"When certain figures came to the PM complaining about the AG and seeking his removal, Bainimarama sent them packing with the savage admonition to come back to him when they did a fraction of the work the AG was doing for the betterment of the country. The term workaholic could have been invented for him. It has been a unique partnership that now goes into the new Parliament. One of the great shibboleths in Fiji is that the AG is unpopular, even hated, and would lead the PM to defeat unless he cut him loose. The raw figures have proved this wrong. How did it happen? The electorate has undoubtedly recognised his hard work to reform the country. But it’s also a little known fact that the AG gives his personal mobile number to many ordinary people, answers their calls when they ring him and tries to help them navigate a way through the tangled web of Government to solve their problems. He emerges from this election as a political figure of consequence in his own right, having garnered more votes for FijiFirst than any other candidate after Bainimarama and being beaten only by Ro Teimumu Kepa in the overall tally. He is the third most important politician in Fiji in terms of his ability to secure votes and has the political mana to be Deputy Prime Minister, if indeed, that is what is decided."

By GRAHAM DAVIS

Well, he’s done it. Voreqe Bainimarama has seized his place in history by blitzing his opponents and scoring a decisive win in the first genuinely democratic election in Fiji since Independence 44 years ago. By any standard, it is a remarkable achievement. Because this is no run-of-the-mill election win of the kind the world routinely witnesses, a changing of the political guard under a tried and tested order. Bainimarama not only upended the status quo in Fiji when he seized power eight years ago. He took a sledgehammer to the entire political edifice, smashed it to smithereens and then set about rebuilding Fiji into a modern nation-state that has been transformed at almost every level. And transformed it for the better in the eyes of most Fijian voters, who’ve given the PM an overwhelming mandate to continue his reform program.

In the process, Bainimarama himself has changed – the impatient, sometimes fiery authoritarian figure giving way to a softer, more genial presence who has come to relish his encounters with ordinary people and has taken to being a politician in a way that few would have expected. Watching the Internet feed of the PM’s debate on radio with his principal opponent, Ro Teimumu Kepa, many Fijians would have been surprised to see that it was Bainimarama who was most at ease, smiling as she launched a barrage of provocations in his direction, including “you will soon get your just deserts”. Well yes he has, though not quite in the way the GMBRTD – as some people refer to her by the acronym of her chiefly title – would have expected.

SODELPA LIUMURI-ED

There are many dimensions to this extraordinary saga but none more notable than the way in which Bainimarama has carried indigenous opinion with him and rewritten the political rules in Fiji. For the first time, i’Taukei voters have failed to be swayed by the traditional political weapon of crudely exploiting their fears – fears for their land, their religion, their culture and their way of life. SODELPA tried to wield that weapon with a campaign characterised by some of the worst lies ever told in a Fijian election. They included the former Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, openly telling i’Taukei that they would not be able to worship Jesus if FijiFirst won the election. It didn’t work. In fact, there’s ample evidence that it backfired, driving voters into the arms of the PM, who patiently explained that these lies were being told to manipulate  i’Taukei opinion while he laid out an alternative vision of inclusiveness and hope.

When the polls over the past few weeks gave Bainimarama a commanding lead, the word from SODELPA was that Frank would be luimuri-ed (betrayed) by his ostensible supporters, who were telling him to his face that they supported him but would vote SODELPA in the privacy of the voting booth. In fact, the reverse happened on Election Day. SODELPA was liumuri-ed by many of those who’d pledged allegiance to it publicly but privately voted for Frank. It is arguably the end of the indigenous scare campaign in Fijian politics. The days of i’Taukei leaders treating their own people as fools are over. And not a moment too soon.

A DIPLOMATIC BLUNDER

The extent of the Bainimarama victory has floored his opponents and much of the diplomatic community, which has never believed the opinion polls showing him with a commanding lead all year. Australia and New Zealand, in particular, have peddled the notion that Bainimarama would be forced into a coalition even if he managed to garner the most votes. It has been yet another in a long line of miscalculations by our bigger neighbours since 2006, most of them based on being captive to the views of the wrong people. The reason why few diplomats saw this result coming is that the local diplomatic community continues to place far too much store on the views of partisan participants in the process and certain local NGOs, who have been overwhelmingly opposed to Bainimarama. One ambassador confided to me that as recently as a few months ago, a senior Australian diplomat was still trying to persuade his diplomatic colleagues of the need to “destroy” the PM. The encounter left this ambassador shaking his head. “You cannot have a democracy without racial equality and only Bainimarama can unite Fiji”, he said.

In the election aftermath, Australia and New Zealand will be hoping to step up their recent attempts to ingratiate themselves with a democratically-elected Bainimarama Government. It isn’t going to be easy. There’s a strong feeling in certain circles that they should be brought to account for their overt attempts to damage Fiji for having the impertinence to chart its own course. Overall relations will remain standoffish, the charm offensive by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop notwithstanding. Or the positive contribution that Australia has made co-leading the Multinational Observers Group and at the Elections Office, where Michael Clancy has been a valued deputy to Mohammed Saneem, together with a number of others who have played an integral role in the success of this election.

New Zealand, in particular, continues to sorely offend the Fijian establishment with the content of its travel warnings. The latest – updated after the election – urges New Zealanders to be cautious when visiting Fiji and refers to “some risk to your security because of underlying political tensions”. Really? The visiting TV3 correspondent, Amanda Gillies, might have put herself at risk by “door-stopping” the Prime Minister and gratuitously asking him whether he planned another coup (he didn’t hit her, whatever the blogs say). But it would be difficult for any other visiting New Zealander to detect  “underlying political tensions”. Yes, the Government’s opponents are decidedly unhappy but the police and military are ready to step in at the first sign of restiveness, let alone civil disturbances. A SODELPA attempt to stage a march through the streets of Suva on Friday afternoon was firmly rejected. Such marches have been the prelude to disturbances in the past and will not be tolerated again.

A SMEAR ON THE JUDICIARY

The latest NZ Travel Warning goes on to make the outrageous claim that “the government has a degree of influence over the judiciary”. Where is the evidence for the truth of this statement? None is given in the advisory. Given the gravity of the charge and its potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary, isn’t it incumbent on the NZ Government to provide the details on which it bases its claim? Because the truth is that no credible evidence has ever been advanced that the executive branch of the Fijian Government influences the judiciary, nor that the judiciary does the Government’s bidding. Indeed the Chief Justice, Anthony Gates, and his fellow judges pride themselves on being fiercely independent, as does Christopher Pryde, the NZ-born Director of Public Prosecutions. Yes, some political figures have been convicted of a range of offences, including former Prime Ministers Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudry. But they have been convicted solely on the evidence before the courts and there have been no serious legal challenges to the validity of the charges against them.

The CJ and the DPP are highly aggrieved by the NZ accusations and understandably so because of their potential to damage public confidence in the system. Is it that the Kiwis continue to be irritated that Fiji has maintained a functioning judiciary despite all the attempts by Australia and NZ to deter their citizens from taking up posts in Fiji? If NZ wants to have friendly relations with a democratic Fiji, it must stop trying to denigrate and degrade our institutions.

FREE EDUCATION: THE GAME CHANGER

While the diplomatic miscalculations have been monumental, it has been a correspondingly monumental era in the nation’s development, whether it is the many thousands of households who now have electricity and clean water for the first time, the dramatic improvement in the nation’s roads, the completion of projects such as the Grand Pacific Hotel or the clock tower atop Government Buildings chiming in the hours again for the first time in a generation.

Fiji is patently not the same country in the same arrested state of development that it was when Bainimarama herded the old political order aside at gunpoint in 2006. And while that intervention may have earned him pariah status among Fiji’s bigger neighbours – who fulminated about Bainimarama perpetuating a coup culture – they missed a wider truth. That far from being regarded as a tyrant by the majority of his own people, they came to regard him as a hero, someone who identified with them, empathised with their needs and had their best interests at heart. Nothing exemplifies this more than the Government’s free schooling policy, truly the game changer that has transformed many lives for the better and set Fiji on a path towards being a smarter country.

I was in a taxi on Friday with a driver who said he wished he’d been born in the new Fiji because his widowed mother had been too poor to pay for his school fees. He’d been dragged in front of the class in primary school and humiliated as the principal demanded payment before eventually throwing him out of the school. Heartbreaking stories like this are legion in Fiji. Bainimarama put an end to the suffering of countless parents and students alike this year with his free schooling initiative. So it is only a mystery to outsiders – and the PM’s band of unyielding domestic opponents – that while he may have begun his journey as a coup maker, he ends it having morphed triumphantly into a democrat with the biggest popular vote ever secured by a politician in Fiji.

THUMBS UP FOR THE BAINIMARAMA AGENDA

How it must gall these opponents that the “illegal dictator” is about to become the legally elected Prime Minister, that the “Pariah” is now an important player on both the regional and international stages and that the Fijian people – in an election dubbed credible by the Multinational Observer Group – have put their trust in him to take the nation forward. Not only has Bainimarama emerged triumphant at the polls, his program has now been overwhelmingly endorsed in what has unquestionably been a referendum on every aspect of his program. Every citizen is now a Fijian by popular acclamation. Every Fijian enjoys equal status and equal opportunity by popular acclamation. The Secular State is endorsed by popular acclamation. The Qoliqoli Bill is rejected by popular acclamation.

The point is that Voreqe Bainimarama now has a democratic mandate for the 2013 Constitution, which his opponents say was foisted on the nation, but that the nation has now embraced. And he has a decisive mandate to implement the Manifesto he took to the election. It is inarguable. It is unambiguous. And it is a momentous achievement, an unparalleled triumph of leadership in the Fijian context.

Far from pandering to their prejudices and fears, Bainimarama has convinced the Fijian people – and especially the i’Taukei – to turn their backs on division and embrace a united and inclusive future. He has created Year Zero in the country’s tumultuous history to finally begin the task of nation building that should have begun at Independence in 1970 but was derailed by sectional interests, the elite and a culture of self entitlement and outright selfishness. Instead of working together as one nation, Fijians have spent much of the last 44 years in the thrall of those around them who preach division and hatred. But now – thanks largely to Bainimarama – they have been jolted into the realisation that they have been perpetually manipulated, not for their own benefit, but to suit the base ambitions of others.

In the election coverage on television, I was struck by the number of people – notably i’Taukei – who said they voted for Bainimarama not so much for his service delivery – impressive as that may be – but because he was “the best person to take the nation forward”. This is a hugely positive phenomenon. Because it suggests that ordinary people have rejected the politics of division. They are sick of living in the past. They are tired of the old arguments. They want to embrace a united future in which every Fijian has a stake. And they regard Voreqe Bainimarama as the best person to deliver that future. To offer a vision of progress and hope.

A SUCCESSFUL DOUBLE ACT

I recall a conversation I once had with the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, in which he opined that the PM’s moral clarity and force of will had provided Fiji with a unique and perhaps unrepeatable opportunity. ” No other leader has ever had the vision to tackle the divisions between us or the courage to take on the forces holding us back”, he said. The AG’s unwavering loyalty to the PM is based on this fundamental premise and this loyalty has been returned in equal measure. When certain figures came to the PM complaining about the AG and seeking his removal, Bainimarama sent them packing with the savage admonition to come back to him when they did a fraction of the work the AG was doing for the betterment of the country. The term workaholic could have been invented for him.

It has been a unique partnership that now goes into the new Parliament. One of the great shibboleths in Fiji is that the AG is unpopular, even hated, and would lead the PM to defeat unless he cut him loose. The raw figures have proved this wrong. How did it happen? The electorate has undoubtedly recognised his hard work to reform the country. But it’s also a little known fact that the AG gives his personal mobile number to many ordinary people, answers their calls when they ring him and tries to help them navigate a way through the tangled web of Government to solve their problems. He emerges from this election as a political figure of consequence in his own right, having garnered more votes for FijiFirst than any other candidate after Bainimarama and being beaten only by Ro Teimumu Kepa in the overall tally. He is the third most important politician in Fiji in terms of his ability to secure votes and has the political mana to be Deputy Prime Minister, if indeed, that is what is decided.

The duo at the top is supplemented with a range of capable individuals, some of whom were proven performers in the last Government, such as Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Inia Seruiratu, Dr Neil Sharma and Dr Jiko Luveni,. They’re joined by new additions in the Parliament such as Dr Mahendra Reddy and Pio Tikoduadua, who have been star performers as vote getters in this election. Both these figures are widely respected, Dr Reddy as Head of the Commerce Commission and Tikoduadua as former Permanent Secretary in the PM’s Office, a man with a reputation as a “Mr Fixit” who carried the election fight to Ro Teimumu’s doorstep in Rewa and Tailevu and did her significant electoral damage. These, along with many others, will form the nucleus of a fresh administration that Bainimarama says will redouble its efforts to improve the circumstances of Fijians across the nation.

THE CHURCH OF DIVISION

With his comfortable majority, the PM enjoys both a mandate to implement his program and a cushion in the Parliament to keep him secure on the floor of the House. One of his biggest fears – aside, of course, from defeat – was either the slimmest of winning margins that would shackle his reform program or a coalition that he always ruled out but might have embraced if it meant keeping SODELPA at bay. Yet a solid margin in the Parliament is no insurance against continuing problems in the wider community. And there are ominous signs that while the majority may have embraced him at the ballot box, some of Bainimarama’s opponents – political and religious – remain a brooding, malignant presence. Among these, regrettably, are Bainimarama’s old detractors in the Methodist Church, the biggest religious organisation in Fiji and still a bastion of indigenous supremacy, whatever its protestations to the contrary.

The Methodist Church claims that it has turned its back on partisan politics and has conducted a very public campaign to “heal” what it says are the divisions of the past. Yet last week it made the extraordinary decision to boycott the National Day of Thanksgiving for the release of the 45 Fijian Peacekeepers in Syria. In doing so, the Church has ripped the scab off its slowly healing relationship with the Government and restored its pariah status in the eyes of the Prime Minister, who has now been elected democratically by a huge margin and commands unprecedented authority in the country.

The Methodists were to play a major role in the Service of Thanksgiving at the ANZ National Stadium on election eve. But that morning came the news that its leadership would not be taking part because it regarded the event as “political”. This was a State Event at which the President gave the main address, the Prime Minister had no role and to which the leaders of all political parties were formally invited. It was to give thanks to God for protecting our men and sustaining their families during a terrible personal ordeal. Yet the biggest Christian denomination in Fiji chose to boycott the event. The news didn’t get out and has yet to be reported. Why? Partly because nobody seems to have noticed on the day due to the impressive turnout. And partly because after the scale of Wednesday’s election win, the Methodists are hardly anxious for their partisanship and insensitivity to be exposed.

In the event, the Service proceeded without the Methodist leadership, without the Centenary Church Choir but with many Methodists present who were totally unaware of the boycott. The media didn’t notice and neither, it seems, did the aspiring politicians present – Biman Prasad, Mahendra Chaudhry, Roshika Deo and several others. But guess who else wasn’t there? Yes, SODELPA leader Ro Teimumu Kepa, who sent someone else in her place but whose absence confirms what many suspect – that the Methodist Church is SODELPA at prayer. A church so totally politicised that it was willing to turn its back on a service organised by the State, the Nation – not a political party – to give thanks to God for the release of 45 Fijian hostages held by a terrorist group that routinely beheads its victims. To give thanks for the comfort he gave their families and the whole nation.

There has been no public explanation of the boycott and no comment from the Methodist Church leadership. But it is time for all Fijians – and especially Methodists – to demand that the Church hierarchy explain itself. To explain why it turned its back on the hostages and their families. To explain its gross insult to the Nation. The fury in official ranks is palpable. Because it was not the service that was “political” but the actions of the Methodist Church leadership. Why did they really do it? Was it because it was an interfaith service and the Methodist hierarchy was not prepared to share a stage with Hindus or Muslims? Was it because of the  failure of the Church’s campaign for the imposition of a Christian State? Was it because the Methodists became convinced that their own star candidate, Ro Teimumu Kepa, would win the election and there would be no consequences? Answers please.

It is deeply troubling that the hierarchy of the largest Church in Fiji is so out of kilter with the public mood that it would engage in such a blatantly partisan stance. Many Methodists will have voted for Bainimarama. And like other Fijians, they have voted overwhelmingly for religious tolerance, not bigotry. They have voted overwhelmingly for equality, not racially-weighted advantages for some. They have voted overwhelmingly for a just and fair society and everyone joining hands to work together to build a better Fiji. They have turned their backs on the division embodied by SODELPA and its acolytes in the Methodist Church and embraced a better future.

It is a wonderful moment in the life of the nation and a historical watershed – the birth of our first real democracy. Voreqe Bainimarama enters the history books as the man, who through sheer force of will, reset the national compass and led Fiji to a more united future. As the PM says: “There has never been a better time to be Fijian”. And most citizens – no matter what their backgrounds and beliefs – will say a collective Amen to that. Source: http://www.grubsheet.com.au/the-new-democracy-begins/

The Fiji First Party's Howard Politini who lost out to his colleague Sanjit Patel in Nadi has lodged a complaint with FijiFirst party bosses claiming that Patel went around allegedly telling Indo-Fijian voters not to vote for Politini because FFP needed as many Indo-Fijian MPs as possible in the new Parliament of Fiji. Politini is the son of late Louise Politini  who represented Fiji in rugby and basketball in the 80's. He is also the nephew of the retired Major Howard Politini (2000 coup military spokesman with Major Filipo Tarakinikini).

One Fijileaks source on the ground said many Indo-Fijians were also falsely told that Major Politini was involved in the overthrow of the Chaudhry government and the Politini's were close to the SDL government. Politini's  mother worked for the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase in the 2006 election campaign. He runs the Highlands Scenic Eco-Tours tour company in Nadi. It seems the Highlanders did not vote for him. Politini had started his election campaign in Nadi well before Patel's name was endorsed by FFP. If one analyses the election results, one will notice how many FFP winning Indo-Fijian candidates are on top of the FFP list. It has also been brought to Fijileaks's attention that some Indo-Fijians like Patel did not promote 279 (Frank Bainimarama's candidacy number) in the Western Division, and in rural pocket meetings.

The Politini camp sources told Fijileaks: "In Ba, four Indo-Fijians candidates made it to Parliament for FijiFirst. Three in Nadi, and another three in Nausori. Also, Indo-Fijian candidates had a high number of votes. So much for equal votes and race free one Fiji."

Source close to the Politini camp also claim that Patel did not declare his full assets and might have cheated the tax department because of Fiji's double taxation arrangements with India and Australia. They allege that Patel inherited his wealth in Surat, India, and has properties in Canberra and in Fiji. One of the winning candidates Parveen Bala was reportedly given 10 rental cars by Sings Rental. The FFP Indo-Fijian candidates used hired vehicles to bring in voters.

Patel could not be reached for comments. RACE, claims FFP, is a thing of the PAST. We are all FIJIANS now. Tell that to Howard Politini who is CRYING FOUL over RACE CARD.

LOOKING INSIDE FROM OUTSIDE:  As Politini looks from outside, sources in his camp say the following could be in the new Cabinet: PM, Bainimarama; Deputy PM, Finance: Khaiyum, AG: Mereseini Vuniwaqa, Koya, or outside appointment, Sarvadanand Sharma (SC) ?; Trade and commerce: Dr Reddy, Foreign Affairs: Inoke Kububola 1987 coup, 2000 coup,2006 coup; Utilities and Works: Lesi Natuva, Education: Dr Brij Lal, Health: Dr Neil Sharma; Youth and Sport: Rosy Akbar, BA soccer manager,BA festival, Teacher; Agriculture: Dr Reddy -PHD  agricultural economist or Inia Seruiratu; Tourism: Lorna Eden, Hotelier but might be conflict of interest; Forests: Osea Naiqama, Fiji Pine Landowners Trust; Provincial Development: Cawaki, Commissioner Western; Public Enterprises: Pio Tikoiduadua;  Home Affairs: Nemani Rika or Konrote (Rabuka days); Labour: Jone Usumate; Housing and Urban Development: Parveen Bala;  Social Welfare: Dr Luveni; Information Minister: Veena Bhatnagar, former broadcaster; Itaukei affairs: Rupeni Nadalo, Tikoiduadua or Rika

ITS HIM: Shaheen Ali, the PS for Trade and Industry, right (in right hand photo), with Khaiyum in India. According to entrepreneur Dayal Fiji's 'Taliban' made all Muslim appointments including that of Ali, 'the gay one'

September 23, 2014

Peter Reith
Columnist
Sydney Morning Herald

Incoming Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama put himself before the citizens of Fiji and gave them the opportunity to decide the future of Fiji.

It is decades since I was on a family holiday in Fiji but I can report it's still a beautiful place and the people are still friendly. And now that Fiji has voted for democracy, the best Aussies can do for Fiji is to continue holidaying in even greater numbers.

Last Wednesday's election and the transition from military government and return to democracy could not have gone much smoother. There are a lot of dictators around the world who will never give up power. Putting the recent history behind, it has to be said that it is to the credit of the incoming Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, that he put himself before the citizens of Fiji and gave them the opportunity to decide the future of Fiji. He won 32 seats out of 50. Many Indo Fijians voted for Bainimarama; an outcome that the Opposition needs to consider in the future.

There were two significant catalysts to this shift to democracy. Firstly, a switch in Australian policy towards Fiji announced by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in February 2014 and the decision by the Fiji government in March 2014 that it would hold elections by the end of September. The last Fijian election was 2006 and until this year, elections were twice promised but not implemented.

Needless to say, democracy is not a one-day wonder: Fiji will need to continue and improve the practice of democracy. The next step will be the opening of the new Parliament which will give the opposition a legitimate platform. All sides of politics in Fiji will need to adapt to the new democratic standards; the opposition needs to behave responsibly and to establish itself as a viable alternative to the government. The government's challenges include the need to bring civil society into the democracy tent and lessen restrictions on the media. 

Once again, Bishop has demonstrated that she is a quality minister.  Two things stand out. Firstly, the February policy change involved taking a punt that Fiji would move towards democracy. It was clear from the outset that no one really knew how well the voting would be conducted and no one was sure what would happen if the government lost office. It was a classic case of taking a risk to get a worthwhile outcome. And secondly, rather than shunning Fiji, she worked with the Fiji government and put in place the resources needed to complement Fijian efforts to run an election at short notice. In both cases, the approach turned up trumps for everyone.

The Multinational Observation Group (the MOG) was co-ordinated by Australia and we managed the involvement of more than 90 international observers through the Secretariat staffed by Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Training staff. Australia was co-leader with Indonesia and the India and, separately, we also funded Australian experts to work inside the Fijian election office.

The observation work was not just on election day. We wanted to know what was happening on the ground well in advance of the election so we could understand the context for the vote. The task was to monitor and report back; the MOG was not running the election and it was not a commentator on politics. It was however, not shy in saying that its final report would not only suggest improvements for the future but it would point out what needed to be done before the election.  

The preparation was comprehensive. Young Australian staffers were dispatched to remote islands to talk to local people about the election and people like former Kiwi MP, Wyatt Creech was walking the back blocks of Fiji for weeks before the election. Where there were complaints or otherwise, they were passed on to MOG.

On election day, the MOG covered 455 polling booths and about 31 per cent  of all polling stations. The MOG also had its own discreet tally room thereby providing an independent check on the national results. On the day after the election, the MOG announced the "outcome of the 2014 Fijian election is on track to broadly represent the will of the Fijian voters and the conditions were in place for Fijians to exercise their right to vote freely".

It was the first time Australia had been given the lead for a MOG.  I knew it went well when I heard that the observation specialists from the European Union said that we had done a good job "for non-experts". Maybe now Australia, India and Indonesia will build on the template established in Fiji for other elections in our region.

A new start for Fiji has much promise; an important role in Pacific affairs, economic growth, resumed relations with Australia and the Commonwealth and the benefits of democracy.  

Peter Reith, a former Howard government minister, was appointed by Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop as co-leader of the Multinational Observation Group  for the Fiji elections on September 17.

Source:http://www.smh.com.au/comment/keep-holidaying-in-fiji-for-democracys sake-20140922-10kab6.html#ixzz3EBLcIF3k

Fijileaks Editor:

The Fijian Elections Office has clarified that provisional results for SODELPA candidate Vane Seruvakula were wrongly entered.

When provisional votes were released on the night of elections, Seruvakula had up to five thousand seven hundred votes – however this was not reflective in her final result.

“The provisional result for Vane Seruvakula was higher than the final and we found that in data entry there was a typo error and that’s what caused the high number of votes. But with the final results – with the three audit systems there is no mistake for the final vote.”

Saneem says they had insisted from the beginning that provisional results were to be dropped once final results were released. Source: FBC News.

MEANHWILE, those sworn in to lead the new Bainimarama government are as follows: 
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum (Minister for Finance, Public Enterprise, Public Service, Trade and Tourism),
Faiyaz Koya (Attorney General and Minister for Justice),
Pio Tikoduadua (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport),
Praveen Kumar (Minister for Local Government, Housing and Environment),
Mereseini Vuniwaqa (Minister for Lands and Mineral Resources),
Osea Naiqamu (Minister for Fisheries and Forests),
Inia Seruiratu (Minister for Agriculture, Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management), Ratu Inoke Kubuabola (Minister for Foreign Affairs),
Timoci Lesi Natuva (Minister for Immigration, National Security and Defence),
Jone Usumate (Minister for Health and Medical Services),
Mahendra Reddy (Minister for Education, Heritage and Arts),
Jioji Konrote (Minister for Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations),
Laisenia Tuitubou (Minister for Youth and Sports),
Rosy Akhbar (Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation),
Lorna Eden (Assistant Minister ofr Finance, Public Enterprise, Public Service, Trade and Tourism),
Joeli Cawaki (Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management),
Veena Bhatnagar (Assistant Minister for Health and Medical Services),
Vijay Nath (Assistant Minister for Education, Heritage and Arts) and
Iliesa Delana (Assistant Minister for Youth and Sports).

By Professor Wadan Narsey

[This article is for the record, and by explaining what they were up against, gives credit and moral support to those brave candidates who fought the elections on principles of good governance, truth and justice, while embracing the genuine equality of all citizens, with full respect for all religions, cultures, and institutions. This battle may be lost for now on one important front, but the war will go on, as it always does.]

There can be little doubt that Bainimarama, Khaiyum and a cabal of secret advisers on decrees, electoral systems, budgets, elections manifesto, and spin doctors, have waged a brilliant and highly successful campaign, for at least three years, prior to winning this 2014 Elections.

The Chairman of the subservient Electoral Commission (Chen Bunn Young), as expected,  pronounced the September 2014 Elections as “free and fair”.

But the knowledgeable Multinational Observer Group (MOG), here to largely observe the “casting and counting of votes”, stated only that the election results “broadly represented the will of the people” (barring any proof of substantial irregularities alleged by some political parties).

The good governance organizations know too well that elections are far more than just the “casting and counting” of votes, especially in a Fiji where draconian military decrees and total media control have restricted and shaped public opinion over the last eight years.

Books will now be written about this second Fiji case study (the first being Rabuka) on how a military commander, treasonously deposed a lawfully elected government, and managed to become legitimized as an elected Prime Minister, solemnly swearing oaths of allegiance he had not kept before in 2006 and 2009.

There are two extreme interpretations of this metamorphosis, with the truth perhaps somewhere in between.

At one extreme is Graham Davis’ euphoric and populist interpretation of the Bainimarama journey as a “glorious revolution” and an unparalleled triumph of leadership creating a modern Fiji of equal citizenry (22 September 2014 post on his blog, Grubsheet.)

[Graham Davis previously declared his interest that he is employed by US lobbying company Qorvis which has been hired by the Bainimarama Government at great tax-payer expense, precisely to improve the public image that Davis admiringly highlights, and is no doubt also part of his KPI].

At the other extreme is the dark underbelly of the Bainimarama “revolution” that civil society organizations and opposition parties have struggled against for the last eight years.

With society failing to draw any kind of a line at a long series of seemingly small restrictions on their basic freedoms, Bainimarama’s step by step systemic imposition of military decrees and media policies, unfettered and unopposed, eventually accumulated into the all-powerful propaganda machine that handed him a landslide electoral victory, easily hailed as “the people have spoken”.

These astute steps include Bainimarama’s rejection a full two years ago, of the Draft Constitution formulated by Bainimarama’s  own Yash Ghai Commission, the unilateral imposition of their own constitution giving themselves immunity, their total control and censorship of the media, their control of the Electoral Commission, the Supervisor of Elections, MIDA, their restrictions on NGOs for voter education and elections monitoring, their last minute vote-buying manifesto release, the shady role of the business houses, all accompanied by the thunderous silence of the good people of Fiji.

Without all these systemic biases, the Fiji First Party margin of victory might be significantly reduced, or even become negative.

Why reject the Ghai Draft?

Bainimarama’s election strategy finally clarified some important reasons for his rejection of the Ghai Draft Constitution despite it granting full immunity to all the coup collaborators.

First, the Ghai Draft electoral system had four constituencies (the divisions), apparently a trivial difference, but it would have limited Bainimarama to appear on the ballot paper for only one constituency and hence strictly limited his personal vote appeal.  All other FFP candidates on the other three constituencies would have had to struggle for votes against other competitors, instead of riding on Bainimarama’s coat-tails.

Second, the Bainimarama Government would have had to resign six month before the election. This would have prevented Bainimarama and his Ministers from using tax-payers funds and donor funded projects, right up to polling day, in blatant and very successful vote buying.

Third, Bainimarama would not have had the complete control over the media through their restrictive media decrees (including MIDA) to obtain maximum political mileage for themselves, while criticizing and ruthlessly suppressing opposition parties.

Fourth, to obtain immunity, Bainimarama and his coup collaborators would have had to express remorse for specific actions for which they wanted immunity, with clearly negative consequence for their image with voters.

 Last, under the Ghai Draft, and perhaps less important, the Bainimarama Government would not have had the total control over the Electoral Commission, the Elections Office, and MIDA, as they did.

The Electoral System

Bainimarama’s electoral system and constitution were not discussed or approved by the other political parties, and the electoral system in hindsight seems designed specifically to suit Bainimarama’s planned elections strategy.

Despite political parties’ recommendations for local constituencies (so that local communities could elect their “own” Member of Parliament to represent their local interests), Bainimarama insisted on one national constituency, with each voter voting for just one candidate (as was the FFP strategy).

While the electoral system has the advantage of proportionality (which also benefited NFP in Parliament for the first time), it imposed the 5% threshold rule which eliminated small parties and Independents, unduly harsh, given that each parliamentarian roughly represents 2% of the votes.  Their lost equivalent of 4 seats went to the largest parties in proportion (if you took away 3 seats from FFP they would be left with 29).

Candidates were rejected with large numbers of votes, while many with fewer votes, but belonging to larger parties, have been elected making a mockery of the years of relentless propaganda “1 person = 1 vote = 1 value”. But that applied to most candidates, not just to FFP

The Manipulated Ballot Paper and Candidates List

The pliant Elections Office and Electoral Commission then enforced the outrageous Electoral Decree requirement that the ballot paper only have numbers (all 248 of them), with no names, no photos and no party symbols which could have helped illiterate voters identify the candidate of their choice.

The Electoral Commission and Elections Office refused to accede to requests that the ballot paper could still group the candidate numbers together under their party symbol (with their names and photos) so that even if voters ticked an adjacent number by mistake, the vote would still go to their chosen party.

The Electoral Decree unreasonably banned the voters from taking any material (such as voting cards) into the polling booth, which could have assisted illiterate voters to tick the number they wanted.

The pliant Electoral Commission went along with the Candidates List in which candidates were all deliberately mixed up randomly, with no party grouping or party symbols.

This clearly worked against the interests of opposition parties who took seriously the task of supporting all their candidates and numbers, not just the Party Leader.

The FFFP strategy of asking voters to vote for just the one number representing Bainimarama, resulted in him receiving a massive number of votes, which dragged into parliament a large number of his colleagues, some with minimal votes.     [This was the “democratic” electoral system that electoral missionary and foreigner David Arms, also a member of the Electoral Commission, fought tooth and nail to impose on Fiji’s political parties and voters].

The proud boasts of the Elections Office about the record low percentage of invalid votes are hollow, given that with the existing ballot paper, no one can find out if there were “invalid votes” caused by voters wrongly ticking a number which was not of their intended candidate.

A “perverse proof” is that a relatively unknown candidate, Ilaijia Tavia, received the highest votes of all the PDP candidates, because many voters probably confused his number (297) with that of Bainimarama (279).

Bainimarama’s Electoral Decree also banned “exit polls”, which are a regular part of democratic elections, useful the world over as a check against the rigging of the counting process.

It is abundantly clear now that the entire electoral system and electoral decree was cunningly designed to suit the Bainimarama campaign for voters to remember only one number (279) while ignoring all other candidates.

The Elections Office and the media have dutifully played along with the game by comparing Bainimarama’s personal vote with that of Ro Temumu Kepa and Professor Biman Prasad, totally ignoring that opposition parties’ elections strategies gave broad exposure to all the candidates, and not just the Party Leader as did the FFP.

The Pliant Election Authorities

 By decree, the Bainimarama Government ensured that the ultimate authority over the elections, the Minister of Elections was their own Attorney General (Aiyaz Khaiyum) also unashamedly the Secretary General of Fiji First Party.

They appointed their own Supervisor of Elections, as well as their own choice of Electoral Commission members, and the Media Industry Development Authority Chairman, most being open or closet Bainimarama sympathizers.

Academics will no doubt try to clarify exactly how much effort the Supervisor of Elections, the Electoral Commission and the MIDA Chairman put in, to try and make the elections genuinely “free and fair”, despite the restrictive Electoral Decree and other media laws.

What the public did see was that while the Elections Office spent millions encouraging the voter registration of Fiji citizens living overseas to have a say in electing some candidate for the Fiji parliament, a last minute Bainimarama Decree unfairly disqualified some opposition party candidates because they had been overseas for more than 18 months out of the last two years, some for legitimate reasons such as higher education. Did the Electoral Commission protest?

Then when the Electoral Commission issued a ruling that a FLP candidate was eligible to stand for elections (because he did not have a conviction as previously claimed) and a FFP candidate was ineligible to stand because  he was facing a criminal charge of causing death by dangerous driving, the Supervisor of Elections refused to abide by the ruling.

The technical justification was that the ruling had been received by the Elections Office a few hours after the due time, duly backed up by the courts who adjudicated the case by defining what was mean strictly by “three days”, not what “natural justice” and common sense required.   Did the Electoral Commission protest?

Early in the campaign, scholarship authorities under the control of the Bainimarama Regime terminated the scholarship of one of the party workers of young Independent candidate Roshika Deo, on totally ridiculous grounds.

While the scholarship was eventually reinstated after a public outcry and much buck-passing between the USP management and scholarship authorities, the message was given to young voters- don’t support the opponents of the Bainimarama Regime, if you want your scholarships to continue. Did the Electoral Commission protest?

The restricted education of voters

Months before polling day, the Bainimarama Regime warned NGOs that under Section 115 (1) of the Electoral Decree “it shall be unlawful for any person, entity or organisation .. that receives any funding or assistance from a foreign government, inter-governmental or non-governmental organisation or multilateral agency to engage in, participate in or conduct any campaign (including organising debates, public forum, meetings, interviews, panel discussions, or publishing any material) that is related to the election or any election issue or matter.”

Totally against the spirit of free and fair elections, organizations like CCF, FWRM, WCC, and other NGOs were banned from all such educational activities, which is the norm in democratic societies, and indeed has been the practice in all previous elections.  Did the Electoral Commission protest?

While universities were apparently allowed to have such education campaigns and organize debates, panel discussions, none did so, a reflection of the often demonstrated pro-Bainimarama biases of their managements and their previously demonstrated willingness to suppress academic freedom.

The restricted monitoring

Outrageously, the Attorney General and SG of the Fiji First Party also decided that while international observers and party scrutineers would be allowed to monitor the activities at the polling stations, he would not allow 300 independent local observers from the Civil Society-Domestic Elections Observation Group (CSO-DEOG)?

The CSO-DEOG plaintively and futilely argued that “local community observers are often able to understand the nuances that international observers cannot, and their absence will leave a hole in the process.”

Common sense would also suggest that while international observers would be gone after the elections, and while party scrutinizers can always be accused of bias should they observe any irregularities, the local NGOs/CSOs could be relied upon firstly, to be truly independent and secondly, to maintain institutional memory and ongoing sustainability in good governance practices in elections.

Did the Electoral Commission protest?

The flood of vote-buying

The Bainimarama Government used their ministerial positions to keep distributing tax-payer and donor funded benefits right up to polling day, justifiably construed as “vote-buying”, given the timing of these benefits.

This was contrary to the recommendation of the Ghai Draft Constitution which had required that Ministers must resign six months before polling so that the other parties were given a fair deal.

Then Fiji First Party deliberately issued their Manifesto of vote-buying goodies a mere ten days before the actual polling day.  It promised families earning below $20,000 per year, free electricity, water, medicines, milk for all Class 1 students throughout the length and breadth of Fiji (more profits for CJ Patel who owns Rewa Dairy), first home grants, a $10 million grant for indigenous Fijian landowners, a wide range of subsidies in agriculture, and the reinstatement of Dr Mahendra Reddy’s initial Minimum Wage of $2.32 per hour (which Bainimarama and Usamate had last year unilaterally reduced to $2 per hour after pressure from employers).

Opposition parties and candidates were given no time to challenge the FFP on the practical viability of these promises (eg how identify “poor” families throughout Fiji), least of all on how all these vote-buying promises would be financed.  In contrast, for months, FFP and their sympathetic journalists had freely attacked the Opposition parties on their policies.

No one in the media asked why the FFP Manifesto was virtually a hundred percent “freebies” and “handouts” when Bainimarama in 2008 had promised that his government would not pander to Fijians’ “hand-out” mentality.

No one in the media or the MIDA Chairman questioned Bainimarama’s blatant use of the racial fear tactic when he advised Indo-Fijian voters, that if they voted for him there would be no more coups.

Did the Electoral Commission or the MIDA Chairman protest at any of these unfair electioneering tactics?

The media biases

It will not be difficult for even journalism students to establish that the content of the Fiji Sun and the broadcasts by Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (both radio and television) have been sheer propaganda on behalf of the Bainimarama Government.

Nor to prove that the media journalists who were the hosts of so-called “debates” between parties, were blatantly biased in favor of FFP candidates and antagonistic towards Opposition candidates and parties.

Nor that most debate hosts played along with the FFP strategy of focusing on non-issue of calling all citizens “Fijians” while giving opposition candidates little room to raise their own arguably weightier concerns.

None of the journalists persevered in asking Bainimarama or Khaiyum why they refused to release Auditor General Reports since 2006  or the Minister’s salaries before 2014; why they refused to release reports on the FNPF losses at Natadola and Momi; why their Manifesto promised all the “goodies” just 10 days before polling; why they had not kept their promise in 2007 that no military personnel would ever benefit from his coup, or that none  of his ministers including himself, would ever stand for elections; nor the alleged equality of citizens when his government prosecuted and jailed political opponents, while giving himself and his collaborators total immunity from 2000 to 2014 for crimes still unstipulated.

MIDA

The public also waited in vain for the Media Industry Development Authority Chairman (Ashwin Raj) to exercise an independent regulatory impact on the media in the run-up to the election.

The Fiji Times was perpetually on notice have already been fined a massive four hundred thousand dollars and its editor (Fred Wesley) given a suspended six month sentence for what some might call a trivial offence, while the owner remained overseas with a bench warrant out on another charge.

Three months before the elections, the MIDA Chairman refused to respond to very specific questions addressing the very core of a free and fair media industry relating to

• millions of tax-payers advertisement funds being channelled by the Bainimarama Government only to Fiji Sun with The Fiji Times being denied;

• outright massive subsidies given to FBC (whose CEO was the brother of the Attorney General) via government budget and government guarantees of loans from FDB;

• the intimidating renewal of the license for Fiji TV on a six monthly basis;

• the sacking of a senior Fiji TV journalist (Anish Chand) who wanted more critical programs covering the elections, because of complaints from the Bainimarama Government.

A month before the election, the MIDA Chairman refused to respond when complaints were made about the biased role of the media and some media journalists in the coverage of the elections and the debates between parties and candidates.

The MIDA Chairman refused to respond when it was pointed out that Veena Bhatnagar, who had been a clearly pro-Bainimarama media host of the FBC’s Aina program during a debate between Biman Prasad (Leader of NFP) and Aiyaz Khaiyum (Secretary of FFP), a mere week later appeared as a candidate for FFP.  So also did the MIDA CEO (Matai Akauola).

None of these were apparently of concern to the MIDA Chairman, who now applauds the media for their conduct during the elections, a supine media being clearly to his liking.

The Business Community

When the facts eventually come out on the factors that influenced the outcome of the 2014 Elections, the most important but shadiest one will be the massive campaign funds donated to the FFP by Fiji’s business houses, most unlikely to be ever revealed to the public as required by the laws.

This massive corporate support of FFP was to be expected given that the Bainimarama Government in the 2012 Budget had reduced corporate tax from 28% to 20% and the highest marginal income tax from 30% to 20%, and immediately put more than $150 million annually into the pockets of the wealthy in Fiji.

Against this huge benefit (and other special ones unknown), collectively giving ten to twenty million dollars to the FFP campaign would have been an easy to justify “cost of doing business” in Fiji, unlikely to ever enter into any WB or ADB Index on “ease of doing business” in Fiji.

Deserving special mention is the recipient of several valuable financial benefits from the Bainimarama Government, CJ Patel, whose ownership and control of the Fiji Sun has enabled them to wage a propaganda campaign whose success can only be guessed at, given the final outcome.

But this is nothing new.   Since 1970, the business community (of all ethnic groups) have funded all powerful politicians and those controlling government, promptly switching the support ever so easily from Mara to Chaudhry to Rabuka to Qarase and now to Bainimarama.

But the 2014 Elections is unusual in that Bainimarama, through his vote buying, has simultaneously been able to win a large proportion of the votes of the poor, while enjoying the financial support of the rich.

It should be interesting for economics students to follow how long this honeymoon threesome between Bainimarama’s Minister of Finance, the rich and the poor, will last, especially when revenues must be eventually increased to meet both the promised “goodies” and the vastly increased Public Debt.

Another victory for treason, lies, deceit, money and the “culture of silence”.

The ordinary public, understandably weary of eight years of social conflict and uncertainty, just want “to move on”, lulled by the cliché “the people have spoken”.

The international community, donor partners, regional and international organizations, relations with Fiji now normalized, will also be relieved to move on, understandably, as it is not for them to solve Fiji fundamental and systemic political problems.

But it must be terribly depressing for the many candidates and parties who fought the election on decent principles of good governance, truth and justice, as it must be for hard-working civil society organizations, only to find that treason, lies, deceit and astute propaganda have prevailed.

But they must not hold themselves responsible.

Despite this age of limitless and virtually free national and global communications through the Internet and social media such as Facebook, Twitter and the blogs, ultimately, morally right decisions must still be made by human beings at the ends of the communication networks, and such decisions depend profoundly on our educated social leaders.

Unfortunately, for eight years now, Fiji’s social leaders have been afflicted by the “culture of silence” which some attribute not just to material self-interest, but also a lack of moral courage and integrity.

Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi gives a nuanced cultural rationalization that the silence of indigenous Fijians should not be interpreted to mean consent, and this may be comforting to some. But that remains at odds with the cacophony of frequently violent, sometimes well-reasoned dissent engaged in by bloggers on the internet, where the virtually 100 percent anonymity reduces the social responsibility and impact of the contributors virtually to zero.  Are they going to get the Fiji they deserve?

The truth may be somewhere in between these two extreme views, but Fiji is ultimately left to ponder Edmund Burke’s observation, that all that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men and women to remain silent.

And silent indeed have been our legions of senior accountants, lawyers, university academics, principals, teachers, professionals, bankers, and businessmen, for eight long years, giving no guidance whatsoever to the hundreds of thousands of first time voters in the 2014 elections.

Some in SODELPA will rue that what the ethno-nationalists sowed in 1987 and 2000, they have reaped in 2014.  The military genie they let out of the bottle then, has refused to go back into the bottle and they will remain a debilitating drain on tax payers’ funds for the foreseeable future, to ensure their continued loyalty.

This article can conclude with a forgotten and ironical trivia, that the chief strategist for coup-maker Bainimarama has been Aiyaz Khaiyum, who in 1988 was my cell-mate, part of the Group of 18 jailed briefly for protesting the Rabuka coup.

Rabuka ruefully observed, in his own words, that in no time at all, he went from “Hero to Zero” and his sycophants and business parasites, as swiftly switched their allegiance to the next Great Leader.

You can be sure that the current Two Great Heroic Leaders (and their astute strategists), will try to  postpone that day of reckoning for as long as possible, having already had a brilliant eight years of practice, albeit against virtually zero resistance.

Civil society does have a long struggle ahead before the 2018 Elections.

Fijileaks Editor: Narsey has  forgotten  to mention two Electoral Commissioners Larry Thomas and Dr Vijay Naidu as his other cell mates and Father Arms as a protester who ran away when the Group 18 were arrested at Sukuna Park protest on the 14th of May 1988 against Rabuka coup.
http://www.fijileaks.com/home/from-master-bomb-maker-to-face-on-ballot-list-aiyaz-sayed-khaiyums-fight-for-democracy-in-1987-to-brutally-holding-fiji-down-under-frank-bainimaramas-dictatorship

The Saffron Brigade are also circulating among Hindus copies of a Letter to the Editor in Fiji Times that the then student Khaiyum had written from Hong Kong criticizing the Fiji Muslim League. The Koya brothers: one is Speaker of FML, and the new A-G and Minister of Justice is a trustee of the League.

Letter: Critique of FML decision to make submission to Constitution Commission

by A S Khaiyum
(Letter from A S Khaiyum)

"The claim by some executive members of the Fiji Muslim League ('League') that Muslims support a review of our Constitution and demand separate seats merely because the executive says so is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the everyday and majority of Muslims in our country.

The executive lack the mandate to speak as a representative body for Muslims since the League has been and is essentially an administrative institution managing and maintaining mosques, schools, orphanages, a sugar cane farm and real estate.

In addition to the lack of mandate the arguments and justifications espoused by the executive for a review and separate seats are flawed. They are flawed because our Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, namely sections 38(2) and 35 more than adequately guarantee and protect religious freedom and minority rights. Indeed if an almost identical South African Bill of Rights provision protects the rights of the minority South African Muslims then what is so special about and differentiates Muslims in Fiji?

On the basis that last century the then nascent League made submissions on separate seats, it is argued today that so called Muslim rights will be achieved if these seats as submitted then are allocated now. To refer to a resolution passed some seventy years ago, in an era with its own specificities and dynamics, as justification for separate seats in today's Fiji illustrates a complete ignorance and denial of our political, social and constitutional history/experience as a nation-state.

Indeed if we were to hark back and uphold the standards of 1929 then commoner indigenous Fijians and women would not have the right to vote. Fiji and the rest of the world have moved along. Clearly such absurd referrals to the past illustrate an enormous vacuum in basic critical thinking and analysis, discourse and a general prevalence of obscurantism within the executive.

Furthermore, it aptly demonstrates a complete ignorance of contemporary developments in and interpretations of Islamic law and jurisprudence vis-a-vis constitutional, human rights and international law and conventions. More tragically, however, the opportunism of the executive displays the absence of and lack of belief in justice, compassion, selflessness and basic human decency.

Most Muslims in Fiji know that certain officials treat the League and its branches as their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms, where nepotism is known to be rampant at most times; where certain families and individuals have reigned as executives literally for decades; where children and families of well-to-do officials benefit from scholarships which were and are meant for poor students; where chairs of numerous committees are held by single individuals; where businessmen and business interests are over represented; where women,the youth, various provinces and other denominations are either underrepresented or not represented at all; where appeals to religious dogma and unity are utilized in response to queries of administrative/financial discrepancies and where certain individuals view the League merely as a means to acquire access to power, influence and ultimately money - all under the guise of "protecting Muslim interests."

Indeed the absence of proper representation, transparency, accountability and ultimately legitimacy also plague other local institutions in contemporary Fiji.

The executive of the League cannot and does not represent the political opinion, views, philosophies of individuals or the bulk of Muslims in Fiji. These self appointed guardians do not speak for the masses.
Therefore, the current administration and all Fiji Islanders must understand and recognize the majority of Muslims who believe in basic human decency, justice, democracy and constitutionalism reject the idea of separate seats and/or a review of our Constitution."

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
sayedkha@hkusua.hku.hk
 

Hi Fijileaks,

Graham Davis has just posted a comment on your blog post, The 2014 Election: "Far from Free and Fair" - Another victory for treason, lies, deceit and money" - Wadan Narsey:

Wadan Narsey has me quoted in the election wash-up in this article as referring to a "glorious revolution". I have never once used the term, not now or in any previous comment or article on the Bainimarama era. I have asked him to remove the quotation marks on his own website and would make a similar request of Fijileaks.

Wadan Narsey has had ample opportunity through his column in the Fiji Times to get his own message across in the election campaign so I'm rather baffled as to why he would complain about a propaganda war. The base line here is that the Fijian people have not responded to "propaganda". They have responded to the Bainimarama Government's program of service delivery and its principled stand for racial equality and providing every Fijian with the opportunity to move forward as one nation.

Wadan is simply a poor loser, just like every other opposition supporter who refuses to accept the will of the Fijian people. But good luck next time. The NFP shot itself in the head with Tupou Draunidalo's refusal to grant non-indigenous people with the moniker of Fijian. So I suggest that Wadan and everyone else go away and have a long hard think about why their sustained and often dishonest campaign was ignored by the Fijian people in favour of the PM.

I had very little or nothing to do with it, despite what Wadan believes as he wallows in his crushing disappointment. Vinaka

Fijileaks Editor: We are still trying to get a comment from Wadan Narsey.

http://www.fijileaks.com/home/a-new-democracy-graham-davis-reflects-on-2104-election-for-fiji-it-is-a-wonderful-moment-in-the-life-of-the-nation-and-a-historical-watershed-the-birth-of-our-first-real-democracy

Fijileaks Editor's Note: D'Wonit Under the D'Hondt Electoral System!

Opposition campaign strategists forgot that under D'Hondt it was
Party Leaders Votes that Delivered Final Result; only Frank Bainimarama, Biman Prasad, Felix Anthony and Vilimone Vosarogo stood out as leaders of their respective parties; Voters were confused who led FLP and SODELPA:
Was it Lavenia Padarath, Rohit Kishore or Mahend Chaudhry?
Was it Ro Kepa or Laisenia Qarase?

To sleep, perchance to dream--ay, there's the rub

ELECTION 2014

  INTERIM REPORT ON IRREGULARITIES

  BY

  THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTICIPATING

POLITICAL PARTIES

  INCLUDING

  FIJI LABOUR PARTY

NATIONAL FEDERATION PARTY

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL PARTY
 
  September 22 2014

1.      INTRODUCTION

The leaders of the joint political parties contesting the 2014 General Elections met on Thursday September 18th 2014 following representations from their respective polling agents at the count center who began comparing notes of incidents and irregularities being noticed by all party agents individually.

The polling agents at the center individually requested their Party officials to convene a meeting so that these concerns could be addressed. This resulted in a meeting taking place at 11am on September 18th 2014.

None of the Party Leaders had had previous communication on these matters and all of them were being briefed by the various polling agents directly for the first time.

Following the submissions of information and the provision of evidence, the leaders agreed that a subcommittee be formed, made up of 2 representatives from each party and they were to prepare detailed reports with specific cases and accompanying evidence and pictures where possible.

They were scheduled to make their submissions to the leaders on September 19th at 11am. This was later pushed back to 1pm because of the need for more time to complete reports and the   fact that more information was being received from agents across the country.

Following the conclusion of a 6 hour briefing and discussion of the irregularities and the provision of some of the evidence, the leaders agreed to issue an updated statement and provide some of the actual evidence.

Copies of the statements and documents issued to the press were delivered to the President, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and the Supervisor of Elections as the press was being briefed. We attach as Appendix 1 copies of the signed delivery docket for both the first and second communication.

The same delivery process occurred on the evening of the 18th September and officials of the Chairman of the Commission and Supervisor of Elections signed for their copies of the statements issued.

2.      KEY OBSERVATIONS

The joint political party leadership agrees that all of the information provided to them individually and jointly by the polling agents point to a systematic and coordinated effort to alter the ballots cast at various polling stations.

This assumption, which is currently partially confirmed, stems from a number of separate occurrences which, when viewed together could be a possible explanation of how the manipulation may possibly have occurred.

3.      OVERVIEW OF ELECTION CONDUCT

It is the opinion of the Leaders of the participating parties that given all of the evidence provided so far and the various signed statutory declarations by individuals who have witnessed these irregularities, that there is a case to suggest that certain aspects of the process were compromised and that depending on the extent of these irregularities, this may have a material effect on the outcome of the elections.

Given that there is still more details of irregularities coming in from around the country, it is difficult to say at this juncture if the compromised as we now know it is isolated or far more widespread.

The scenario that has emerged thus far suggests that at the close of voting, a number of polling station Presiding officers sent Polling Agents out of the room and in some cases no Police were present. The number of polling stations where this occurred in increasing as more information comes to hand.

It is likely that during this break in proceedings, which itself is a breach of Sec 89 (1) it is possible for unsecured ballot papers to be introduced into the ballot boxes so that when

thepolling agents return to the polling booth after an absence of 1 to 2 hours the count begins and they are none the wiser that anything untoward has occurred.

We do know from a number of different reports that the Presiding Officer calls the resultsthrough to a phone number given to them. They do not know who is on the other end or their name.

Information is still being received from agents and party officials around the country and each discussion ends, another piece of the jigsaw falls into place.

4.      SPECIFIC DETAILS OF IRREGULARITIES

1:         Complaint delivery timeframe:

The Electoral Decree requires that any irregularities that a party may become aware of must be submitted to the authorities within 2 days. Refer below

Sec 17 (2)except otherwise provided in this decree, complaints to the Electoral Commission must be submitted within 2 days of the complainant becoming aware of the decision, action or inaction.

The joint group of Political Party Leaders initially became aware of irregularities on the morning of September 18th 2014 and being mindful of the requirements of the Decree and given that not all of the facts were known at the time of the first meeting, it was decided that an interim notification to the Chairman of the Electoral Commission and Supervisor of Elections be sent to put them on notice that there were irregularities.

The group also felt obliged to keep the media informed of its actions because of the very nature of the issues involved. The first communication was dispatched to the authorities within hours of its release and the attached record of delivery show it was delivered as stated.

The 2nd communication on September 19th with some additional evidence received was dispatched the same evening it was tabled and as with the first communication the copy of the receipt of its delivery is attached.

The 3rd and final communication will be today September 22st, which will summarize examples of the information we have at hand as at Saturday 20th 2014.

The Leaders are satisfied that it has complied fully with the provisions of the Electoral Decree in terms of its delivery of information to the authorities.

Appendix 1:     Copy of delivery of documentation

2.   Closure of Polling Stations        
We have all received information to suggest some polling stations closed for an hour and up to 2 hours. We also have information that both the Police and Agents were ushered out of the Polling Stations at the close of voting.

We are continuing with our verification of this and will establish a list of the names and total number of polling stations involved.

We are also verifying information thatin some instances polling boxes were removed from Polling stations.

As Sec 65 & 89 of the Electoral Decree clearly stipulates below, immediately after the closing of the polling stations the Presiding Officer must immediately undertake the counting.

Sec 65 closing of polls:                     
Immediately after the last voter who was in the queue at 6.00pm has voted, the presiding officer must announce that the polls are closed and the counting of ballot papers shall begin immediately after the close of the polls:                     

Sec 89 (1) Counting Process            
Immediately upon closing of the polls, the counting of ballots papers is to be undertaken and completed in the respective polling station by the presiding officer and such election officials designated by him or her.           

For the purposes of this report we provide a specific case to demonstrate the irregularity in question.

POLLING STATION:                            St John Bosco Primary School-Nadera. The Presiding Agent sent agents away for an hour.No

Police remained inside during this time. We attached a statutory declaration by the agent was involved at the polling station in question.

Other polling stations where polling agents were sent out at 6pm include:

Drasa Primary School

Raviravi Sangam School Station No 5156

Lovu Sangam School

Satya Sai School
                                                

Appendix 2:                                         Statutory Declaration of Luseyane Ligabalavu

                  3:                                       Signed Letter from Ravendra Chand Fiji Labour Party         

No 3:  Transmission of results         
Sec 97 (1) states that ‘following the completion of the protocol of results, the presiding officer must sign it and immediately notify the ‘Supervisor of Elections’by the most expeditious method, including by telephone or any other electronic means, of the results or the total number of votes cast for each candidate, as contained in the final protocol of results.

(2) A copy of the final protocol of results must be immediately posted by the presiding officer in a publicly accessible place at the polling station, such as a notice board, another copy kept inside the ballot box and a third copy sent to the Supervisor by the most expeditious method.                  

(3) The original of the final protocol of results must be enclosed in a tamper free evident envelope.

Sec 102 (3) As the protocol of results are received from each polling station, in accordance with section 97 (1) or (2) the Supervisor of Elections shall progressively  amend the National Results Tally to reflect the total number of votes received by that political party.

There are no other known methods of communicating the results from the polling booths to the Supervisor of Elections stipulated in the Electoral Decree, except as laid out above in Sec 97 and 102.

However, the Leaders have been made aware of the existence during the elections of a ‘Ghost Call Center’ and we now know that the Presiding Officers were instructed to call their results into a certain number and to a certain person, identified only by initials. This has been independently verified by 4 separate agents at different locations as well as a by a Polling official and a Counting Supervisor at the count Center.

None of the Presiding officers were given the name of the person they were calling, just an initial and a mobile number to call.

Likewise at the count center, we have established confirmation from a Count Supervisor that the results they were receiving ‘did not come directly from the polling venues’ but from an unknown person or persons.

Example: The example provided for this report is that from Kalokolevu to ATG, the Presiding Officers were required to call in their results to someone called R.T and not the Count Center.

This variation to Sec 95 & 102 of the process for calling in results has never made known to any of the Opposition Political Parties or their agents and at the time of this report, we cannot find any references about this amendment of the Electoral Decree being referred to by either the Chairman of the Commission or the Supervisor of Elections.

At the time of this report we can verify that a Vodafone owned by a supporter was used by a Presiding Officer to call 9993975 and give the polling results to an unknown person on the other end. The Presiding officer did not know who he was calling, except that he was given the number to call in the results too. It was not the count center.

We have also established that the number called by the Presiding Officer was one of 16 numbers listed as owned by the Elections office.

Therefore the Elections office knowingly broke the requirements of Sec 97 (1) and was operating the ‘Ghost Call Centers’ to which the results were first relayed and not the count centers.

Appendix: 4:                Statutory Declaration of Polling Agent Saini Nabou of NFP

Appendix 5                  Statutory Declaration of Jolame Uludole Polling Agent for SODELPA

Appendix 6                  Statutory Declaration of Peter Waqavonuvonu Count Agent for SODELPA

Appendix 7                  Statutory Declaration of Marika Naseqai supporter of SODELPA

No 4    Unsecured Ballots                  Sec 53 (6)states that during the polling process, it

is prohibited for any person, other than the Presiding officer, to remove any ballot paper from the polling station. (7) (a) and (b) outline the circumstances under which this may occur and (8) outlines the protocols to be followed.

We have the sworn statement of an agent of One Fiji who was suspicious of a parked Kia Sorrento motor vehicle No FR852, registered to Tappoos Limited, parked at the Andrews Primary School Nadi at 3pm on Wednesday September 17th.

The One Fiji official approached the parked Tappoos vehicle and noted that there were stacks of ballot papers in piles in the boot of the vehicle.

He signaled his associated still in his vehicle to take the pictures and when the individual handling the loose ballot papers saw the One Fiji official; he closed the boot and drove off.

This incident was witnessed by 2 other agents from the NFP.

Electoral Commission Response       Mr. Young responded to this complaint on September 20th

As follows:

The black KIA Sorrento vehicle FR 852 is leased to the Elections office and is owned by Tappoos Limited trading as Bula Rental.

The contents in the vehicle were ‘Contracts for Polling day workers, and the vehicle was used to deliver them to the various polling stations.

Picture of the ballot papers taken by a                      Motor Vehicle No FR852 owned by Tappoos

Associate inside the car after he sighted it                and confirmed by Commission Chair it is

from outside the car.                                                  leased by EC. Employee not in uniform

The Leader’s reject the explanation given by Mr. Young on the following grounds:-

Sec 42 Presiding Officers outlines the positions to be appointed by the Supervisor of Elections from the Presiding Officer, Deputy or as outlined in Sec 42 (5)The Supervisor may appoint as many election officials as he or she considers necessary to effectively conduct an election at any polling station.

We draw the Chairman’s attention to Sec 42 (7) which clearly states and we quote A person appointed under this section must not begin to perform his or her duties unless he or she has signed a declaration or a code of conduct in the approved form.

The incident at Andrew’s Primary School took place at 3pm on September 17th, 2014, the elections ended at 6pm.  So 70% of the voting may had been concluded at that time, hence the question:

        i.            Why was an election official delivering employment contracts to polling stations at the height of polling when 70% of the time for polling had already lapsed?

      ii.            Sec 42 (7) relates to all appointments by the Supervisor and therefore if Mr Young’s explanation is to considered, then hundreds of election officials were performing their tasks in breach of Sec 42 (7).

    iii.            Mr. Young dismisses our witnesses account as false and says the documents were day worker contracts? We put it to Mr. Young that we are not mistaken and that our witness knows the difference in size between an A4 paper and the 2014 ballot paper and it would not be too difficult to measure the size of the documents in the picture to determine if they were ballots or A4 size contract letters.

     iv.            We submit a photo below (Photo A) of the actual ballot paper verses the A4 size that by convention offices use for administrative matters such as letters and contracts. There is a significant difference in size. Unless the Elections office uses paper the same size as the ballots for your normal administration work, Mr. Young may care to display these for verification.

       v.            Given the Chairman’s remarks about the vehicle and its mission, we would ask him to make public the following information:

a.      How many day workers were engaged by the Elections office on Polling and pre polling duties?

b.      How many of them were performing their duties in breach of Sec 42 (7) during this time.

c.       Please show the public copies of your day contracts against a ballot paper size.

d.      Why was the election official in the photo not in uniform?

e.      How many polling stations and contracts did he deliver that day?

f.        How many other polling stations around Fiji required contracts to be delivered after polling was almost over?

g.      How many other cars and election officials were engaged in a similar way on election day

Appendix 8                  Statutory Declaration of Pauliasi Rokosawa Balawa        Fiji One Party

No 5:  Unsecured Ballots II                a second sighting of an unsecured ballot paper was made

On Thursday 18th September 2014 at the Nasinu Forestry Station room. The ballot was discovered the day after counting had been concluded.

The ballot paper was a vote for candidate 255 a photo of the original ballot paper in question is shown below:

With sightings of unsecured ballot papers in the West and East this gives rise to the question of how many other areas are involved?

Photo A:                                                                                 Photo B:



Comparison A4 paper verses ballot paper                             Copy of ballot for Candidate # 255

Appendix 9                                          Statutory Declaration of Peniasi Daveta of Sabeto

Pre Polling                                          Agents from SODELPA & NFP noted discrepancies in some of the Pre-Polling containers as they were off loaded on September 17th at 3pm in the Vodafone Arena in Suva.

                                                            The number of ballot boxes involved was as follows:-

                                                           

Ba-Tavua-Rakiraki   73    Lautoka       42

                                                            Keiyasi 38    Eastern    155

                                                            Northern    124Navua 44

                                                            Nausori14Korovou19

                                                            Vunidawa        40Suva             0

                                                            Total                549     

The Suva container was opened after protest from the polling agent and there were no ballot boxes inside.

All ballot boxes had additional documentation and files and other objects inside them, suggesting that they would have had to have been opened in order to place them inside the box.

            Appendix 10                            Statutory Declaration of Peter Waqavonuvonu of SODELPA

6.      COUNTING IRREGULARITIES 

We attach a summary of the counting irregularities that we have encountered and we have included our responses to the comments made by Chairman Young on some of the irregularities raised.

Reports continue to flow in from around the country and we continue to assess and reconcile the information so that we only deal with those issues that can be verified and which we believe are important to be included.

We will continue with this process until we have got details in from all over the country.

Appendix 11                            Documentation of irregularities

7.      CONCLUDING REMARKS

The leaders of the political party’s believe that the information submitted to them by the polling agents and other party officials around the country suggests that the electoral process undertaken in 2014 was compromised.

The extent of the compromise will only be known once more details become available and more people step forward to verify the breaches of the Electoral Decree and other laws and regulations pertaining to the conduct of the 2014 elections.

At 6pm on Monday 22nd September our team at Natovi witnessed the arrival of one truck full of ballot boxes from the North and Election official NG confirmed another 5 were due in the next day. Yet the Supervisor of Elections and the Electoral Commission have both proceeded to call the result.

The information we have at hand is compelling and suggests beyond reasonable doubt that the election process was compromised.  It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the extent of this compromise may well have contributed to the final outcome.

In this interim report, we are providing details that we have managed to collect and verify over the past 4 days and as soon as practical, we intend to prepare a complete a full report on this matter and make our findings public.

This Interim report is submitted for and on behalf of the undersigned Political Parties.

08SUVA17

2008-01-22 15:52

2011-08-30 01:44

CONFIDENTIAL

Embassy Suva

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/23/2018

TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ASEC CASC FJ

SUBJECT: BRIG.GEN. (RET) KONROTE CONCERNED ABOUT  BAINIMARAMA POLICIES THAT FRUSTRATE ETHNIC-FIJIANS


REF: A. SUVA 013

     ¶B. SUVA 005

     ¶C. DAO SUVA 220344Z JAN 08

Classified By: Amb. Dinger.  Sec. 1.4 (B,D).

Summary

-------

¶1. (C) George Konrote, well-connected retired soldier, diplomat, and deposed State Minister, is deeply concerned  that Fiji interim Prime Minister Bainimarama, his friend, has been listening to poor advice, particularly from Interim Finance Minister Chaudhry and interim Attorney General Sayed-Khaiyum, and has made a series of decisions that were bound to infuriate the ethnic-Fijian community.  Konrote noted frustrations within the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), which stem in part from the same decisions that frustrate the ethnic-Fijian community more broadly. Konrote did not suggest such frustrations will boil into anti-Bainimarama action by the Army, but he left no doubt the frustrations are real.  Bainimarama has asked Konrote to be Fiji's Permanent Representative at the UN, but Konrote will decline because of the prospect of Australian and New Zealand visa sanctions against his family.  End summary.

Turning down UN role

--------------------

¶2. (C) George Konrote, a retired RFMF Brigadier General, a

State Minister in the deposed Qarase government, and a former

Fiji High Commissioner to Australia, stopped by for a chat on

Jan. 23.  He is a savvy observer of the Fiji scene, and he

retains cordial relations with his military colleagues,

including interim PM Bainimarama.  Bainimarama has asked

Konrote to be Fiji PermRep to the United Nations.  Konrote

said he has decided to decline the offer because of the

threat of Australian and New Zealand visa sanctions which

apply to family members.  Konrote has two sons who are pilots

with Air Pacific and could lose their livelihoods.  Konrote

said, otherwise, he would be willing to take the job (IG).

Worry about the ethnic-Fijian mood

----------------------------------

¶3. (C) We asked Konrote what the mood is in the public.  He

expressed great concern about the ethnic-Fijian community,

which remains very unhappy about IG policies and

relationships.  Konrote mentioned in particular recent IG

decisions to reform "land" policies, to appoint an Electoral

Boundaries Commission with no ethnic-Fijian members, and to

consider changing Fiji's constitutionally-entrenched

electoral system.  (See reftels).  He said the "land" issue,

in particular, may stimulate ethnic-Fijians "enough to get

them off their butts."  Konrote also expressed concern about

recent IG moves against Fiji Water and other prominent

businesses that will surely affect investor confidence.

Konrote noted a sense that Bainimarama is "listening to the

wrong people," in particular to interim Finance Minister

Chaudhry and interim Attorney General Sayed-Khaiyum.  Konrote

observed that the recent interim-Cabinet reshuffle accented

those relationships.

RFMF frustrated

---------------

¶4. (C) Asked the mood within the RFMF, Konrote indicated that

many of his Army colleagues are frustrated.  They resent

(Navy Commodore) Bainimarama's purge of many of the best and

brightest within the Army during the past six years in order

to solidify Bainimarama's own position.  They resent the

insertion of Navy officers in senior roles that "green suits"

(Army) should hold.  And officers, as ethnic-Fijians, are

frustrated by the IG decisions, as noted above, that seem

tilted toward the interests of Chaudhry and Sayed-Khaiyum.

Konrote speculated that the alleged assassination plot

against Bainimarama last November could accurately reflect

frustration within the Fijian chiefly community.  Konrote did

not suggest any moves are afoot within the RFMF to replace

Bainimarama, but he left no doubt he believes many Fijians,

including Army officers, are deeply frustrated by a number of

recent Bainimarama decisions.  Konrote clearly believes

Bainimarama needs to seek and accept better advice than he

has been relying on lately.

DINGER

Konrote in 2008: Bainimarama has been too reliant on Aiyaz Khaiyum's advice

SINGING A NEW TUNE NOW: "It has been a long and sometimes traumatic journey for our nation in the 44 years since Independence; 4 coups, a rebellion, four Constitutions and 56 days of shame in 2000 when members of our Parliament were held hostage. Fiji has struggled to be unified and cohesive, our development retarded by our inability to think and work as one nation, one people. But with this election, we have put that era firmly behind us." Frank Bainimarama to UN General Assembly, 29 September 2014

“Victor Lal’s articles [in Fiji's Daily Post] all have a simple, indeed simplistic stance, restore Chaudhry and impose democracy as defined by Lal and his friends. What he is advocating is an Indian supremacist doctrine, a new version of Hitlerian herrenvolk for Fiji. The racism lies in his desires, not those of us Fijians. His obsession to control Fiji, blinds him to his own ambitions.” Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, then Interim Minister for Information in Bainimarama installed post Speight coup Qarase interim government, and now post 2014 election Minister for Foreign Affairs, 24 August 2000

The birth of 'Viti kei Rotuma'

GEORGE KONROTE
Sunday Times (Fiji), August 06, 2006

THIS article serves to formally acknowledge, but more importantly refute the views expressed in Victor Lal's latest article titled, Are Rotumans indigenous in blueprint?" which featured in July 2006. It is the fourth such article written since 2000 by the same person who is obviously determined to discredit, embarrass and blatantly insult the chiefs and people of Rotuma.

Despite his claim to the contrary that "this is not a personal attack on the Rotuman community, many of whose members are very good personal friends of mine, and some are even related by marriage to my family", I consider his very misleading and vindictive views to be that of a racist as they have been consistently offensive and insulting. In fact, he has the gall and audacity to challenge the authenticity of our indigenity and this is most unacceptable as it questions the integrity of our heritage and indigenity as islanders of Rotuma which is part of the Republic of the Fiji Islands. As Rotumans we are conscious of our unique Polynesian heritage and are equally proud of our special traditional ties with our indigenous Fijian brethren and other Pacific Islanders which date back through the ages when our forefathers settled the islands during their early migratory voyage across the Pacific.

No accident of history

In an earlier article, Mr Lal claims that, "The Rotumans, who now constitute a recognisable minority with their own churches and associations, are in Fiji as a result of an accident of British colonial history." What utter nonsense and distortion of the truth. The following are official archival excerpts of the events leading to the formal proclamation when the island of Rotuma and its indigenous people became part of the colony of Fiji. Following the last battle of Saukama in 1878, the chiefs, in their wisdom but more importantly fear of further conflict amongst the different districts and clans, came to the collective decision that their "only chance of escaping from future calamities was to be found in absorption into the colony of Fiji".

Consequently, the first attempt by the chiefs in this regard was made on June 18, 1879 when a letter was sent to Sir George William Des Voeux, who was Acting High Commissioner in the absence of Sir Arthur Gordon, suggesting that, "for the promotion and acceptance of Christianity, but more importantly for the Rotumans to live together in peace and harmony, Rotuma and Fiji should be under one government". Leutenant Graham Bower, Commanding Officer of HMS Conflict, was dispatched to Rotuma to consult further with the chiefs and on July 14, 1879 confirmed our forefathers' desire to petition for cession when the chiefs collectively signed a document which read: "We the chiefs of the Island of Rotuma have heard and understood the letter of the Governor of Fiji. We have also heard the words of the Officer of the Great Queen of England, and we ask the Great Queen to rule our island, and to receive us as subjects. We ask for a magistrate, and we promise to obey him and to keep the peace with one another."

This pledge by the chiefs and the people was further reinforced by High Commissioner Sir Arthur Gordon's visit to Rotuma in December 12-16, 1879 when his dispatch to the Colonial Office in Whitehall, London read: "At all these meetings the most eager desire was expressed for a favourable answer to the petition addressed to Her Majesty by the chiefs and the people, and I have no doubt of the sincerity and unanimity of their desire to be incorporated in the Colony of Fiji. Their motives are indeed very obvious and natural, and I believe them to be quite right in supposing the step to be the only one which will assure them domestic peace, and freedom from vexatious interference on the part of strangers."

A response to the chiefs' petition of cession was finally received on September 17, 1880 from High Commissioner Gordon which confirmed, "the Queen's gracious acceptance of their cession of the island to Her Majesty." The official dispatch read: "The Queen has listened graciously to your petition, and accepts you as her subjects. I rejoice that your wish is thus accomplished. I trust that peace and prosperity may ever endure among you in consequence." This acceptance by Queen Victoria led to the issue of an official proclamation by High Commissioner Gordon on November 5, 1880 confirming the formal incorporation of Rotuma as part of the Colony of Fiji.

Issue of sovereignty

Mr Lal claims that, "Rotuma's sovereignty is not an issue" when referring to the Constitutional Talks in London prior to Fiji's independence in 1970. This is most insulting and disrespectful to Rotumans as it questions the validity, but more importantly, the legality of our very existence and status as a minority indigenous group in Fiji. The participants of the Constitutional Talks in London prior to Fiji's attainment of Independence in 1970 failed in their deliberations to consider Rotuma's sovereignty and special status as an indigenous minority entity as enshrined in the island's Deed of Cession.

In fact, it is my humble opinion that the Talks should have focussed on Sovereignty and all matters pertaining to safeguarding indigenous concerns and interests. I strongly believe that we deserve better than being allocated one Senate seat in the post-independence parliamentary/Legislative government set-up.

How wrong, insensitive, but more importantly ignorant and insulting can he be?

It is all about sovereignty, for our standing and status as members of the indigenous community in connection with the Government's Blueprint for Affirmative Action is purely based on our indigenity to our home island of Rotuma, to the proclamation of November 5, 1880 which confirmed and sealed the official formalisation of our absorption as part of this nation. And lastly, it is about our sovereign rights which were enshrined under the terms of our Deed of Cession of May 13, 1881.

The preamble of our Constitution clearly reflects and legalises the wishes of our chiefs and forefathers that we should share a common destiny with our Fijian brethren as indigenous people and one nation. Following Queen Victoria's endorsement of our chiefs' request, and the traditional chiefly assent and acceptance of the paramount chiefs of Fiji, Rotuma became part of the Colony of Fiji as confirmed by the Proclamation Order of November 5, 1880. This was soon followed by the Proclamation of the Deed of Cession which was signed by our chiefs and Sir Des Voux (who succeeded Sir Arthur Gordon) as Western Pacific High Commissioner and Governor of the Colony of Fiji during a brief, but solemn ceremony on the isthmus of Motusa, Rotuma on May 13, 1881.

The official terms of the Deed of Cession read: "We the chiefs of Rotuma, with the knowledge and assent of our respective tribes, and in accordance with their desire, do, on our own behalf and that of our respective tribes, hereby cede and surrender absolutely, unreservedly and unconditionally to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, the possession of and full sovereignty of all ports, harbours, roadsteads, streams and waters, and all foreshores and all islands and reefs adjacent thereto: praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to extend to us such laws as now govern her native subjects in the Colony of Fiji, or such other laws as in Her Majesty's wisdom she may see fit to make and appoint for our Government and for the maintenance of peace and good order."

No free-riding

Mr Lal continues with his virulent rhetoric by suggesting that, "It is to be sincerely hoped that migrant Rotumans or those born in Fiji, whether lawyers or layman, will not hide behind the sulu of Fijian nationalism to trample upon the rights and aspirations of the Indian community to benefit themselves and their kinsmen on the island of Rotuma." As Rotumans we acknowledge with humble gratitude that we are merely equal citizens of Fiji who do not plan "to freely ride on the economic back of Indo-Fijian toil ...".

Nor do we intend to "forcibly gorge into the wealth of the nation and expect the Indo-Fijians to wait for the crumbs from their master's table, the supposedly indigenous Rotumans of Fiji", as rudely inferred by Mr Lal in one of his articles. Since the cession, generations of our people had excelled and continue to excel in all fields of work wherever they are whether in the public service, private sector, the military and disciplined services or the church.

Over the years our small indigenous community worked very hard together with the rest of the different communities of Fiji in serving and building this nation to what it is today. Although our individual and collective contributions to nation-building throughout the years could be assessed as modest and small, it is also my opinion that overall, it has been quite substantial. We have been "punching well above our weight", but do not wish to claim any credit for our contribution to society nor do we expect any special favours from any quarters.

Viti kei Rotuma

As Rotumans we are very mindful and value with great pride our special traditional relationship and connection with Fijians which originated from the days of the early migration and settlement of the islands by our forefathers. Our loyalty and commitment to this country is steadfast, resolute and unquestionable. In peace and war, we stood firm and endured with our Fijian brethren as an indigenous community and entity. We continue to be mindful and cherish with great humility and pride the favourite catchcry of Viti kei Rotuma of our chiefs and elders, in our interaction with other members of the community in all matters pertaining to the matanitu, vanua kei na lotu.

Native land

Mr Lal further asserts that, "Rotumans have no right to entangle in the ALTA-NLTA controversy". We have no intention of interfering or being dragged into the ALTA-NLTA land lease debate nor do we wish "to poke our noses into why and for how long an Indian farmer should be allowed to remain on native Fijian land on the mainland," as Mr Lal asserts. This debate and the final resolution of the issue is best left to the Fijian landowners, the appropriate authorities and other interested stakeholders. As "sons of the soil" of our home island Rotuma, we are primarily concerned and interested in ensuring that our separate Rotuma Land Act is administered and amended in the best interest of our small community.

Serving Fiji well

Mr Lal also claims that, "Rotumans have contributed no more than any other non-ethnic Fijian group in the country".

We do not dispute this.

However, we contend that our contribution to national progress should not be measured against our economic or political clout but rather on sovereignty, indigenity, our loyalty, commitment and service to our nation. The President, Ratu Josefa Iloilovatu Uluivuda, whilst concluding his address at the opening of of the Parliament on June 6, 2006 reminded us about the call to service. He said, "Honourable Members and Senators, I call on all of you to make service to the country the guiding principle of your work. Our people look to you as leaders to guide our nation towards greater harmony and prosperity. You now have the opportunity to take Fiji to a destiny when future generations will say: They Served Their Country Well." Generations of Rotumans have served and will continue to serve our beloved country well.

After more than 42 years of loyal and dedicated service as a military officer, (Deputy Commander/Chief of Staff, Republic of the Fiji Military Forces), United Nations Assistant Secretary General/Force Commander, United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration and more recently as Fiji's High Commissioner to Australia and Singapore, I believe that I can justifiably claim that I have done my duty and served the vanua, matanitu kei na lotu well.

In this regard, I would like to ask Mr Lal as to what service has he done to this country to qualify him to be so scathing and vexatious in consistently questioning and challenging our status as respectful, law-abiding, hardworking good citizens of this country? Does he consider his claim to be a political analyst who read law in Oxford a qualifying criteria to be so bitter and vengenful in voicing his anti-Rotuman rhetoric publicly? We are not impressed nor are we amused.

Mr Lal's suggestion that, "Rotumans should honourably ask the Government to change the Preamble to the 1997 Constitution" is indicative of an arrogant and insensitive individual who is obviously oblivious to the socio-political realities and local dynamics of our evolution into nationhood over these past years. I consider it the ultimate insult to the Fijian and Rotuman people.

As Rotuma's newly elected Parliamentary representative I believe it is incumbent upon me to denounce Mr Lal's baseless and uncalled for vitriolic and vindictive attacks against my chiefs and people and correct his racist views and knowledge of our special relationship of Viti kei Rotuma. During my swearing-in by the President as a Minister of State and Parliamentarian, I was very mindful of the terms of the Oath of Allegiance that I am required to serve our beloved Fiji and our small Rotuman electorate well.

As a former soldier, I consider my long and continued service to Fiji as an obligation which I will have to fullfil to the best of my ability. A new multi-party Cabinet has now been formed and I believe that all good citizens of Fiji will want to see it work, therefore we should be more tolerant, accommodating and forgiving for true reconciliation to be achieved and peace and harmony to reign.

As a Christian, I will ask my chiefs and people to forgive Victor Lal for the great injustice he has done against us and hope that he is more sensitive, fair and considerate in future as such controversial and divisive public utterances are not conducive to reconciliation, peaceful and harmonious co-existence within this diverse multi-ethnic nation of ours.

May Almighty God continue to richly bless this beloved country of ours Fiji.

The author is the Minister of State for Immigration & Ex-Servicemen. He is also the Member of Parliament for Rotuma.

Response to Jioje Konrote by Victor Lal (From the Fiji Times, 20 August 2006)

When racism and indigenous rights come into play

THE Minister of State for Immigration and Ex-Servicemen, George Konrote, while refuting the views expressed by me has raised a number of issues and has called me a racist, insensitive, and an ignorant individual.

He has also challenged me to match his 42 years of contribution to the service of the country. I am, therefore, obliged to rise to the challenge and to reply to his article titled 'The birth of Viti kei Rotuma' (ST 6/8). Mr Konrote says that since 2000, I have been determined to discredit, embarrass, and blatantly insult the chiefs and people of Rotuma. He also says that some of my views are that of a racist as they have been consistently offensive and insulting.

His own reply, especially the historical background, has been largely extracted from his Rotuma Day 2005 address which he delivered as Fiji's High Commissioner to Australia. In that address, celebrating the 124th anniversary of the cession of Rotuma to Great Britain, Mr Konrote had taken a swipe at me without deliberately identifying me by name.

I do not think I am racist, arrogant, insensitive, nor have I insulted the Rotuman chiefs. What I merely stated in those articles was that the Rotumans and their chiefs, whose islands had been joined to Fiji for administrative purposes, should have distanced themselves from the naked racism that was being practised by some misguided Fijian racists, and also perpetuated in the Constitution. What I challenged, and which I am still challenging, is that there is no grain of truth or evidence that Rotumans are indigenous to Fiji, and therefore they must have a pride of place in the Constitution, and be entitled to all the goodies in the Affirmative Action programs. What is racist about such a contention? Will the Rotumans be also included in the contentious Qoliqoli Bills?

Was Governor Sir Harry Luke also a racist and insensitive British representative when he wrote in his diary on July 21, 1939: "Arrived at Rotuma, an island of fourteen square miles, hilly and picturesque, which politically is a dependency of Fiji although it is over 400 miles by sea route from Suva. The Rotumans, who number about 4000 including a colony of them in Suva, have no connexion whatever with the Fijians by blood or language. They are of Polynesian stock with an admixture of other strains ranging from Mongoloid to European, the latter derived from escaped convicts from New South Wales." Even acting Governor Sir George William Des Voeux, to whom the first attempt was made in 1879 to annex Rotuma, noted in his autobiography that the Rotumans "though much resembling in appearance others of the light-coloured Polynesian races, seem to be nevertheless of different origin".

Mr Konrote has produced a long historical tract on Rotuma's Deed of Cession and asserts that the Rotumans were given a raw deal at the talks in London leading to Fiji's independence in 1970. As I have recently pointed out, if the Rotumans got a raw deal, it was from Fijian chiefs, who felt that all that the Rotumans deserved was one seat in the Senate. The late Dr Lindsay Verrier had even suggested in London that Rotuma should be merely federated with Fiji after independence.

I have no quarrel with Mr Konrote's historical narrative, for it was precisely on that basis that I had argued that Rotumans are not indigenous to Fiji and are therefore not entitled to stand in the front queue ahead of non-Fijians. He condemns me on the issue of sovereignty, calling me wrong, insensitive and an ignorant individual. I have never questioned Rotuma's sovereignty. What I noted in the previous articles, instead, was that Rotumans have some legitimate grievances, especially bureaucratic red tape with the Fiji Government and the erratic nature of shipping, and therefore see independence as a way of assuming more direct control of their destiny. Many are apprehensive about being dominated by Fiji.

I also noted that their desire for two seats, one for Rotuma, and one for Rotumans in Fiji, should be considered as a necessary corrective for the injustice in London. I also noted in a 2000 article that "Rotumans have done very well in Fiji, disproportionately attaining positions at the upper ends of the occupational ladder. They have made solid contributions to Fiji as a whole through their work in government and business".

What is racist about such statements?

And yet Mr Konrote brands me a racist, while pointing out that the Rotumans have been "punching well above our weight" in Fiji. Well, here one can make two points. If the Rotumans are doing so well, despite their minority numbers, than why should they be considered as in great need of the affirmative action goodies in the blueprint? Second, Indo-Fijians could equally reply that the reason the Rotumans are "punching well above their weight" is because some of the best and brightest Indo-Fijians have been shut out of those top jobs and rewards on the grounds that they are not "indigenous" to the country. Meanwhile, I would point out to him that Des Voeux, in his autobiography published in 1903, discloses that he had disagreed with Governor Sir Arthur Gordon on the question of annexation to Fiji.

He disagreed with Gordon that Rotuma, "a solitary island, distant some 200 miles from the nearest portion of Fiji, and inhabited by a people totally distinct from the Fijians in race, language, and social organisation, was naturally a part of Fiji". Des Voeux also disagreed with Gordon that Rotuma's annexation would be in any way an advantage to Fiji. Mr Konrote asserts that "The preamble of our (Fiji) Constitution clearly reflects and legalises the wishes of our chiefs and forefathers that we should share a common destiny with our Fijian brethren as indigenous people and one nation".

Well, in 1970, the Indo-Fijian leaders at the Constitutional talks in London categorically rejected any claim to either British or Indian citizenship. An overwhelming 98 per cent of Indo-Fijians (except a handful of Gujarati merchants) accepted Fiji citizenship, cutting any legal links with India. They wanted to share a common destiny with all the citizens of Fiji. If one were to accept Mr Konrote's contention that since his chiefs had renounced any claim to Rotuman separateness and should, therefore, be considered indigenous to Fiji, than in a similar breath he and his Fijian counterparts should also accept Indo-Fijians as natives of Fiji, for they had also accepted to be governed by the new leaders of Fiji, and still do.

Mr Konrote has challenged me to state what service I have done to the country. Well, I will tell him. He should go to his political boss, the Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, and ask him what I did to save Fiji in 2000 from George Speight, a copycat coup treasonist in the footsteps of Mr Konrote's former military boss Sitiveni Rabuka. What else did I do? I wrote a book showing how he, as Rabuka's second in command after the 1987 coups, helped to destroy democracy and freedom in the country.

What else?

Oh, yes, I persuaded a group of his 1987 Indo-Fijian victims now living in Australia not to file a civil suit on his arrival as a diplomat to that country, based on the Pinochet precedent, when the Chilean military dictator was arrested and charged in London with human rights violations in his country. In any case, he is well aware that he was promoted to a colonel during the illegal seizure of power in 1987. He is equally aware that as Rabuka's official biographer claims, that in the 1990s the late President Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau had rejected Rabuka's recommendation that Mr Konrote should replace him (Rabuka) as army commander. The military leadership went to Ratu Epeli Ganilau, later the chairman of the Great Council of Chiefs.

Finally, I also notice that Mr Konrote writes that, "As a Christian, I will ask my chiefs and people to forgive Victor Lal for the great injustice he has done against us and hope that he is more sensitive, fair and considerate in future". As to Rotuman chiefs, all I noted was the observations of Howard and Rensel, who observed that there was lack of communication between the Rotuma Council and the people they serve, about the council's ineffectiveness in formulating and carrying out development policies, and about the alleged self-serving behaviour of the council.

I have done no injustice to the Rotuman community, and therefore, do not expect any forgiveness. If anything, I have praised them and highlighted some of their genuine grievances. I have only spoken out against the injustice that is being done to non-Fijians and non-Rotumans over the affirmative action programs.

THE former US Ambassador Larry Dinger to Washington
President Suspends Chief Justice Fatiaki:
President Iloilo suspended CJ Fatiaki 1/19 and issued a directive to investigate allegations that Fatiaki drafted decrees and provided legal advice in relation to 2000 coup. The Interim Attorney General said a Tribunal would be set up inquire into the allegations. CJ Fatiaki was placed on forced leave by the interim government earlier this month. Anthony Gates was named "Acting Chief Justice" January 16. (Comment: The ironies of the interim government investigating a judge for his alleged role in helping provide legal justification for the removal of an elected government, in Fatiaki's case allegedly the Chaudhry government, are staggering.)

CJ Fatiaki Speaks:
In an interview in the January 22 Fiji Times, Chief Justice Fatiaki vehemently denied rendering any legal assistance to the interim military regime that was set up after the 2000 coup. The interim-government announcements concerning Fatiaki's suspension as CJ have referred to issues dating back to 2000. Justices Gates and Shameem, who apparently orchestrated Fatiaki's recent suspension, with Gates then becoming Acting CJ, have long alleged in private conversations that Fatiaki demeaned the independence of the judiciary by providing legal advice to Bainimarama and then-President Mara about how to remove PM Chaudhry at a time when Chaudhry was being held incommunicado by the Speight coup participants. In a conversation with the Ambassador last weekend, Fatiaki repeated his flat denial of ever providing such advice to Bainimarama, though he seemingly acknowledged providing advice to President Mara when asked. Fatiaki observed: "What I did then pales in comparison" to the assistance Nazhat Shameem and Anthony Gates have given Bainimarama this time around. Fatiaki described the current situation as "surreal." He expressed frustration at being banned by the PM's office from traveling to conferences abroad. Dinger!

AS former judge Nazhat Shameem arrives in Fiji to most likely take up the post of Chief Justice/President in Bainimarama/Khaiyum's 'New' Fiji, it emerges that Bainimarama remains the BRUTAL DICTATOR he was before his election as Prime Minister of Fiji; President's Office scoffs rumours that he has converted to Islam and has changed his name from Epeli to Ehan ( يهان ) - meaning Full Moon

ONE phone call has revealed that the violent and abusive dictator Frank Bainimarama has not changed his stripe. Last Friday, the Qauia villager Josefa Bilitaki, a guitarist, a composer, a social worker and a former school teacher rang Bainimarama and complained that FijiFirst Party had used two of his songs without his permission during the election campaign.

In the discussion, Bainimarama swore at Bilitaki saying "Fuck Off SODELPA"

A few hours later, four army officers in full army gear, came to Bilitaki's home, and took him, not to QEB barracks, but some other destination where he was badly beaten up.

Bilitaki is still at the Suva Colonial War Memorial Hospital.