Cabinet Minister had not submitted his annual tax returns for nearly three years, raising questions as to why FIRCA allowed him to do so because he was clearly in breach of the tax laws on submission of tax returns.

According to the records, the minister filed 2000, 2001 and 2002 returns together in late 2003 as all the original assessment notices were issued on 17 December 2003. The 2003 return was filed before 4 May, 2004.

FIRCA then issued amended assessments for all four years on 23 December 2004, presumably after audit and investigations. Many of the debit entries of assessments, penalties, and interest were credited (reversed) around or after those dates, as were the payments.

In January I began examining the documents on proving certain conclusions. I collaborated with overseas publications, which submitted the documents to forensic accountants who offered the view that while this kind of behaviour was entirely typical of attempted tax evasion they did not by themselves, prove tax evasion. More investigation was needed on that front.

We however found that the Cabinet minister in question did not submit returns for three years.

The tax records relating to this individual also reveal late payments, penalties, and negotiations to bring down payments, and huge lump sum payments and negotiated settlements over the ten-year period, from 1994 to 2004. The record shows undeclared (omitted) income for each year. The audited ones show that there were penalties on the Minister for late payments. They also show that some of the penalties were, supposedly as a result of negotiation, reversed.It must be pointed out that it is not possible to identify sources of this alleged income from these documents. That can only be identified from the actual returns submitted or as tracked by FIRCA from their own investigations, demands to banks for disclosure etc. The ten years of records show a huge increase in deposits held by the Cabinet minister, which were allegedly undeclared. This keeps increasing each year, according to the records. Assuming salary was the minister's only fixed income, the question is where did the increases in the minister’s bank deposits each year come from? FIRCA would not be interested in the source but only that one received income and he or she must pay taxes on it.

There were two payments made by the minister to FIRCA. The two entries that are most significant are the large payments made in 2004 and 2005. On 10 November, 2004, one payment of $86,069.62, under receipt number 5093831, was made to FIRCA. On 21 June 2005, another payment of $9,684.14, under receipt number 5142483, was made. The total of the two tax amounts paid by the minister and receipted is $95,753.76. These are, according to experienced English tax assessors, very large payments by a mere politician. These are negotiated settlements for undeclared income, which the Cabinet minister could not argue out of with the Fiji taxman. The large number of assessments and charges imposed also show FIRCA "discovering" undeclared income. These two payments, at a top tax rate of 32 per cent in Fiji, represent undeclared income of around $300,000.

In observing investigative journalism guidelines, I had also sent a series of questions to the Cabinet minister concerned for answers or explanations but I am yet to receive a reply. As to Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, while the Act provides confidentiality to the taxpayer, it also requires that the taxpayer honestly declare his or her income. The law also requires that the taxpayer submit returns annually.

WHEN THE SHARKS MEET IN A BLOODY FRENZY

2007-08-03T01:48:00.000-07:00

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

It was an eventful annual convention Fiji Law Society at the posh five stars Sheraton Resort in Nadi, over the weekend of 21-22 July, 2007. Why at such an expensive location?

With poverty rife in Fiji, the legal profession still gets between $250 - $600 per hour. Therefore, this presented a legitimate means to write off a leisurely weekend as business expense. While that is good for those “millionaire lawyers”, this was the reason why miserably paid government lawyers and those in statutory authorities could not attend due to the hefty $1000 registration charge. This was in reply to lament of the top guns of the society on the absence of government lawyers in the convention.

It was indeed an interesting meeting with all guns blazing, and which also can be said to be a bloody affair, with so much bad blood between and amongst those in the legal profession.

Indeed, bloody is the term, because in Fiji, we do not hesitate to liken lawyers to sharks. There is a common joke going around grog bowls, in religious mandalis (groups) and at drinking spots that if you throw a lawyer in shark-infested waters, he/she will not be attacked by the shark. The reason? Professional courtesy, as one shark normally does not attack the other!

What this reveals is that legal profession, in Fiji does not rate very high in image and standing. One would rather have more faith and trust in a real estate agent or a secondhand car salesman, than a lawyer in Fiji. Therefore Fiji Law Society’s (FLS’s) holier than though attitude is questionable.

What we hear is that they will shoot from hips to suspended, debar or censure those members who it deems were giving advice to the military, or are sympathetic with the cleanup process, while ignoring what its own history tells.

Prior to December 5, 2006, they were blind to questionable advice that one of their former debarred and suspended lawyers had been giving to a government, which had more faith in those with checkered past, questionable characters and criminal records than clean, honest people.

Were the big lawyers and their law firms on the payroll of SDL government and were expediently quiet about the wrongs that were going in the country? Could not their cry for potential rape of democracy and other draconian legislations going against the principle of social justice have been of higher decibel rather than meek sighs?

If Fiji Law Society of the past had stronger spine and disciplinary procedures, then they would have ensured that any lawyer found in dereliction of duty to clients, rule of law and justice, abusing its trust and trust fund should be prosecuted and banned for life. They should not be unleashed on the community to further abuse our trust. But their indiscretion allowed such a lawyer to become adviser to Fiji government, posing as its unelected Attorney General. If anything that is responsible for Fiji’s current plight, it is the wanting legal advice to the government and crooked ways these advice were given to release convicted persons, and draft questionable legislation while the essential ones, like Code of Conduct were left waiting.

If Fiji Law Society wishes to redeem itself for spinelessness of its past, then it needs to accept the reality of the situation and assist wherever it can, and not prevent any assistance in rescuing the country from its current situation. It cannot completely absolve itself of errors of omission in letting things slip through to such an extent that we find ourselves in now. Nowhere does a Military Commander give some 18 months notice for a pending take over of the government. Where were then the bigwigs of the Fiji Law Society? If they were so concerned about the country, why did they not advice the regime with wanting and credible legal advice of the right way to proceed to avoid what we have on our hands now? Were they too engrossed in making money from the state and other arms of government? If Fiji Law Society cannot do any good, it should not stop anybody else from doing so either.

Back to Fiji Law Convention at the five stars Sheraton over the weekend and the professional courtesy of the sharks.

Yes, indeed, normally one shark does not attack the other. However things are far from normal in Fiji, especially in and around the legal fraternity, and allegations of divisions within the judiciary and the law society itself. Therefore one shark biting the other could not be avoided.

Two lawyers lashed out at each other during a heated discussion on the role of lawyers in upholding and defending human rights. Lawyer Rajendra Chaudhry labelled a comment by lawyer Imrana Jalal as ‘not true’ when she said that Rajendra Chaudhry was in his nappies when she advocated against the 1987 coup and called on lawyers to uphold rule of law despite whoever was in power. She even accused lawyers of having a confused delirium when it came to defining the meaning of rule of law.

Such dind dong or rather gnawing and biting was to be expected. One happens to be the son of Fiji Labour Party leader and Interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhary while the other happens to be the wife of Sakiusa Tausolia, the sacked Chief Executive Officer of Airports Fiji Limited! Indeed chemistry for an explosion!

The division among the lawyers was quite evident when some lawyers expressed support for Rajendra Chaudhry when he said that lawyers stood by and watched while the ousted SDL led government made decisions that were not right by law.

“Where was the legal fraternity on the issue of good governance, sadly you chose to stand by and watch, we must apply ourselves in what we believe in,” he had said

The former Fiji Law Society president, Graham Leung also came up with guns blazing aimed at his fellow lawyers. He accused them of sleeping while the rule of law had been raped and the judiciary tinkered with.

Perhaps what I wanted to question Leung and others was very sensibly and appropriately expressed by another veteran lawyer Tevita Fa. He accused the lawyers of flouting with the events of December last year and that it had now become “sexy” for lawyers to talk about human rights abuses. Lawyer Fa poked the conscience and questioned the sincerity of lawyers by accusing them of using the expressions of human rights abuses following the takeover as a means to promote themselves. He questioned them where were they when human rights abuses took place before the December takeover.

Prior to December 2006, Fiji had gone through a charade of democracy when the country was dragged into a racial chasm, divisive politics, financial and moral bankruptcy, cronyism and favouratism for the criminal elements responsible for rape of democracy in the past.

Indeed, the cream of Fiji Law Society executives and other senior lawyers with over $500 per hour charge fee have lost all moral rights and justifications to question or pontificate on rule of law when they either gained from or stood silently during the events prior to December 5, 2006, and exposed the ethical bankruptcy of the law body.

Yes, indeed, even sharks cannot have the blood and transfuse it too!

(E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz )

(About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is an Auckland based community worker, human rights activist and commentator and analyst on Fiji issues. The views are his own and not necessarily of this paper)

NZ PM OFFENDS 30-MILLION+ OVER FIJI

2007-07-21T00:17:00.000-07:00

By Maggie McNaughton
NZ Herald

Leprosy Mission NZ are shocked at Helen Clark's 'insensistive and discriminatory' use of the word 'leper'.
A throwaway line has landed the Prime Minister in hot water after she was accused of offending 30 million leprosy sufferers.

Helen Clark came under fire after she said Fijian coup leader Frank Bainimarama would be "treated something like a leper" if he attended the Pacific Islands Forum meetings.

Leprosy Mission New Zealand is demanding an apology from the Prime Minister to leprosy sufferers worldwide for her "shockingly inappropriate" comment and a promise that she never use the word "leper" again.

It is the second time that a casual remark has caused her problems.

In September, she was forced to apologise to people offended by her use of the word "cancerous" to describe Don Brash, National's then leader.

Helen Clark could not be reached for comment last night.

Leprosy Mission New Zealand executive director David Hill said yesterday that her use of the word leper was insensitive.

"[She] is promoting stigma and discrimination by using the word 'leper' when she means that Bainimarama will be ostracised by the South Pacific leaders," Mr Hill said.

Advertisement"Indicating that Bainimarama will be treated like a leper is degrading and insulting to the millions of people, who through no fault of their own, have had or have leprosy.

"Stigma such as this not only makes it more difficult for people to come forward for treatment, it often leads to human rights abuses.

"People affected by leprosy should be treated the same as everyone else - they are no different."

The World Health Organisation says there were 8646 registered cases of leprosy in the western Pacific region in 2005.

In September, Helen Clark's description of her political opponent as a "corrosive and cancerous person within the New Zealand political system" backfired.

ADMIN: And this from the PM of NZ !!!

A Herald-DigiPoll survey found that 73.6 per cent of people thought the comment was "not okay".

"I'm sorry if people have taken offence," she said at the time. "But clearly it is not a description one applies to people with cancer.

ADMIN: Yeah right !!!

"I think people should consult their dictionaries."

UNIONS KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG

2007-07-12T16:50:00.000-07:00

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

I was amused to hear the statement of one of the unions going on proposed national strike. Fiji nurses Association Secretary believes that the nationwide strike would be a message to the interim administration that the plight of workers needs to be heard and looked into.

Perhaps the trade union movement in Fiji will care to tell us who hears and looks into the plight and pathetic pay, exploitation and abuse of bulk of Fiji’s non unionized workforce and poor people in the informal sector, who do not have full year’s job, let alone having a union. And how about those without jobs who cannot worry about 5% pay cut because there is nothing to cut from! The failure of union movement in Fiji to unionize and protect the vulnerable, unprotected employees in the mostly locally- owned retail and private manufacturing and commercial workers is a shame on the trade union movement.

This is a wake up call for Public Sector unions which have been draining the scarce funds from national coffers made worse by an incompetent leadership, which abdicated common sense and prudence to govern by agreeing to union demands that would have led to bankruptcy. This expedient action in appeasing the unions by signing away money that the government could not afford to pay was a reflection of sort of blinkered - mentality leadership that would have resulted in economic doomsday for Fiji had it not been for the event of 5 December, 2006.

Fiji government was run like a failing and ailing village cooperative store, heading towards receivership and bankruptcy. Like handing tins of fish free to your kins, the last government signed away pay increases to buy industrial peace. No wonder, despite so much racism, concerns and unfair treatment in public service, there were hardly any objections from the now vocal union leaders who were bought with an undeserving and affordable pay rise.

The pay rise was undeserving because it was never linked to performance which to date is pathetic. The CEO of a government (Prime Minister) which spends 40% on civil service pay, 45 % on debt servicing, with only 15% left for development has no moral right to lead the nation. This is because it can go only one way – just like National Bank of Fiji, to bankruptcy. The nation’s economy can no longer sustain such a large public service that has little sympathy for national interest. Any government which on the eve of election commits to further pay increase despite such mismanaged national wealth does not deserve to govern. Unions that apparently gained from such callous management style of the government by being party to this crime on the nation also do not deserve any sympathy!

The leadership of trade union movement in Fiji has taken as elitist position. In fact I distinctly recall my days in Fiji Employers Federation (FEF) where the employer group was referred to as the poor organisation of rich employers while trade union movement in Fiji is referred to as a rich organisation of poor people.

You only need to look at the lucrative remuneration of the trade union leaders who are threatening to take the ailing country’s economy to ransom by abusing the freedom of association provision and playing Russian roulette with us. They either drive a union BMW vehicle, top of the range Mitsubishi or four wheel drive vehicles which the members paying the subscription can only dream of. On top of that most would be nearer to the remuneration package of Permanent Secretaries, if not exceeding that. While the workers were forced to take a 5% pay cut, none of them were prepared to lead by example and impose this restraint within their pay.

When the country goes on strike and normal Tomasi, Daya Ram and Harry would lose their day’s pay, the union leaders would not have lost anything - they will get their full pay. It is this elitist group that makes decisions affecting their remuneration, so their interest is very well protected, and out of tune with normal workers they represent.

You also need to ask these leaders how many air miles or air points have they amassed at union and /or taxpayers expense in attending umpteenth trade union meetings around the globe. How many times have they been to Geneva, Bangkok, Singapore, Turin (Italy), Manila, Kuala Lumpur and other parts of the world? It would be so numerous. One be may just ask, why aren’t those training and exposure opportunities shared with other lower ranked union officials and members who should also taste and experience the rich and leisurely life of their leaders. You may also care to ask what sense of responsibility they have learnt from so many overseas jaunts in how to manage trade union movement in a developing and ailing economy. What will they gain by killing the goose that lays the golden egg? No worker can gain by bringing financial and economic misery to their employers; you do not need to go to Geneva or Bangkok to learn this cardinal truth.

The country had gone through similar difficulties in 1987 and 2000 and workers were prepared to shoulder the sacrifices for the sake of the country. So what has changed now?

It is wrong for Fiji’s trade union movement to mislead us by saying that the economic situation is in dire straits because of military’s actions on 5 December. In fact we are thankful for the intervention or else Fiji would have been a failed state. We are thankful that our pension funds at FNPF have been rescued, and other incompetent and ailing institutions will be improved to retain and save jobs. Trade union movement should be thankful for this at least, rather than blaming the plight of Fiji on the military action.

On the retirement age, perhaps FNPF and the union movement can tell us, of the 4,000 or so members over 55 who are still working, how many have withdrawn their FNPF and invested it (or wasted it) or are getting pension as well as pay. So why should we allow greedy individuals to have double benefits while we have qualified teenagers striving to enter the job market. Fiji’s economy just cannot sustain it, and if people reaching 55 are unable to manage their financial position after years of working and with FNPF funds, then they should not expect the country to owe them a living. The nation also has a duty of care to younger population struggling to enter the job market.

My advice to the government is, let the strike go ahead. The military has ventured to clean up the country, and cleaning up the union movement should also be its aim. While I appreciate the efforts of trade unions in protecting specific rights of the workers, Fiji’s union movement needs to appreciate its wider national obligations and responsibilities. They are not operating in Europe, UK, Australia or NZ but are in a developing third world economy with many problems and massive unemployment. The government and Fiji’s economy cannot sustain this undeserving bulging payroll bill that eats up all development funds. That is the reason for our falling and failing infrastructure, medical services, water, roads and other economic and social ills.

Therefore the strike must go ahead for at least three reasons. Firstly, for every day’s strike, taxpayers will save about $200,000, carry it for a week and we are better off by $1m which we could channel towards improving medical facilities, and make sure some of it goes to my birthplace at Ba Government (Methodist Mission) Hospital.

Secondly, when civil servants are on strike, only then will we appreciate how well things could run with so few workers.

Finally, it will be a good excuse to teach the union movement about its responsibility to the nation and other people who are not even fortunate to hold a job, let alone go on strike which could kill the golden goose that feeds them the golden egg.

Therefore I urge the Interim Government to stop meeting the unions which have already made up their minds to go on strike, and alert Fiji’s people to prepare in advance to ride through the strike.

Those union members with conscience and feeling of national obligations may opt out from the strike. They can be part of the conscientious workforce that recognizes the wider meaning of union solidarity in a third word country with an ailing economy and a national purse that is fast running empty.

Go ahead, make my day; go on strike. God save Fiji. Let us all help God in saving Fiji.

E-Mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz
(About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is an Auckland-based third generation Indo Fijian migrant community worker, a commentator on Fiji affairs, a human rights activist and an advocate of good governance.)

WHEN A DEMOCRACY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY ?

2007-07-08T17:10:00.000-07:00

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

Every man and his dog, and their leaders in New Zealand, Australia, USA, United Kingdom, EU and other corners of the Pacific and the world are crying for elections in Fiji.

It appears that these gurus and proponents of democracy simply believe that democracy measured by elections is panacea and solutions to all problems in Fiji. As Father Kelvin Barr, a learned commentator and respected Reverend and elder in Fiji recently said, the great flurry of activity in hastily pushing Fiji to supposedly democratic elections has become very interesting and perhaps amusing. It seems the international community and the supporters of democracy think that no sooner Fiji holds elections and returns to democracy than all its problems will be over. All the international organisations will accept it with open arms, there would be great rejoicing and partying and international community will sit back satisfied that democracy has been restored in Fiji.

It is such a great pity that what we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history. By now, Fiji and the world should have learnt that democracy measured by elections is not a panacea.

History is repeating itself in Fiji. After coups of 1987 and 2000, similar pressures were exerted on Fiji to return to parliamentary democracy as quickly as possible. This happened and the international community was overjoyed to welcome Fiji back into the democratic fold. But Fiji’s basic problems were not solved by mere elections. When these problems raised their ugly head under a racist, nepotistic and corrupt Qarase regime that was dragging the country to economic and moral decay and bankruptcy, the international community which had urged Fiji towards elections were in deep slumber. The now vocal neighbours New Zealand and Australia seemed unconcerned.

No fact finding missions came from the Commonwealth or the UN. No Eminent Persons were selected to look into the problems. Helen Clark, Winston Peters, John Howard and Alexander Downer did little to put pressure on a racist regime to act in the interests of all its citizens and deliver social justice that a democracy was supposed to deliver to all its people, irrespective of race and social status. New Zealand was in a state of deep democratic slumber because they had seen to it that a democratically elected government was in place and that was all that was required. They were only jolted to reality when the horse had already bolted and they hastily ran to lock the stable door by sending a special air force jet to Fiji to fetch Qarase and set up a king maker and peace-broker deal in Wellington. When Bainimarama refused to agree to the sleepy deal, that incident became the sour grape for Helen Clark and Winston Peters. Therefore the unprecedented vindictive venom against Fiji in general and Bainimarama in particular by them and their unforgiving and inflexible attitude towards Fiji is understandable.

But how about the fundamental problems in Fiji that are the root cause of the so called coup culture? Who will go to the bottom of that? Nobody seems to be interested in the multitudes of fundamental issues that Father Kelvin Barr had identified in his recent writing. Among them are the agenda of the nationalist who want Fiji for Fijians and declare Fiji a Christian state, the racially explosive mix of fundamentalist religion and extreme nationalism found in Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji which has a strong influence on the political and social process, the inherent conflicts and tensions within Fijian chiefly families and confederacies, the culture of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, the economic policy which makes rich richer and poor poorer and the racially divisive electoral process.
Apart from the above, there is an urgent need of a well conducted census and leading from that, creation of fair and proper electoral boundaries. And most fundamental of all is the voter education about the nature and purpose of democracy.

Mere timetables for elections are not permanent solutions to Fiji’s problems. What we need is serious consideration and strategies to address the fundamental problems identified above. That is what Frank Bainimarama and the Interim Administration has been working towards. However, the international community has been so obsessed with the elections and democracy that they are blind to see the fundamental ills that the clean-up process is supposed to address. Setting up of the Council for Building a Better Fiji for All is a positive step in this direction, to attempt to root out the evils of the coup culture.

The recent statement from the deposed Prime Minister against this charter from his safety and exile in Mavana in Lau is understandable. This is because such a charter and clean up will remove the fodder of deceit and racial divisiveness which has been putting Qarase’s fundamentalist nationalist party in power under the guise of democracy. It is guise of democracy because in remote villages there is little semblance of democracy, people vote who the chiefs tell them to vote. In addition the nationalist propaganda and handout mentality under the guise of the racist affirmative action ensures that the vote could be easily bought at taxpayer expense from improvised simple villagers. The poverty in rural and urban Fiji have gone from bad to worse under past nationalist regimes where a new breed of rich favoured indigenous Fijians, the Fijian Holdings club, have been getting richer and have now created a new Fijian elite under Qarase regime. They have been the recipients of fruits of the racist affirmative action! Apart from New Zealand’s myopic views on Fiji, Australia’s John Howard has also revealed his hypocrisy.

In trying to tackle child-abuse crisis plaguing many indigenous communities, Australian Prime Minister Howard last week has moved to take over the Northern Territories Aboriginal lands and effectively strip thousands of indigenous people of their fundamental human rights.

John Howard has justified his breach of constitution with a simple rhetoric: “"What matters more, the Constitutional niceties, or the care and protection of young children?"

How conveniently he forgets: "What matters more, the Constitutional niceties, or saving Fiji from total corruption, financial and moral bankruptcy and heading towards social upheaval?"

Michael Green, the expelled High Commissioner from Fiji might have been doing what his Government asked but did his Government have the right to ask Green to go to subordinate officers and encourage them to overthrow Bainimarama? Was that legal, ethical, moral or under any convention?

They got it wrong in Solomons. They got it wrong in Tonga. They believe the 20 to 30 year old green NGO staff who have little real life experience, have no idea of what makes a country tick, have no understanding of economics and have no long-term vision. Yet they are the ones who write up any kind of reports to maintain their pay, flow of funds and New Zealand and Australia take such jaundiced reports as the gospel truth. Fiji is going to be the same: bullied into submission while corruption/economic destruction takes it on the road to Zimbabwe's hyper inflation! Now, wouldn't that be in interest of Australia and New Zealand?

It is essential for Australia and New Zealand to understand how democracy works in third world poor countries and how the leaders there can exploit it for their personal and political gains while showing all the niceties of a democratic government. The SDL Governments showed this deceit in the past.

Therefore should New Zealand and Australia wish to know more about the Pacific, they need to employ some Pacific and Fiji migrants in their Foreign Affairs to understand the Pacific, not second hand from teenage NGO staff or shoddily fed from their High Commission’s cocktail- circuit- blazing and night –club partying staff. Furthermore, it is in interest of New Zealand and Australia to make Fiji into a vibrant and thriving democracy like them. To do this they should stop kicking Fiji in the teeth and give it a helping hand.

Like her big brother neighbour and John Howard, Helen Clark also needs to ask: What matters more, the Constitutional niceties, or promoting and strengthening democracy in Fiji and removing the underlying reasons for the coup culture? The ball now is in New Zealand’s court to show its political and regional maturity in strengthening a fledging democracy in Fiji.

E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz
(About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is an Auckland-based third generation Indo Fijian community worker, a commentator on Fiji affairs, a human rights activist and an advocate of good governance.)

ITS HAPPENED - FHL & FDB UNDER MICROSCOPE

2007-06-29T06:39:00.000-07:00

We reported some time ago the corruption at the FHL and the FDB with Qarase as the pivotal link between these organisations, as well as the 2000 coup. Now the FICAC has finally raided these organisations. Read the backgorund story here.

PRO-DEMOCRACY OR TERRORISM ?

2007-06-24T00:30:00.000-07:00

The so-called pro-democracy blogs have turned out to be nothing more than active promoters of racism and terrorism. Lets have a look at two such blogs, run by people closely affiliated with the SDL party.

{1} First is the Truth in Fiji blog run directly by the SDL. Very recently, the blog suspiciously deleted all its previous postings (almost all containing hate, racism and terrorism content), while briefly claiming they had been hacked. There is now evidence that suggests this was done deliberately by the SDL bloggers themselves, as the legal noose was getting tighter. One of the most interesting and revealing posts was one in which the SDL bloggers claimed that "Some of their documents had gone missing and that Loyal Fijian and others were using". While that and other posts have now been deleted, thankfully our IT personnel had taken some snapshots of the same last week, and we are now able to show you that particular post. Here it is ... you judge whether this is pro-democracy or simply terrorism ...

The letters referred to in the SDL post and claimed to be theirs, are of course the following posted by Loyal Fijian ... this ...

and this ...

{2} Now for the WFC blog which being another SDL run blog, has very quickly shown its true colours as being a terrorist site, promoting hate, racism and terrorism. Its shameful that the international media have referred to them as a pro-democracy blog, but then again, there are many more blind in this world, then we are made to believe. You may visit these blogs yourselves and judge for yourself. One example from the WFC blog is shown below ... you judge ...

Wake up law keepers ... there is enough evidence to take the people behind these blogs to task ... and nip this problem in the bud !

Mr Fiji

RAPISTS & THUGS RUN METHODIST CHURCH

2007-06-19T15:31:00.000-07:00

June 18, 2007 4:50 PM Anonymous writes ...

{1} Rev Ame Tugaue, General Secretary, Methodist Church Fji:

Ask any Lelean Memorial School Old Scholar and they will tell you what a thug posing in the cloth Rev Ame is. This is his modus operandi...he'd strut the corridors, compound and dormitories of the school at night hoping to catch young teenage lovers and if anyone is caught, they go through intense interrogation which also includes the sexual details. He would have intelligence on the ground to monitor lovers' letter writing etc. This is a man of the cloth who revels in sexual fantasies through his students. He is nothing but a thug.
Note from Admin: I am also aware of Rev Tugaue been sent to exile in the islands after bashing up some people in Davuilevu, while he was a Reverend at Lelean Memorial School.

{2} Rev Waqairatu Tuikilakila, Assistant Secretary General, Methodist Church Fiji:

As for Rev Waqairatu Tuikilakila ask him what he did to one of the young female relative that lived with him who now struts the street of Suva as a prostitute when she ran away from his care at the tender age of 14. Kemudrau na i talatala kua na vosa ka me drau kelia mada na malamala mai na matamudrau se bera ni drau via vunauci keimami tiko na kaiviti. Thank you for the post which is right on the nail.

Note from Admin: The following were posted at RESIST-RFC comments sections ...

(a) June 20, 2007 2:00 PM Anonymous said...
Tuikilakila and Ame are devious men who are not even fit to be called Reverends. They are thugs in disguise and engage in unGodly activities. Tuikilakila better watch himself. One of his relatives that was also posing as a man of God and who used to abuse his wife met a violent death on the road in NZ and I hope this man gets the same.

(b) June 20, 2007 2:04 PM Anonymous said...
BTW Tuikilakila and the mistress of spinyarn Laisa Digitaki are from the same island. Note the connection???? Drau yavu bavulu sega nomudrau tamata. Drau tikolo de drau qai vakalutu dromutaki na ka dau caka vei ira na kaisi ena gauna makawa. Would be interesting to see where Ame was posted in the islands..lemme guess Moala? Hahahaha! Oilei da mai lasutaki na viavia dua na ka sa tu vei ira na macawa qo. Rev Ame was supposed to have been sacked a long time ago. He has a violent streak and you can ask any LMS old student who knows what he used to do to them beating them senseless and punching people. Magaitinamudrau drau yavu sona lelevu. Kua na vakayagataka tiko na lotu me drau mai lasu tiko kina drau yavu dau modro gone.

THE METHODIST CHURCH MEDDLES ON ...

2007-06-14T01:21:00.000-07:00

A Blogger writes ...

Like that well known Rev Manasa Lasaro, in recent times another vocal personality has emerged. He is of course their current Secretary General, Reverend Ame Tugaue.

Reverend Tugaue was exiled to the Islands of the Lau Group by the Methodist Chruch in the 1970's following his violent actions against other citizens of Fiji. He was a Reverend then, and he is a Reverend now. It seems Reverend Tugaue has not changed, even though his exile to the islands was meant to rehabilitate him.

What has changed however is that the rogue group of people within the ranks of the Methodist Church have taken control of the Church, and have highly politicized the orgnisation, which is for the promotion of peace and gods teachings. This group, since the late 1980's have taken an extremist nationalistic political leaning and are perpetuating ungodly pronouncements and actions against sections of the community, and now the state.

Through this blog, I request the RFMF and the IG to also put an eagles eye into the affairs and deeds of the members of the Methodist Church, and to take them to task, as this organisation is being used to incite the population not only against the state, but also against a significant section of the community.

PLEASE READ ON FOR MORE ...

The Methodist Church has a very colourful recent history.

One Reverend Manasa Lasaro, the then General Secretary, came into prominence during and after 1987, and was instrumental in forcing through the Sunday bans at the time.

The Methodist Church has for a long time been a pressure group for the Taukei Movement, which is an extremist organisation promoting racism and actively campaigning against Indian participation in Governance and Decision Making.

As such associations and their continued outbursts are ungodly, and anti-Christ like, one wonders what this organisation really stands for.

STEALING, DECEIT, LOOTING ALL WITHIN THE SDL PARTY

2007-06-12T22:37:00.000-07:00

If SDL was characterised by Stealing, Deceit, and Looting from within, what can we say about what they were doing to the nation ? OH MY LORD !

IS SDL A GONER?
June 13th, 2007 by whyfijiscrying

Ni sa Bula,
Please try and forward this mail around so that we can all be aware of whats happening with the SDL Party too. I HAVE BEEN RELIABLY INFORMED THAT SDL PARTY ELECTION STRATEGISTS HAVE BROKEN APART AND ARE NO LONGER WITH SDL. I HAVE YET TO CONFIRM SOME OF THEM ACTIVELY ORGANIZING THE FORMATION OF A NEW FIJIAN PARTY.

SDL CORE Campaign Strategists ARE NO LONGER a together as a UNIT AS THEY USED TO BE.. Infact, after pulling victory in the 2006 General Elections, many differences surfaced in between them that had torn them apart and away from each other thus destroying the UNIT. We got hold of the list of Laisenia Qarase’s election engineers.

SDL ELECTION INNER CIRCLE

1.Campaign Leader: Laisenia Qarase
2.Chief Strategists: Navitalai Naisoro
3.Campaign Director: Jale Baba
4.Manager Finance and Operations: Inia Tueli
5.Manager Information Technology and Communications: Mosese Vosarogo
6.Manager Media and Research: Viliame Sotia

Where are they now?

1. Chief Strategists: Navitalai Naisoro
No longer with SDL Party. Was not happy with how his boy and loyalist Jale Baba was disgracefully forced to resign from the post of SDL National Director after 2006 General Elections. Non communicado with the current SDL President RT Kalokalo Loki. RT Loki was reportedly said to be behind the move to take Jale Baba out. Weeks before the 2006 elections polling, Navi Naisoro had to defend Jale Baba and pleaded with Qarase to keep him after a surge was initiated by other Inner Circle members (I.Tueli, M.Vosarogo and V.Sotia) to sack Jale Baba and get him out of the Campaign Inner Circle.Jale Baba was given mercy by Qarase and through Navi Naisoro, fortunately survived this ordeal.

2. Campaign Director: Jale Baba
Fallen from grace and down and out. Reportedly said to be punched by Simi Rasova at the Union Club bar straight after the 2006 General Election. Simi Rasova replaced Jale Baba as SDL National Director and this did not go well with Jale Baba. Apart from all his illegal activities such as obtaining money by extortion, ripping off land owners by inefficient logging of their Mahogany, misusing SDL Campaign money by playing double role as a service provider. He was reported to have formed ghost companies to channel almost 75% of SDL initial $1.5 million election budget. Disgracefully forced to resign from SDL Party and is reportedly cursing everyone he knows to be involved with the party including Qarase. Close associates who was with him on December 5th said he gave a big cheer after the coup was confirmed on radio news. SDL Party President Rt Kalokalo Loki later issued a disclaimer notice against Jale Baba in the Newspapers to warn innocent citizens that SDL will not have anything to do with Jale Baba’s cons. HE HAD BEEN OFFICIALLY DECLARED A BANKRUPT BY THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI. He is now President of Union Club and is now said to be surviving off its funds. Had sacked former Union Club Manager and another secretary and had recruited his kaivata to be manager and his niece Tuisalalo to be his secretary. Tuisalalo was reported to be his private secretary all the way from when he conned Mahogany landowners, SDL Campaign fund and now continues with Union Club.

3. Manager Operations and Finance: Inia Tueli
Initiated a move to sack Jale Baba out of the SDL Campaign Inner Circle. Grouped up with M. Vosarogo and V.Sotia and managed to get the support of the party President, RT Kalokalo Loki. Jale Baba was said to be on the verge of breaking down in front of then PM Qarase to beg his mercy to be retained until after elections. According to reliable sources, Navi Naisoro had to beg Qarase to forgive Baba and give him a second chance. Tueli was effectively the Campaign Director during the polling since Jale Baba was observed to be lost in his own world and had to resort to marijuana. One day, Jale Baba reported to the Campaign office with underwear and long sleeve shirt minus trousers and the woman cleaner had to hide herself in disgrace. Straight after elections, Tueli went back to his company Strategic Air Service Limited and initiated a move to sack all management board members including Chairman, Navitalai Naisoro and Chief Executive Officer, Waisoni Nata. Both Naisoro and Nata had to take a nosedive out after Tueli implicated them of financial mismanagment and took them to court.

Wow

4. Manager Information Technology and Communications: Mosese Vosarogo
Was said to be the youngest member of the SDL Campaign Inner Circle and was once a Navi Naisoro and Jale Baba loyalist. Was questioned twice by the military of his role with the SDL Party and the Voter Tracker software. The voter tracker software was used by the SDL Party to facilitate its victory in the last General Elections.Said to have gone behind Jale Baba’s back and grouped up with I.Tueli and V.Sotia to seek Qarase’s approval to sack Jale Baba out of the CAMPAIGN INNER CIRCLE. Recently had a commotion with Jale Baba at the Union Club bar. Witnesses said the two were conversing well but then all of a sudden, M. Vosarogo started swearing at J. Baba. J.Baba fell M. Vosarogo down with a right jab. Information has it that he is infact a Matanitu Vanua loyalist eavesdropping at the SDL Party but close associates have confirmed that he is planning to sell the voter tracker software packadge to all political parties in the next general elections.

5. Manager Media and Research: Viliame Sotia
Viliame Sotia is the Party’s POLITICAL SCIENTIST. He is said to be the most deadliest strategist of them all. He graduated with a degree in Political Science from USP and was also the unofficial political advisor to the SDL President Rt Kalokalo Loki. He was instrumental in the sacking off Jale Baba from the National Director post and enginnered Rajesh Singhs outburst against Ro Temumu Kepa and Laisenia Qarase. Said to have advised Rajesh Singh to challenge Ro Temumu Kepa’s stand on the 2003 SPG Account. They were both sacked but after the coup, we received him here at the hills after he offered some informations to us which made Teleni very happy with him. Teleni himslef made arrangement for a teaching position for Viliame Sotia who is now at Dudley High School.

There you go! SDL party may be existing but only by name via the courage of National Director Peceli Kinivuwai. SDL do not have the expertise to replace the INNER CIRCLE. Apart from Kinivuwai, whats left of the party now are unqualified and inexperienced grog swipers that have no experience what so ever in electioneering at national level.

THERE YOU GO.
posted at the WFC site !

QARASE - SDL FRAUD in Fiji Elections (2001, 2006)

2007-06-09T17:36:00.000-07:00

TAINTED ELECTIONS

CHAPTER 26 of the book: "From election to coup in Fiji"
http://epress.anu.edu.au/fiji/pdf/ch26.pdf
{ http://epress.anu.edu.au/fiji/pdf_instructions.html }

It’s a bald question, but one that’s surely unavoidable after the combined
experiences of 2001 and 2006: is it possible ever to hold free and fair elections
in Fiji anymore?
Since 2001, a culture of vote-buying, poll-rigging and manipulation has
seeped into our electoral process and threatens to destroy the very foundations
of our democratic traditions and undermine the integrity of our elections.
The exact nature and extent of the behind-the-scenes manipulation to
engineer the results of the 2006 polls are not fully known, but enough credible
evidence is available to cast serious doubts on the integrity of the 2006 election.
Likewise the 2001 general election. Certainly, no critical observer could give
them a clean bill of health, and one notices that even the European Union
(EU) observer mission in its final report has this time fallen short of declaring
the elections free and fair. Indeed, the numerous concerns it has raised and the
recommendations it has made, on the conduct of the 2006 and future polls
is tantamount to saying, in diplomatic language, that the 2006 election was
seriously flawed.
A local observer, Father David Arms, is not so constrained in his criticism
of the racial bias and other malpractices he observed during the 2006 poll – to
the point where he has refused to declare the elections free and fair. His final
observations are worth noting for anyone interested in an honest review of the
2006 poll. He concluded that the ethnic imbalance among those conducting the
348 from election to coup in fiji
elections was ‘a serious blotch on the integrity of the whole electoral process’.
Father Arms further noted:
On the basis particularly of the ethnic bias which was so pervasive in the 2006 elections,
I cannot possibly give a verdict that they were ‘free and fair’.
The elections of 2006 were so administratively biased that the overall results
were undoubtedly influenced thereby.
Many of Father Arms’ observations and concerns are similar to those held
by the Fiji Labour Party (FLP ), and are contained in our fairly comprehensive
report to the EU observer mission and the Electoral Commission. I am
of the opinion that much of the mess and malpractice that characterized
the 2006 poll, deliberate or otherwise, could have been avoided had the
Electoral Commission paid heed to a lengthy report I sent to the chairman
of the Commission as early as 5 May 2005 highlighting the main problems
that marred the 2001 election and urging him to ensure they were not
repeated.
The 2001 general election
As a precursor to the 2006 poll, the 2001 election set the trend for what
should have been expected. For the first time in Fiji’s electoral history, there
was massive vote-buying in the lead-up to the 2001 general election by the
Laisenia Qarase-led interim administration – as evidenced by the $30 million
agricultural scam, currently before the courts. No other government before
this had ever been tainted by such a blatant vote-buying exercise.
The FLP has consistently held that the 2001 general election was not free
and fair – marred by vote-buying/bribery, defective electoral rolls, official bias
and systematic vote-rigging. As a result, the FLP was deprived of victory in
at least six marginal Open constituencies, which altered the results in favour
of the Soqosoqo ni Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL).
A detailed report highlighting cases relating to vote-rigging, tampering
with ballot papers and ballot boxes was submitted to the then Supervisor of
Elections, Walter Rigamoto, but he failed to investigate any of these, or to
treat the matter with the seriousness it deserved. His failure to do so meant
that similar malpractices and electoral fraud were again practised in the 2006
election.
tainted elections 349
The 2006 election
The conduct of the 2006 poll was deeply flawed right from the beginning
– starting with the voter registration exercise. I must also comment critically on
the fact that the Supervisor of Elections, Semesa Karavaki, was on study leave
until January 2006 – just four months before the May election. In his absence,
Tomasi Tui was sent from the Prime Minister’s office as Deputy Supervisor
– the whole process was controlled from the Prime Minister’s office. Tui was
subsequently promoted to be Commissioner Eastern.
Flawed voter registration
To begin with, house-to-house voter registration was confined to a mere two
weeks, 12–23 September 2005 – clearly not enough time to compile an entirely
new electoral roll. Requests by political parties to have the house-to-house
registration period extended were not granted.
Furthermore, the process was highly politicized and lacked transparency;
enumerators were hand-picked by staff of the Elections Office and District
Offices – often friends and family of officials. Voter registration teams were
headed by persons who were politically affiliated and not impartial. A case
in point is that of Prem Singh, a National Federation Party (NFP) candidate
for the Nadi Open constituency, who was assigned registration and voter
education activities by virtue of his being an advisory councillor. Subsequently,
irregularities in the registration of voters in the Nadi Open constituency were
noticed – some 1,400 voters in localities known to be FLP strongholds were
found registered in the adjacent rural constituency of Yasawa/Nawaka Open.
Unfortunately for him, the displacement of these voters was picked up by FLP
branch representatives, and the matter rectified.
There was also gross ethnic imbalance in the recruitment of enumerators.
Out of a total of 4,284 enumerators, only 407 were Indians; 155 were from
other minority communities, while the rest, 3,722, were indigenous Fijians.
This would clearly have created communication problems for Indians in rural
areas, and for the elderly, many of whom cannot speak English. And, no doubt,
such biased recruitment was responsible for much of the mess in the voter
registration process, as well as for the very high number of invalid votes in the
2006 election compared with the 2001 election.
350 from election to coup in fiji
Parliamentary questions from the FLP asking for details on enumerators for
each constituency were rejected by the Prime Minister, who made the ludicrous
claim that such information was of a confidential nature. His refusal to provide
the information underscored the lack of transparency in the process, and further
fuelled suspicion that something was afoot.
In the past, school teachers, civil servants and political parties conducted
the registration of voters. Why was this convention not followed in the 2006
election?
The FLP-conducted surveys of the registration process found the following
major flaws/discrepancies:
• Many Indian households in rural and urban areas were not visited by
enumerators – leaving large segments of Indian voters unregistered. In
Labasa, for instance, just a three-day survey by the FLP in March 2006
uncovered 805 voters who had not been registered. Likewise, significant
numbers of voters in Korovuto, Nawaicoba and Meigunya in Nadi were
not registered.
• Hundreds of voters were either not given registration slips to show they
had registered or were given blank slips – they were told slips were not
necessary.
• People living in the same house were registered to vote in different
constituencies – a subtle way of disenfranchising voters, as they would
not be aware that their names were actually on the rolls of adjacent
constituencies. They would simply assume that their names were missing
from electoral rolls. Such attempts to disenfranchise voters would have
made a crucial difference in closely fought Open constituencies, particularly
those in the Central Division.
• For some reason, registration was not carried out on weekends when
most people can be found at home. Enumerators did not make call-back
visits.
• Faulty registration slips – numerous cases of names incorrectly entered,
blanks left for constituencies or slips tagged ‘to be decided’ – rendered the
entire registration invalid.
• Married women were deliberately asked to register under their maiden
names – again this would have disenfranchised the voter.
tainted elections 351
• Hundreds of bizarre cases were noted of people listed in wrong
constituencies that were not even borderline cases. The following cases
recorded in the Ba, Lautoka and Nadi districts serve as illustration:
- 1,300–1,500 voters in the settlements of Nalovo and Uciwai, well within the
boundary of the Nadi Rural Indian Communal constituency, were registered
in the Nadroga Indian Communal constituency
- over 1,000 residents from Sariyawa, Savusavu, Waica and Momi were
registered in the Nadroga Indian Communal constituency instead of Nadi
Rural Indian constituency
- over 1,000 voters from the Nadroga Indian Communal constituency were
wrongly listed in the Nadi Rural Indian Communal constituency
- 1,321 voters were wrongly listed in the Ba West Indian Communal
constituency instead of the Ba East Indian Communal constituency
- 373 voters from the Ba Open constituency were listed in the Magodro Open
constituency
- about 600 voters residing in Meigunya and Votualevu in the Nadi Urban
Indian constituency were registered instead in the Nadi Rural Indian
constituency
- 1,900 residents, mostly Fijians, from the Magodro Open constituency were
listed in the Vuda Open constituency
- I ndian and General voters were also found registered in Fijian Communal
constituencies
- Some 2,000 voters from the Vuda Indian Communal constituency were
registered elsewhere, particularly the Lautoka Rural Indian constituency.
Such high numbers of discrepancies, irregularities and anomalies are clear
evidence of a calculated and orchestrated move to disenfranchise Indian voters.
They were too numerous to be merely accidental omissions or errors.
These irregularities/anomalies were regularly brought to the attention of
the Supervisor of Elections and the Electoral Commission as they surfaced.
In most cases, however, they remained uncorrected by polling day, often
despite assurances that they would be addressed. In the case of the 1,321
voters from the Ba East Indian Communal constituency wrongly listed in
the Ba West Indian Communal constituency, although the Elections Office
agreed to rectify a significant number of these, during polling week it was
discovered that no such rectification had indeed been made.
352 from election to coup in fiji
Observer missions have been unanimous in their criticism of flaws in the
registration process that saw scores, if not hundreds, of voters turn up at the
polling stations only to be told their names could not be found on the electoral
rolls. These people were effectively disenfranchised. And, as I have mentioned
earlier, in closely fought open seats, such malpractices made a difference to
the final result.
The EU observer mission noted that in a fifth of all polling stations visited,
a number of voters were denied their right to vote. Names were misspelled,
constituencies were wrongly allocated, and eligible voters were not registered.
Some registered in the Communal constituencies, but not in the Open
constituencies, should have been allowed to vote but were not.
Vote-buying
Blatant vote-buying/bribery by the SDL continued to be a feature of the 2006
general election, although not to the same extent perhaps as in the agricultural
scam prior to the 2001 poll, when fishing boats, brush cutters, cooking utensils
and money were blatantly handed out.
Soon after it had announced the dates for the 2006 general election, the
SDL began giving out money for education, ostensibly earmarked for the
poor. The point is that in the past five years since its inception, the SDL had
not once spared a thought for these struggling students from poor families, at
least to public knowledge. In another unprecedented move, Indian religious
organizations and women’s groups this time received money, pots and pans
etc. Just two days before polling began, TV showed footage of an Indian man
overwhelmed by the generosity of the Prime Minister who had gifted a brush
cutter to him after his was stolen. Such altruistic gestures from the PM had
been unheard of in the previous five years!
SDL’s campaign director Jale Baba openly boasted that the party had
spent $7.5 million for the 2006 election campaign. Where did the money
go? And, more interestingly, where did such a large amount of cash come
from? Was it corrupt money? The campaign could not have cost so much.
It is well known that money was handed out to chiefs in the Ba Province,
even during polling week. Buying votes in any form is a criminal act under
the Electoral Act.
tainted elections 353
Failure to comply with the Electoral Act
Considering all the errors, irregularities, anomalies and omissions that surfaced
during the registration process, it was important that the final electoral rolls
be published in time to allow thorough scrutiny. Sections 22 and 23 of the
Electoral Act provide a mandatory period of 42 days for objections to be lodged
in regard to incorrect entries in the electoral rolls and their settlement by the
Elections Office.
This important requirement was not met. Provisional rolls carrying only
registrations made up until 31 December 2005 were released to political parties
on 17 February 2006. The public was given a mere two working weeks to
scrutinize the rolls, from Thursday 23 February to 13 March 2006. The main
roll closed on 24 March. All registration after this was to go in a supplementary
roll, with registration finally closing on 4 April – a week after the writ of
election was issued. The so-called main roll, clearly a misnomer, was released
to political parties in batches from 29 March onwards, and thereafter opened
for public scrutiny.
Our major concern, however, is that the final main roll, which included the
provisional and supplementary rolls, was not released until 27 April – and then
only for 33 (less than half the) constituencies. Another 35 rolls were released
on 29 April, a week before polling started. And the final three came out on 2
May. These were for the Nasinu/Rewa Open, the Magodro Open and the Nadi
Open constituencies – giving barely three days for voters to scrutinize the rolls.
Clearly the Supervisor of Elections and the Electoral Commission had failed
to meet their obligations under the Electoral Act as far as publication of the
electoral rolls was concerned. They had also failed to update the electoral rolls
each year, as required by the Act.
Furthermore, the Supervisor of Elections failed to comply with the requirement
of the Act to gazette the names of candidates standing for each constituency,
following their nominations. He also failed to meet the requirement to gazette
all polling stations, and dates for the opening and closure of each station, as
required under the Electoral Act. Had this been done, a lot of the confusion,
and, in at least two instances, unscheduled polling without the knowledge of
most political parties and candidates (except for the SDL), would have been
avoided. Dates for polling at various stations kept changing right into polling
354 from election to coup in fiji
week. It was not until after polling, when the count was nearing its end at the
Veiuto Centre, that a gazette notice was issued listing schedules for polling
stations; it was backdated to comply with the Act. The Electoral Commission
must be held equally guilty for this omission. Indeed, they rendered themselves
culpable by advising that all preparations for the proper conduct of the election
would be completed before polling began.
It is clear that the Office of the Supervisor of Elections was just not ready for
the rushed national poll beginning on 6 May 2006. The Supervisor of Elections
failed in his duty to inform the Prime Minister of this fact when he was asked
if he would be ready in time for early elections.
Both the Supervisor of Elections and the Electoral Commission must accept
full responsibility for the incompetence, the inefficiencies, the delays and the
shambles that characterized the 2006 poll. Having given the nation, and the
Prime Minister, over-confident assurances that the electoral machinery would
be ready for the rushed poll, they must now accept the blame for seriously
compromising the integrity of the 2006 general election.
Indian voters misled by the Elections Office
Indian voters were told in advertisements placed by the Elections Office that they
could continue to register until 8 July 2006, well after elections were over, when
advertisements in Fijian and English gave the correct date of 4 April 2006.
How-to-vote TV commercials placed by the Elections Office informed Indian
voters they could vote by ticking either above or below the line, when to tick
below the line rendered the vote invalid. In contrast, the Fijian and English
versions of the advertisements gave the correct information. Despite repeated
complaints by the FLP, the incorrect Hindi advertisement was not removed
until I personally called up the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Graham
Leung, after 8 pm on Friday 5 May, the eve of the polls, to complain. He then
ordered television officials to remove it.
Excessive printing of ballot papers
The FLP has reliable information that excessive ballot papers were printed
for a number of constituencies. We believe that these were used to stuff ballot
boxes in certain crucial constituencies, as in 2001. Candidates, for instance,
are baffled by the very high number of ballots cast in the Nasinu/Nausori
tainted elections 355
Communal constituencies – numbers which belie the low voter turn-out
experienced – and by the lack of correlation between Communal votes and
those cast for the open seats.
Polling
The first day of polling was an utter shambles, as everyone knows. This is despite
assurances by the Supervisor of Elections through the media that his Office
was ‘ready to roll’ come 7 am Saturday 6 May. The truth is that ballot papers
were not ready at most of the polling stations scheduled to open at 7 am on 6
May. A number of polling stations did not open until well into the afternoon
– the polling station at Kalabo opened at 1.30 pm, that at Colo-I-Suva at 12
noon – but the loss in polling time was never made up.
The problem with unavailability of ballot papers plagued various stations
throughout the week. It caused unnecessary frustration to voters who had to
queue for hours on end, and in some cases walk away without voting because
the polling station had either not received the ballot papers or had run out of
them. Here again, there was a noticeable racial and political bias that could not
be ignored. It was pretty obvious that, while polling for the indigenous Fijian
streams at almost all polling stations went on unhindered, it was the Indian
constituencies and those for other minorities that were affected.
Senior Labour executive and candidate for the Nasinu Indian Communal
seat, Krishna Datt, reckoned that much of the ‘mess’ was deliberate. ‘It is
designed to frustrate the process and disenfranchise Indian voters’, he said.
The Leader of the United Peoples Party, Mick Beddoes, expressed similar
sentiments in his report:
The scale of the disruptions and level of unpreparedness is far too extensive for it to be
a simple matter of mass incompetence on the part of the Electoral Commission and the
Supervisor of Elections and his officials.
The fact that the Fijian voters, ballot boxes and ballot papers were in adequate
supply and in a state of preparedness and [that] they were voting in many cases
for up to 4–5 hours before the first General or Indian ballot papers and boxes
arrived, adds greater suspicion about the intent of electoral officials.1
The large numbers of voters who turned up to vote with registration slips, but
found their names missing from voter rolls, reflected the earlier deliberate mess356
from election to coup in fiji
up in the voter registration process. Had the Electoral Commission accepted
my request made in May 2005 that registration forms be made accountable
documents, this problem would have been avoided. As the problem began to
surface with consistent regularity at polling stations, a request was made to the
Electoral Commission that voters with registration slips whose names were not
on electoral rolls be allowed to vote. This is the Commission’s response:
If a person’s name does not appear on the electoral rolls, that person is not a registered
voter and, therefore, not entitled to vote.
This response was both disappointing and unexpected, because the voter was
being deprived of his or her democratic right to vote, not through any fault of
his or her own, but because of a mess-up by the Elections Office, of which the
Commission had been kept fully informed. It also failed to appreciate that voting
is compulsory in Fiji, and a denial of a person’s right to vote is tantamount to
disenfranchising the voter.
The American Ambassador, Larry Dinger, clearly concerned at the high
number of voters being turned away because of missing names, pointed out
that:
In my country, problems like this of missing names are catered for when a provisional roll
is created so that the person can vote and his vote counted.2
In some cases where the presiding officer did allow such people to vote, these
votes were kept separate, but in the end not included in the final count.
In tightly contested marginal seats, such as the Laucala Open, which was lost
by the Labour Party by a mere 11 votes, missing names become crucial.
Nasinu polling
At least 200,000 people live in the Suva/Nausori corridor – most of them travel
to Suva to work. Due to the very heavy traffic congestion during peak hours,
workers generally leave home well before 7 am to get to the city by reporting time
at 8 am. Likewise, in the evenings, with a 5 pm knock-off on week-days, they
do not get home until 6 pm or after. Despite these considerations, all polling
stations in the heavily populated Nasinu region were scheduled to close at 5
pm. This is contrary to past practice. Even though the Commissioner Central
said presiding officers had the discretion to stay open late, almost all polling
tainted elections 357
stations closed promptly at 5 pm, discouraging voters from queuing to vote.
In the rare cases where polling stations did stay open, they conveniently found
that they had run out of ballot papers. The FLP made several written as well
as verbal requests to election officials to accommodate voters who turned up
after 5 pm, but to no avail.
The impression thus created, was that every effort was being made to
frustrate voting rather than facilitate it. As far as the FLP is concerned, this
was an orchestrated plan to frustrate Labour supporters from voting in these
crucial seats – it must be noted that constituencies in the Nasinu area have large
numbers of low-paid workers and squatters who traditionally vote Labour.
One must also note that polling stations on a number of occasions did not
open at 7 am as scheduled, but several hours later. To cite a few examples:
• On 6 May, the Training and Productive Authority of Fiji polling station
opened at 11.30 am instead of 7 am – hundreds of voters who had turned
up early to vote went away frustrated
• On 6 and 8 May, Nepani polling station opened at 9 am instead of 7 am
– a number of FLP supporters went away without voting; it closed at 5
pm sharp
• At Rishikul Primary School, on 10 May, polling started one and a half
hours late but finished promptly at 5 pm
• At Wailoku, polling finished at 3 pm even though voters were lined up to
vote
• At the Assemblies of God Primary School polling station in Suva on 6
May, polling began late in the morning but ended sharply at 5 pm. It was
noticed that, while Fijian voters were allowed in to vote after 5 pm, Indians
were refused entry.
Unscheduled polling
As mentioned earlier, the Elections Office kept making last-minute changes to
polling schedules that were not gazetted as required under the Electoral Act. Once
polling programs had been finalized and publicized, they should not have been
changed. If changes were absolutely necessary due to unforeseen circumstances,
then it was the responsibility of the election officials to ensure that all candidates
and political parties were notified of the change, in writing.
358 from election to coup in fiji
The most bizarre case was the incident at the Rishikul Nadera Primary School
on Thursday 11 May. Polling at the primary school in Reba Circle was not
scheduled to take place until Friday 12 May. For some inexplicable reason, the
Elections Office decided to move polling there forward to Thursday 11 May
without notifying all political parties or candidates. Mystifyingly, only the SDL
was aware of the changed polling schedule at this station and were there to kick
it off. Others heard about it closer to noon. Several serious concerns arise:
• Why was a last minute switch necessary?
• Why were other candidates and political parties not informed of the switch,
but SDL was?
• How could election officials allow ballot boxes to be opened in the morning
without other candidates or their agents being present?
Clearly, there was mischief afoot. Inquiries by the Labour candidate, Vijay
Nair, disclosed that the directive to hold polling one day ahead of schedule
was issued by the District Officer’s office in Suva. This incident is a clear case
of collusion between election officials and the SDL. It becomes even more
significant considering that Nair lost this seat by a mere 11 votes. Surprisingly,
none of the observer missions made note of this incident. Labour’s request that
voting that took place at this particular station on Thursday 11 be disallowed
was ignored by the Electoral Commission.
Such malpractices added to the general air of suspicion regarding the
impartiality of the Electoral Office. The fact that a serious incident of this
nature can be treated so casually by those in authority bodes ill for future
elections in Fiji.
Ballot boxes and the count
There were numerous mishaps with ballot boxes that should never have been
tolerated. Boxes breaking up, as occurred in 2006, is something unheard of
in Fiji’s electoral experience. Ballot boxes were not properly sealed – a point
noted even by observer missions. The EU mission recommended that in future
plastic boxes be used to ensure greater security. The law requires ballot boxes
to be properly sealed leaving no room for tampering with ballot papers. By
failing to ensure this, the Elections Office breached section 86 (1) (a) of the
Electoral Act.
tainted elections 359
There were concerns about ballot boxes being left unguarded for hours at
polling stations before they were transported to the count centre. One such
instance occurred on Tuesday 9 May at the Naivitavaya Church Hall polling
station for the Laucala Open constituency. The ballot boxes were left unattended
for three hours until 9 pm, while the presiding officer went to drink grog at
the SDL shed. It wasn’t until a complaint was lodged with the Elections Office
that the boxes were finally taken to the Flagstaff operations centre. The entire
incident was repeated the following day. This case is particularly significant
because ballot papers for Box No. C404L from this polling station could not
be reconciled at the count. According to the presiding officer, the total number
of ballot papers issued was 1,200; yet total votes cast were only 463 – what
happened to the balance of 737 ballot papers?
From this same polling station, five ballot boxes were placed aside following
queries from FLP agents because papers could not be reconciled. However, a
little later, the count team-leader said he had spoken to the presiding officer,
who said he had made a mistake in stating the number of ballot papers issued.
They then brought back the boxes put aside to include them in the count.
Surprisingly, however, only four not five boxes were brought back. What
happened to the fifth box? There was an absolute lack of transparency in
dealing with this complaint. And how could the presiding officer have made
such a huge mistake in stating the total number of ballot papers issued? Was
he grossly incompetent or just plain dishonest?
Another questionable incident concerned Box No. C579 from the Vatuwaqa
Church Hall polling station. Here the total votes cast were 12; total ballot
papers issued were also 12. Yet, the actual count revealed 21 ballot papers in
the box. Where did the extra ballot papers come from?
The FLP candidate for the Nausori/Naitasiri Open constituency maintains
that 15 extra ballot boxes were introduced at the count for her constituency.
The manner in which the count officials and the Returning Officer dealt with
this complaint again lacked transparency and smacked of political bias.
Count for the Laucala Open constituency
By the morning of Wednesday 17 May, it became obvious that the election,
so closely fought, now hinged on the marginal open seats in the Suva/Nasinu/
360 from election to coup in fiji
Nausori corridor. The Nausori/Naitasiri Open constituency, stuffed with 15
extra boxes, emerged a winner for the SDL.
The Samabula/Tamavua Open seat was wrested by Labour after a tough
count battle, during which the bias of election officials towards the SDL
became very obvious.
The Suva Open went to the SDL in another close battle, but it was confidently
expected that Labour would win the two Nasinu Open constituencies – the
Laucala Open and the Nasinu/Rewa Open – in view of the very high polling
(90%) for the corresponding Indian communal seats in these constituencies.
Labour had good preferences and too high a lead in the Nasinu/Rewa Open
constituency for games to be played there. The Laucala Open constituency thus
became crucial if the SDL were to win the election. Despite the very close run,
it should be noted that Mr Qarase had already hailed victory for the SDL. He
therefore had to win Laucala Open by hook or by crook.
As the first count drew to a close on Wednesday, there was confusion. It
seemed the SDL had asked for a recount, and polling agents were waiting for
a decision while count officials left the room to confer. However, as everyone
waited for the final outcome, suddenly, the count team began sealing up the
ballot papers even though an official announcement declaring the winner had
not been made. Just then, the Labour team at the count centre was informed
via a phone call that the radios were announcing an SDL victory for the seat
by 17 votes.
I was en route to Suva from the west when I received this stunning news.
I immediately called the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr Graham
Leung, and informed him that we wanted an immediate recount and that no
papers should leave the room in the meanwhile. It was as well that Mr Leung
came down because the Commissioner Central was obviously hell-bent on
packing up the ballot papers and having them removed from the room. Mr
Leung put a halt to this, and the Commissioner had no choice but to allow a
recount. In the recount stage, a serious breach of procedure took place. The
count team refused to recheck the validity of votes earlier declared valid. The
fact that, despite all this, the difference in votes was reduced from 17 to 11
was significant. Had the team rechecked the validity of the ‘valid’ votes, it is
possible that the result may have been overturned altogether.
tainted elections 361
Independent observer Father Arms, who was present at this stage, says in his
report that he had noted at least two invalid ballot papers put into the valid
votes box. He makes the following observation:
The last seat won that gave the SDL an absolute majority of seats, was won only on the
mis-conducted recount ….where the difference between the SDL and the FLP was only
11 votes. Had the FLP won that seat (which they might have under fairer circumstances
or if the recount had been conducted properly) it is possible they would have been able
to form a government…
If there had not been the mistakes that worked against the Indo-Fijians and if the electoral
administration had been properly balanced ethnically, another seat or two might have
gone the way of the FLP.
Add to this the unacceptably high percentage of invalid votes, and it becomes clear that
Fiji has a few important, but quite manageable, things to do in order to ensure free and
fair elections.3
Transporting and security of ballot boxes
There were other questionable and untoward happenings. For instance, why
were private security companies with very close links with the SDL used in the
Central Division to transport boxes to the count centre and to guard boxes?
Trucks belonging to Global Risks, owned by Sakiusa Raivoce, a known SDL
supporter and brother-in-law to Ratu Jone Kubuabola, were used to transport
ballot boxes. Sunia Cama’s (security/bailiff ) men, dubbed the ‘box boys’,
provided 24-hour security at the Veiuto count centre, sleeping on the premises.
It was not their job under the Electoral Act. Why could not the police provide
this security? Sunia Cama is a former professional boxer with known extremist
nationalist sympathies and a relative of Jale Baba, SDL’s campaign director.
Win Gate Marketing Company Ltd was also used to transport boxes. The
company has close association with Jale Baba in the carting of mahogany logs
from Tailevu North to the mills.
The Electoral Act requires transportation of ballot boxes to be carried out
by trustworthy companies. The above are too closely associated with the SDL
to be classified trustworthy or impartial.
I have attempted to highlight a few of the more glaring and questionable
practices and acts, and examples of non-compliance with electoral laws, that
362 from election to coup in fiji
compromised the integrity of the 2006 poll. The trend emerged in 2001. Fiji
has held eight general elections since independence. Apart from minor concerns
and hiccups, the integrity of the first six elections was beyond suspicion. High
standards and professionalism were generally the hallmarks of our electoral
machinery.
The manipulation, rigging and deliberate disenfranchisement that
characterized the 2001 and 2006 general elections should be a concern to all
citizens who believe in the integrity of the democratic process. What went wrong
occurred with too much regularity to be simply brushed off as incompetence
or oversight. As Shakespeare’s Hamlet would say, there was clearly ‘a method
to the madness’.
The neutrality of the civil service and the police is now a serious issue. In
2006, there was a palpable, pervasive aura of pro-SDL sentiment among both
the police and count officials, certainly in the Central Division count centre.
This could stem from the fact that there was gross racial imbalance in the
recruitment of count officials, and in the police presence on the premises.
Indeed, when the count seemed to go against the SDL, those present could
sense the palpable hostility through the body language, and even in the actions,
of officials and police. At times, the situation bordered on being dangerous for
FLP supporters. A clear demonstration of such bias was the spontaneous manner
in which Fijian count officials burst out singing as SDL emerged ‘victorious’.
Unless timely action is taken to weed out these malpractices, they will become
a cancer that will completely destroy the integrity of our electoral machinery.
Conclusion
The reports of all observer groups must be thoroughly studied, and their
recommendations implemented. The final report of the EU observer mission,
for instance, makes comprehensive recommendations to improve the system
and ensure greater security.
Major concerns are the registration and preparation of the electoral rolls and
the conduct of postal ballots. Since 2001, there has been an alarming increase in
the number of postal ballots despite the considerable increase in polling stations
to facilitate voting in remote areas. For instance, there were some 20,000 postal
ballots in 2006 – an unbelievably high number. Furthermore, postal ballots
tainted elections 363
were being allowed even after polling proper started, and late postal ballots
were included in the count well after the legal deadline of Monday 15 May.
The process clearly lacked transparency.
Postal ballots can be a vehicle for vote-rigging, and must be brought under
control. The EU observer mission report is highly critical of the manner in
which postal voting was conducted and reports as follows:
The vulnerability of the postal voting exercise to errors or fraud (impersonation) was
increased with the provision to allow postal voting in person to continue during the official
ordinary polling days and the fact that postal ballot boxes were not sealed overnight…
Party agents were not present throughout the postal polling process and in any case would
not have been allowed to stay at the premises overnight.
It is obvious that Fiji can no longer rely on the neutrality of the civil service
to conduct future elections. An independent body must be created to conduct
elections in order to restore the credibility of the process. Ethnic parity in the
appointment of elections officials, both in the Elections Office and at the polling
and counting stages, must be paramount.
All observer group reports have emphasised the need for Fiji to move away
from the current emphasis on communal voting, and to encourage more crossracial
voting. This entails a move away from having a majority of Communal
constituencies to having more Open constituencies. This is something that the
FLP fought vigorously for during negotiations on the 1997 Constitution. Our
call was not heeded then. It is now obvious to a wider group of observers and
political pundits that, unless constitutional reforms take place to embrace more
Open constituencies as opposed to Communal constituencies, national politics
will continue to be dominated by ethnic rather than national considerations.
In this respect, I wish to deny the observation made by the EU in its report
that the two major political parties, namely the SDL and the FLP , staged
a highly ethnic political campaign rather than concentrating on issues of
national concern. The FLP at no stage played racial politics in its 2006 election
campaign, and this can be clearly gauged from our election manifesto as well as
from advertisements placed in the newspapers and on television. If anything,
there was an attempt to woo indigenous Fijian votes. Indeed, our entire 2006
election campaign focused on national issues. I call on observer groups to be
fair in compiling their reports.
364 from election to coup in fiji
The SDL stole the 2001 and 2006 general elections. It used, at a conservative
guess, over $40 million of taxpayers’ money under the guise of agricultural
programs, to buy votes. The Office of the Supervisor of Elections, senior
electoral officers and divisional commissioners facilitated an SDL victory.
Notes
1. L etter to Chairman of Electoral Commission, 8 May 2006 (unpublished).
2. Daily Post, 9 May 2006.
3. ‘Report of Fr David Arms; Observer to the 2006 Fiji General Elections, circulated 18 September 2006, unpublished, p.1.

2000 COUP Further Revelations

2007-06-04T22:14:00.000-07:00

A BLOGGER writes ...

This revelation was the real reason behind the 2000 coup which was why Labour had to go because apart from bringing to justice tax evaders involving rich businessmen and lawyers for instance, blocking rich official Government deals to benefit some, opening up the market to get rid of monopolies like telecommunications and basic food items and other factors that would have made alot of people answer to the public their dirty dealings and deeds in particular the NBF scam.

That was what Chaudhry was trying to do when he was stopped in his tracks. Because he was well aware of the real happenings but he was up against a resentful media and when that didn't work, the coup was carried out.

Surprising is the fact that a former PM and coup frontman got off his case and people like a certain newly appointed PS in a ministry is still there when they were the links to those poor soldiers who are now paying with their lives.

They themselves did not know where the ultimate order came from, allegations of links from this same coup frontman, to the chiefs and Ministry of Fijian Affairs, a certain prominent Indian businessman, a former part Chinese politician and businessman, Speight, a certain Kadavu politician and a businessman and former government Finance topshot from the same province, a certain Bua chief, politician and TF military officer, Tarakinikini, Old Man Ligairi and then to the CRW unit.

The TF soldiers in institutions like NLTB and Government are also implicated as fueling the fire that led to the coup. These are the complex cells that committed the coup.

That is why the SDL regime was so adamant in passing the RTU Bill because they had made promises to those who put them in power and who were incarcerated that they were going to be pardoned and set free and they feared that the prisoners would start talking and spilling the beans.

This is the kind of information that the military intelligence have and are working on to bring to justice those who have created the coup monster and have lied their way into leadership and are still evading the law. You go Frank. Fiji is behind you and let those ignorant fools scream till they are blue in the face. Finish the cleanup you have set out to do when they tried to kill you in 2000. Fiji is behind you!

WHY FIJI IS CRYING ... THE ANSWERS WILL BE FOUND AT THE WFC SITE !

2007-06-03T03:04:00.000-07:00

This is why Fiji is Crying ... the WFC site is indeed a shame !

WFC STARTS TO STINK YET MORE !!!

2007-05-24T15:55:00.000-07:00

(click on the image for a close-up)

The language at the WFC site is starting to stink; sa boi. Just look at the latest post at WFC; my comments are in red, and I have highlighted the stink !

Is this a signal that these losers have not much to clutch upon no more ?

><> BulaFijiCoup Admin !

THE QARASE - SDL - FHL - FDB - 2000 COUP CONNECTIONS

2007-05-22T20:51:00.000-07:00

(click picture for a close-up)

FIJIAN HOLDINGS LTD: WHY AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY IS NEEDED, AND THE ROLE OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK IN FINANCING SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDING?

ON THE 13TH JULY 2000 THE INTERIM PRIME MINISTER MR LAISENIA QARASE PRESENTED TO THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS A BLUEPRINT FOR THE PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF INDIGENOUS FIJIANS AND ROTUMANS.

THE BLUEPRINT INCLUDED A DECISION TO CONVERT THE $20 MILLION INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD TO A GOVERNMENT GRANT ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;

1. TRANSFER OF $1 MILLION 'B' CLASS SHARES HELD BY THE FAB IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED TO EACH OF THE 14 PROVINCES. 2. BALANCE OF $6 MILLION TO REMAIN WITH FAB [AS EQUITY IN FHL]

FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS PRIMARILY CREATED TO INCREASE EQUITY PARTICIPATION BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND FIJIAN INSTITUTIONS IN SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES. THE $20 MILLION GOVERNMENT LOAN, ANNOUNCED IN THE DEUBA ACCORD IN 1987, WAS INTENDED BY THE COUNCIL OF CHIEFS TO BOOST THE OWNERSHIP OF THE 14 PROVINCES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS.

IT WAS STATED IN THE SENATE IN 1993 THAT ACCORDING TO THE 1992 ANNUAL REPORT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS, FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS DOMINATED BY LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES OWNED BY GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH HELD BY SIMPLE PROPORTIONING 70 PER CENT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS WHILE THE 14 LPROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND THE NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD AND FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD HELD 30 PER CENT.

IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE SENATE IN 1993 THAT WHILE 1 PROVINCIAL COUNCIL'S SHARE IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS WAS $50,100 THREE FAMILY PRIVATE COMPANIES IDENTIFIED WITH THAT PROVINCE HELD A TOTAL OF $450,000 SHARES.

IN 1984 THERE WERE NO PRIVATE COMPANIES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS BY JUNE 1992 THERE WERE 27 PRIVATE COMPANIES.

IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES THERSE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE ABLE TO SECURE FINANCE TO BUY THE SHARES FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK. SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY OWNED COMPANIES WHICH OWNED SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS WERE NAMED IN THE SENATE IN 1993. THEY INCLUDED MR LAISENIA QARASE WHOSE FAMILY COMPANY Q-TEN INVESTMENTS LIMITED OWNED 200,000 SHARES, AND MR SITIVENI WELEILAKEBA WHOSE FAMILY COMPANY STIKS INVESTMENT LIMITED OWNED 150,000 SHARES. THESE TWO NAMES WERE HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE AT THE TIME MR QARASE WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS, AND FINANCIAL ADVISER TO THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD MR WELEILAKEBA WAS APPOINTED CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN 1991.

THE 1998/9 ANNUAL REPORT OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS DISCLOSES THAT MR WELEILAKEBA'S FAMILY COMPANY OWNS 10,000 SHARES AND THAT IN 1998 THE COMPANY HELD 100,000 SHARES. ATTEMPTS TO VERIFY DETAILS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF Q-TEN INVESTMENTS, STIKS INVESTMENTS AND STIKS HOLDINGS AT THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE OFFICE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO REVEAL THE DETAILS UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE IN WRITING STATING THE PURPOSE OF THE ENQUIRY. INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTERED COMPANIES IS NORMALLY READILY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

QUESTIONS

1. WHY WERE PRIVATE COMPANIES ALLOWED TO BUY SHARES IN EXCESS OF THE SHARES HELD BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS?

2. WHY WAS THE FAMILY COMPANIES OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK ALLOWED TO BUY SHARES IN EXCESS OF THOSE HELD BY THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS?

3. WHAT ADVICE DID MR QARASE GIVE THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD ON THE ALLOCATION OF SHARES TO PRIVATE COMPANIES?

4. WHEN THE COUNCIL OF CHIEFS APPROVE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES BUYING SHARES?

THIS PATTERN OF PRIVATE COMPANY OWNERSHIP CONTINUES TODAY. FAMILY COMPANIES OWN MORE THAN 2.2 MILLION SHARES IN FHL. THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OWN 1.9 MILLION [MASTER LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS DATED SEPT 1998] IN THE FHL'S TOP TWENTY LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS DATED 31ST JANUARY 2000 ONLY FOUR PROVINCIAL COUNCILS OWN MORE THAN 100,000 CLASS 'A' SHARES.

THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS

UNDER STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING RULES FIJIAN HOLDINGS ARE OBLIGED TO PROVIDE TO THE EXCHANGE A LIST OF THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS. THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME DISCREPANCIES IN THE LIST PROVIDED BY FHL.

ACCORDING TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES TWO OF THE COMPANIES ON THE LIST NO LONGER EXIST. THEY ARE CICIA PLANTATION CO-OP SOC. LTD AND VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED WHICH HAVE BEEN DEREGISTERED.

[IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING 'B' CLASS SHARES, AND SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING 'A' CLASS ORDINARY SHARES. 'A' CLASS SHARES ATTRACT A MUCH HIGHER DIVIDEND THAN 'B' CLASS SHARES AND THEY CARRY VOTING RIGHTS WHICH CLASS 'B' SHARES DO NOT. THE DIFFERENCE IS ILLUSTRATED IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS 1999 ANNUAL REPORT. 'A' CLASS SHARES ATTRACTED AN INTERIM DIVIDEND OF 10 PER CENT AND A PROPOSED FINAL DIVIDEND OF 10 PER CENT [TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT &2,092,930] THE ORDINARY 'B' CLASS SHARES HELD BY THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD ATTRACTED A PROPOSED DIVIDEND OF 5 PER CENT [TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT $1,000,000]

THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS

1. THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS IS THE FIJIANS AFFAIRS BOARD WHICH OWN 20,329,855 SHARES OF CLASS 'B' SHARES [66.7 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL SHAREHOLDING]

2. THE SECOND LARGEST SHAREHOLDER IS THE NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD WITH 893,501 SHARES.

3. THE THIRD LARGEST GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS WITH MORE THAN 100,000 SHARES EACH ARE AS FOLLOWS;

CICIA PLANTATION CO-OP SOC LT 400,000[finance from FDB] RATU SIR K MARA EDUCATION TRUST FUND 300,000 TAILEVU DAIRY FARMERS CO-OP 300,000 BA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 206,917[finance from FDB MACUATA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 203,614 MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED 200,000[finance from FDB] MUALEVU TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD 200,000[finance from FDB] VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LIMITED 179,805[finance from FDB] DUAVATA HOLDINGS LTD 150,000 BUA PROVINICIAL COUNCIL 137,102[finance from FDB] RARA O NAKELO HOLDINGS LTD 117,616[finance from FGDB] MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD 107,111 MOALA TIKINA COUNCIL 101,005[finance from FDB] VUKICEA INVESTMENT LTD 100,000[finance from FDB] NAQARANI HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED 100,000[finance from FDB] DOGOTUKI TIKINA COUNCIL 100,000[finance from FDB]

ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE BREAKDOWN OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PRIVATE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES IS AS FOLLOWS;

1. MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED - 200,000 SHARES [FHL]

MAVANA INVESTMENTS LIMITED IS OWNED BY A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS. THE MAJORITY OF THE SHARES ARE OWNED BY THE MAVANA VILLAGE FUND - 108,500 SHARES. Q-TEN INVESTMENTS IS OWNED BY THE FAMILY OF MR LAISENIA QARASE.

2. KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LTD - 179,805 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LTD ARE DESCRIBED AS VILLAGERS FROM VARIOUS VILLAGES IN OVALAU. THE COMPANY WAS REGISTERED ON 6TH MAY 1993. ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS FROM THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES VANUA KO LOVONI INVESTMENT LIMITED OWES THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK A TOTAL OF $199,188.65.

3. VUKICEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

VUKICEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED WAS REGISTERED ON 16TH OCTOBER 1992. IT IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE VUKICEA FAMILY OF CICIA, LAU. A DEBENTURE OF $80,000 WAS REGISTERED BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK OF 30TH NOVEMBER 1993. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DETAILING THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY WAS WITNESSED BY MR SITIVENI WELEILAKEBA, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS.

4. MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF MUNIA HOLDINGS LIMITED ARE KAMELI VOSA AND SOLOMONE VOSAICAKE. THE COMPANY WAS REGISTERED ON 9TH DECEMBER 1989. A DEBENTURE OF $80, 000 WAS REGISTERED BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT ON 26TH FEBRUARY 1995.

5. VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED - 100,000 SHARES [FHL]

THE COMPANY WAS FORMED ON 11TH DECEMBER 1993. ITS DIRECTORS ARE VILLAGERS FROM VALUTLELE. THE REGISTRAR WROTE TO THE COMPANY ON 11TH DECEMBER 2000 STATING THAT HE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT OPERATING FOLLOWING A FURTHER LETTER ON 10TH APRIL 2000 THE COMPANY WAS REMOVED FROM THE COMPANIES REGISTER.

6. MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS LTD - 107,111 SHARES [FHL]

THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE RATU SAMUELA NAULAGO AND RATU MESULAME VOSAILAGI, BOTH FARMERS OF SIGATOKA. THE COMPANY WAS FORMED ON 12TH DECEMBER 1994.

WE WERE ADVISED BY THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF OCMPANIES THAT DETAILS OF THE TIKINA HOLDING COMPANIES IN THE TOP TWENTY WERE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE FIJIAN AFFAIRS BOARD BY WRITTEN REQUEST.

THE FAMILY OWNED COMPANIES WITH SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS AS LISTED BY THE COMPANY IN 1998 ARE;

1. KINGFISHER ENTERPRISES 77,508 [finance from FDB]

2. KJY INVESTMENT LIMITED [KONISI YABAKI] 50,000 [finance form FDB]

3. LANA INVESTMENT LTD [RATU N. LALABALAVU] 95,000 [finance from FDB]

4. MB INVESTMENT LIMITED [M BULANAUCA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

5. MARKIN INVESTMENT [ISIKELI TAOI] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

6. MEPSAN INVESTMENT [PECELI MATANITOBUA] 67,932 [finance from FDB]

7. NABUABUA HOLDINGS 100,000 [finance from FDB]

8. RABULI INVESTMENT [MEREANI RABULI] 50,000 [finance from FDB]

9. RAFIRE LINVESTMENT [M. RABUKA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

10. SAKIANA INVESTMENT 50,000

11. TAOI INVESTMENT [J VITUSAGAVULU] 150,000

12. TUKULA HOLDINGS [SIR JOSAIA TAVIQIA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

13. VENSALISI INVESTMENT 50,000

14. YALIMAIWAI INVESTMENT [ANARE BULA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

15. 5X INVESTMENTS 100,000 [finance from FDB]

16. BAKANI INVESTMENT 100,000

17. BARAVI ASSOCIATES 50,000

18. FJ JAMNOVIS INVESTMENT 100,000 [finance from FDB]

19. I WAQA & COMPANY 80,000

20. JAY TEE INVESTMENT [S TABAKANACA] 100,000 [finance from FDB]

21. KB INVESTMENT 100,000 [finance from FDB]

THE MAJORITY OF COMPANIES BOUGHT THEIR SHARES BETWEEN DECEMBER 1991 AND MAY 1993.

QUESTIONS

1. WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF LOANS MADE BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES TO BUY SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS?

2. ON WHAT TERMS WERE THESE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES GIVEN LOANS BY THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK?

3. WERE THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS INFORMED THAT THEY COULD BUY SHARES ON SIMILAR TERMS?

ON 26TH MAY 1995 SUBSANTIAL LOTS OF SHARES WERE ISSUED TO THE PROVINCIAL COUNCILS. ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY'S SHARE REGISTER DATED 30TH SEPT 1998.

BA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 34,801 SHARES

BUA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

KADAVU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 43,501 SHARES

LAU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 17,401 SHARES

LOMAIVITI HOLDINGS 52,201 SHARES

MACUATA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

NADROGA/NAVOSA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 17,400 SHARES

NAMOSI PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 35,671 SHARES

RA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 8,700 SHARES

REWA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 43,501 SHARES

SERUA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 87,002 SHARES

TAILEVU PROVINCIAL COUNCIL 52,201 SHARES

A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OTHER SHARES WERE ALSO ISSUED ON 26TH MAY 1995 TO MATAQALI, TIKINA AND VILLAGE BASED COMPANIES.

MATAQALI

1. DROVALAU INVESTMENTS 16,743

2. ERENAWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

3. MATAITINI DEVELOPMENT 16,743

4. MATAQALI NATABUTALE 16,743

5. NABAIKPAODI HOLDINGS 16,743

6. NATURUBU TIKINA HOLDINGS 16,743

7. TOKATOKA VUWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

8. TUBANAWAI HOLDINGS 16,743

9. VALELEVU HOLDINGS 16,743

10. DOROKAVU HOLDINGS 16,578

11. RUKURUKU INVEST CO. [RAVUAMA BAISAGALE] 50,000 [finance from FDB]

TIKINA

1. BURETA TIKINA HOLDINGS 26,101 [finance from FDB]

2. CICIA TIKINA HOLDINGS 33,104

3. DREKETI TIKINA INVESTMENTS 17,400

4. MALOMALO TIKINA HOLDINGS 87,000

5. MOALA TIKINA HOLDINGS 34,475 [finance from FDB]

6. MAULEVU TIKINA HOLDINGS 77,508 [finance from FDB]

7. NAMUKA TIKINA COUNCIL 17,400

8. NAWAIDINA INVESTMENTS 17,400

9. RARA O NAKELO 117,616 [finance from FDB]

10. UDU TIKINA COUNCIL 17,400

11. VANUA O SABETO 17,400

12. VATULELE ISLAND HOLDINGS 78,410 [finance from FDB]

VILLAGE

1. AROVUDI VILLAGE DEVEL CO. 16,045

2. DALICONI INVESTMENT 16,142

3. DELADAMANU INVEST HOLDINGS 16.142

4. LOMATI VILLAGE INVESTMENT 44,716

5. MAULEVU KORO INVESTMENT 73,290

6. MUNIA HOLDINGS 16,142

7. NABUKEBUKE HOLDINGS 75,990 [finance from FDB]

8. NAKABEA INVESTMENT 16,142

9. NAMUKA-I-LAU 73,290 [finance from FDB]

10. NAYAVU VILLAGE 16,142

11. TARUKUA VILLAGE 25,516 [finance from FDB]

12. TAWAVA INVESTMENTS 36,645 [finance from FDB]

QUESTIONS

1. ON WHAT BASIS WERE SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS ALLOCATED TO THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS IN 1995?

2. HOW WERE THE SHARES TO THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS FUNDED

3. WHAT CRITERIA DID THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK USE IN FUNDING THE PURCHASE OF SHARES?

4. WHAT DIVIDENTS HAVE THE PROVINCIAL AND TIKINA COUNCILS RECEIVED SINCE 1995?

THE NEED FOR AN INQUIRY

WHAT IS CLEAR FROM THE HISTORY OR SHARES OWNERSHIP IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS IS THAT THE $20 MILLION LOAN FROM GOVERNMENT WAS NOT USED TO BENEFIT THE FIJIAN PEOPLE AS THE GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS HAD INTENDED. THE DOMINANCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE FAMILY COMPANIES BENEFITED A FEW WHO HAD ACCESS TO FINANCE FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT. QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED AS TO WHY THIS WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. WHAT ROLE DID MR QARASE PLAY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK IN FACILITATING LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE COMPANIES TO PURCHASE SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS OF WHICH HE WAS A BOARD MEMBER? WAS FINANCE FROM THE FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK MADE AVAILABLE TO THE 14 PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WAS BEING OFFERED TO INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILY COMPANIES? IS THE LIST OF THE TOP TWENTY SHAREHOLDERS A TRUE AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF FIJIAN HOLDINGS? THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED BY AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY.

THE DECISION BY THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT TO TRANSFER $I MILLION CLASS "B" SHARES IN FIJIAN HOLDINGS TO EACH OF THE PROVINCE WILL BE OF MINIMUM BENEFIT TO THE MAJORITY OF THE FIJIAN PEOPLE. THE ANNUAL DIVIDEND TO EACH PROVINCE FOR ITS "B" CLASS SHARES WILL BE IN THE VICINITY OF $50,000.

IF THE ORIGINAL LOAN OF $14 MILLION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO EACH PROVINCE IN THE FORM OF A LOAN TO PURCHASE ONE MILLION CLASS 'A' SHARES, THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF THEIR HOLDING TODAY WOULD BE $38.5 MILLION AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT OF HIGH DIVIDENDS WHICH WOULD HAVE ADEQUATELY COVERED THEIR REPAYMENTS.

COUPS OF FIJI - THE REAL REASONS

2007-05-16T15:34:00.000-07:00

How Fijian Provinces were betrayed and looted by the Fijian Initiative

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

People of Fiji had been told of corruption and questionable dealings by those who were considered the marshals, saviours and guardians of Fijian race. When Frank Bainimarama sacked the government and took charge, his reasoning, among others, was to save the Fijian race from unscrupulous and wanting leadership. My purpose here is to substantiate this through reporting on Senate proceedings of some 14 years ago.

When Adi Quini Bavadra was alive she tried her best to reveal the dealings in Fijian Holdings Limited (FHL) but people with power and influence won and this matter never saw the light of day. My lament had been that while Fiji has an abundance of copy journalists and copy feature writers, there is dearth of good, conscientious, bold and sincere investigative journalists. Perhaps somebody like that can pick the hints from here, and perhaps create an FHL gate.

However I will report on what took place in Fiji's Senate on 18 May, 1993.

In the Senate sitting of 18 May, 1993 (pages 731 to 748), Senator Manu Korovulavula moved a motion for the Senate to call on Government to carry out an investigation into the method adopted by the Board of the Fijian Holdings Limited to allow limited liability companies to buy shares into the company (FHL) without the knowledge of 14 Provinces. Senator Korovulavula had stated that the motion was brought on a point of principle to reveal less than honest dealings of people in position of power, knowledge and trust.

The intention of the motion was to reveal odd and strange method known to a selected group of shareholders who took advantage of this to borrow funds from the Fiji Development Bank (FDB) or the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) in order to buy shares in FHL.

As example of this a whole Province has only $50,000 Class A shares while a family private company shares add up to $200,000, which is a scam in any language. It is obvious someone somewhere had not been honest and loyal to the Fijian people in not telling them the truth.

FHL was primarily created to be owned by the Provincial Councils, Fijian people and Fijian institutions, NOT the elite limited liability family companies. The Great Council of Chiefs, right from its inception was unanimous to see that FHL was to be owned by 14 Provinces, NLTB and FAB.

However the irony and shame is that according to 1992 annual report, 14 Provincial Councils and two Fijian institutions, Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) and Fijian Affairs Board (FAB) hold only 30 % of total shares while the elite Fijians with their family limited liability companies hold 70% of shares. This is a fraud on the common indigenous people who are supposed to be shareholders of FHL through their respective provinces!
People of Fiji need to be made aware of Fijian Initiative. This Fijian advisory body comprised of intellectuals, professionals, businessmen and senior executives in the private and public sector. The aim of this initiative is to pull these resources, convene regular meetings and seminars to enable it to come up with recommendations to develop and assist Fijians to better themselves in all aspects of life, more so in the field of trade and commerce.

Senator Manu Korovulavula reported to Senate that it was interesting to know that some of the senior members of the Fijian Initiative did not consider it appropriate to advise the 14 Provincial Councils that they could borrow three or four times more from FDB, the amount of shares whichthey already had in FHL.

All this while, these senior Fijian sons took secretive actions to line their own and family's pockets at the cost of Provincial Councils!

Senator Korovulavula revealed private shareholding of three provinces with which he was familiar. Please note that all figures, amounts and situations reported are as at 1993, and they may have changed now.

In Kadavu Province, he spoke about 3 companies. The first, Kadavu Development Company, which is fully owned by people of Kadavu, owned only $50,000 shares.

The other, KJY Investment Limited, owned by Qarase's Cabinet Minister Konisi Yabaki and his family, owned $100,000 shares.
The third, Taoi Investment Limited, owned $200,000 shares. Shareholding in this Company then belonged to Jesoni Vitusagavulu and Ulaiasi Taoi. Vitusagavulu is former staff of FDB, former Air Pacific Executive, former Director of Fiji Trade and Investment Board and currently Fiji's High Commissioner to USA, appointed by deposed PM Qarase. Taoi is President of Indigenous Fijian Business Council. Previously Rodney Acraman also used to own shares which have since been bought by the remaining two shareholders.

The interesting issue here in that Konisi Yabaki was then the Chairman while Vitusagavulu was Secretary respectively of Kadavu Development Company. They went ahead, used their positions to build their own interests at the cost of Kadavu Province.

The next province is Lomaiviti, which had only $55,100 shares while KB Investment Limited and 5X Investment limited owned $100,000 each while Vensalisi Investment Limited had $80,000 shares.

KB Investment Limited, with $100, 000 shares is owned by Bakani family. The head of this family Kalivati Bakani is former executive of FDB, former Deputy General Manager of NBF, former Carpenters Executive and current CEO of NLTB. The purchase of shares was financed by NBF
5X Investment, with $100,000 shares, is owned by Lote Rabuku, Semesa Matanicake, Delai Sainikinaivalu, Penisoni Gauna and KB Investments. Note that acquisition of these shares was also financed by NBF.

Vensalisi Investment Limited, with $80,000 shares, is owned by Isikeli Mataitoga and family. Isikeli then was Director of Public Prosecutions and is CEO of Foreign Affairs.

Interesting point to note is that in less than two months after registration of 5X Investment, this $1 per Share Company got $75,000 loan from NBF. Additionally, three months after KB Investment Limited was registered, Kalivati Bakani's wife got $107,000 loan from NBF where her husband was the then Deputy General Manager. Three months after Isikeli Mataitoga's family company was registered, he obtained $64,000 from FDB which was headed by Qarase.

Now we move to the Province of deposed Prime minister, Lau Provincial Council, which had only $50,100 shares. At same time, Stiks Investment Limited had $150,000, Q-Ten Investment Limited had $200,000 and Kepa Investment Limited had $100,000 worth of shares.

Stiks Investment Limited shares of $150,000 are fully owned by Weleilakeba family. Sitiveni Weleilakeba is the CEO of FHL and one time business partner of democracy activist Laisa Digitaki, together with whom, he tried to run Mobil Walu Bay Service Station which went into receivership and was then acquired by Carpenters Motors. The shares in Stiks had been financed by FDB.

Q-Ten Investment Limited held $200,000 shares, which is owned by Laisenia Qarase Family. One property CT 14743, Lot 2 was mortgaged twice to acquire finance for $112,400 and $353,217 respectively. Note that at the time, Laisenia Qarase was the Managing Director of FDB, the lender for share acquisition. At that time, Laisenia Qarase was also the financial advisor to the Fijian Affairs Board, but failed to advise them of this insider information of acquiring shares.

Kepa Investment Limited, with $100,000 shares, was wholly owned by Lakepa family, Satini and Milika, and financed by FDB.
An interesting point is that one of the nine points of Deuba Accord was for government to make $20m interest free LOAN to FHL through Fijian Affairs Board, repayable over 20 years. What taxpayers of Fiji need to know is under whose authority this taxpayers' loan of $20m was converted to a gift for FHL. Note that board members of FHL, with shares then included Laisenia Qarase, Sitiveni Weleilakeba and Josaia Mar, who has been removed as Chairman of FEA by Commander. Also note that Laisenia Qarase was the interim Prime Minister when this shady and questionable deal took place.

What the Fijian race needs to ponder is that Qarase regime has been projecting Indo Fijians as the common enemy of the indigenous race. Is this really so? Indigenous Fijian people had placed their faith in the hands of these intellectuals, so called professionals and who were supposed to be guiding the Fijian race. The FHL was the commercial vehicle through which the wellbeing of Fijian race was intended to be improved. The dependency of the wisdom of Great Council of Chiefs and the elders in the villagers was on the shoulders of the so called Fijian Initiative group. However these very same people tricked their own people while projection Indo Fijians as villains.

With friends like the Fijian Initiative, the indigenous race need no enemies at all. There is a saying that enemies who strike from front is miles better than friends who strike on the back. Fijian Provinces have been dealt commercially fatal blows on their backs by their trusted sons.

Perhaps those who are crying for Qarase regime to come back need to consider whether he is worthy of this honour. The Commander is right in trying to save the indigenous race from the enemy within, as there is no fear from those outside.

Those who were Senators in 1993, and were present in Senate, including past President Ratu Iloilo and Adi Litia Cakobau need to answer to the Fijian race why this call for investigation was wiped under the carpet. Other Great Council of Chiefs nominees in that Senate also need to answer to their people.

As part of Commander's cleanup, the whole saga at FHL needs to be reopened and relooked and the $20m of taxpayer funds should be repaid to the nation, and specifically reserved for rural development of each of the 14 Provinces and fat cats Fijians need to be trimmed down to size, so that the whole nation can be spared from ungrateful sons who projected others as enemies of the indigenous race.

And those racist politicians and their hangers-on who projected and put Indo Fijians as red herrings should be made to answer to the indigenous race of this betrayal and who their real enemies are!

The Qarase - SDL Shame

2007-05-16T00:53:00.000-07:00

The 5/12 Fiji coup is a blessing. Thank you Frank and Crew.

When Frank Bainimarama (FB) entrusted the governance of Fiji in the hands of one Laisenia Qarase (LQ) after the 2000 shame, little did he know then, that he was passing the control of the nation in the hands of none other than the satan.

That the 2000 coup was planned in the boardroom of the Fijian Holdings Limited (FHL); that LQ was one of a number of prominent figures in the shadows of 2000; that Sitiveni Weleilakeba (SW) was to have fronted up as the face of the 2000 coup; that George Speight (GS) was recruited very close to 19/05/2000 and replaced SW; are only some of the facts that emerged later on, as LQ's web of deceit and the cover over his shit finally started to be uncovered.

While in power, LQ rode the nationalist and a racialist agenda, which not surprisingly, matched exactly the agenda of Rabuka in 1987, and of Speight in 2000.

Beyond these, LQ not only turned a blind eye to corruption that was rampant in every arm of government, but was the prime-minister in a cabinet full of overly and blatantly corrupt ministers. I have not mentioned the lineup of ministers who had been convicted in the court of law for serious crimes against the nation, and had been fast tracked to leadership positions through the tools of the 'mercy' and other suspect judicial decisions. Not surprisingly, the Chief Justice (CJ) was none other than Daniel Fatiaki, an SDL-compliant CJ by all accounts.

The final nails in LQ and SDL's coffin were driven by LQ and the SDL themselves, through the forceful pushing through parliament, of the evil Reconciliation and Tolerance Bill.

Not only the actions of FB and his crew are understandable, but also applaudable.

Of course our big brother Jonny Howard and Big Aunty Helen Clark are bent on punishing FB and crew. This is understandable too.

Uncle Sam of the Stars and Stripes team had some time ago, entrusted the control of the Pacific in the hands of Big Bro Jonny H, but how miserably has Uncle Jonny H failed in PNG, Solomons, and now in Fiji. Shame ! Shame ! Shame ! That Andrew Hughes, a member of the australian secret service, became the Commisioner of Fiji Police was not surpring to many in the know, but our unsuspecting brothers and sisters in Fiji were taken for a ride. Of course Johnny H had LQ by his balls, but yes, for the sake of what they called 'stability in the Pacific' which meant 'control over the Pacific' , they supported corrupt Qarase. So LQ was not only leading the nationalist agenda in Fiji with blatantly racist policies, these were supported from behind the scene by none other than Big Brother Johnny H and crowd.

Then we have our HYPOCRITE Big Aunty Helen Clarke, throwing the red carpet to none other than Pervez Musharraf, who conducted a bloody coup in Pakistan, and sent Nawar Shariff packing like a dog to exile. YET, hellbent on trying to punish FB and crew, and the IG.

I say, to hell with OZ and NZ, well done frank, and give Johnny B and Helen C the multiple finger salute.

Thank you Frank. God Bless.