Tuesday, November 04, 2014

UN Calls for Review of Fiji Constitution to be Reflective of the True Will of the People


Fiji delegation to UN Human Rights Council failed to Hoodwink Council on
widespread human rights abuse in Fiji since 2006 Coup!

Fiji Times
THE United Nations Human Rights Council has recommended that Fiji consider establishing a constitutional commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the Constitution.
The council suggests that this will thereby ensure it is reflective of the will and aspirations of the citizens of Fiji, seeing that this might help to bring about a more stable political structure.
The Fiji team made a presentation to the UNHRC last week and after discussion with the group led by Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, recommendations were made and Fiji was told to provide an update by March next year.
At the UN meet, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said Fiji accepted 98 out of 137 recommendations made by the Human Rights Review Council.
Fiji told the council that the for the remaining 39 recommendations it was necessary to either consult with the relevant independent institutions, or to refer them to relevant government agencies for input. Out of the 98 accepted recommendations Fiji is already compliant with 12.
It was resolved that the 39 recommendations would be examined by Fiji which would provide responses in due time, but no later than the 28th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2015.
They have recommended that Fiji repeal the Media Industry Development Decree 2010 in order to end intimidation and harassment of those that express criticism of the State.
Member countries said there was a need to change the climate of fear and self-censorship and to ensure that no one was arbitrarily arrested and detained for exercising their rights.
It was also recommended that the legislative and constitutional framework be amended to maintain the separation of powers and cease any executive interference with the independence of the judiciary and lawyers and ensure the processes governing the discipline of lawyers and judges are free from political interference
The Council said Fiji could ensure respect for freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association by amending aspects of decrees such as the Public Order Act Amendment Decree, the Political Parties Decree and the Media Industry Development Decree that unduly restricted fundamental freedoms.
It was suggested Fiji could create and maintain an enabling environment for civil society actors to freely associate, by amending relevant laws and ensuring they are not invoked to curtail the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
At the UN meet, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said Fiji accepted 98 out of 137 recommendations made by the Human Rights Review Council.
Fiji told the council that the for the remaining 39 recommendations it was necessary to either consult with the relevant independent institutions, or to refer them to relevant government agencies for input. Out of the 98 accepted recommendations Fiji is already compliant with 12.
It was resolved that the 39 recommendations would be examined by Fiji which would provide responses in due time, but no later than the 28th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2015.
They have recommended that Fiji repeal the Media Industry Development Decree 2010 in order to end intimidation and harassment of those who express criticism of the State.
Member countries said there was a need to change the climate of fear and self-censorship and to ensure no one was arbitrarily arrested and detained for exercising their rights.
It was also recommended that the legislative and constitutional framework be amended to maintain the separation of powers and cease any executive interference with the independence of the judiciary and lawyers and ensure the processes governing the discipline of lawyers and judges were free from political interference
The council said Fiji could ensure respect for freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association by amending aspects of decrees such as the Public Order Act Amendment Decree, the Political Parties Decree and the Media Industry Development Decree that unduly restricted fundamental freedoms.
It was suggested Fiji could create and maintain an enabling environment for civil society actors to freely associate, by amending relevant laws and ensuring they are not invoked to curtail the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Click Links to Find Out!

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

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Call to Pressure Fiji During its UN Human Rights Review

Fiji delegation to UN Human Rights Council in attempt to Hoodwink Council on
widespread human rights abuse in Fiji since 2006 Coup!

Fiji Times
THE New York-based Human Rights Watch has called on its member states to apply pressure on the Fijian Government during its UN human rights review underway in Geneva.
The HRW says applying pressure on the Government will contribute towards ending ill-treatment in detention, cease harassment and arbitrary arrest of its citizens.
The international body told the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review that it needs to inform the Fijian Government to guarantee protection of human rights defenders, respect freedom of expression and order investigations into allegations of security forces abuses.
"The UPR review in Geneva is a unique occasion to test whether the new Fiji Government can seriously address its human rights problems," HRW said.
It said the Constitution granted "absolute and unconditional immunity" to all members of public services and security forces, as well as public office holders, for actions taken during the 2006 coup d'├ętat until the formation of the new Parliament.
The HRW claimed that during its 2009 UPR review, Fiji accepted recommendations to take active measures to investigate and prosecute those responsible for acts of torture and ill-treatment, and put an end to immunity for members of the military and police force.
"There is little evidence to suggest that Fiji has implemented these recommendations.
"For example, the Fiji Government took no action when a video surfaced in March 2013 depicting what appears to be Fijian soldiers torturing and beating two men.
"When asked whether there would be an investigation, then-Commodore Bainimarama responded that he would stick by his men and officials implicated in the incident."
The HRW urged member states to make concrete, time-bound recommendations to the Government of Fiji to respect basic civil and political rights.

Click Links to Find Out!

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

Monday, October 20, 2014

2014 Fiji Post Election - An Analysis by Steven Ratuva

Published in Pacific Scoop


A symbol of hope – reflections on the Fiji election


fiji Parliament-Meet-425wide Wansol
Fiji’s new parliamentarians … a reassuring image in the re-established democracy. Image: Wansolwara

Pacific Scoop:

Analysis – By Dr Steven Ratuva


One of the most reassuring sights in recent years was the group photo of parliamentarians in front of Fiji’s new Parliament building, standing shoulder to shoulder, with smiles glittering in the dry Suva sun.
These were the successful ones, those whose parties collected more than 5 percent of the votes and who were allocated seats according to their respective intra-party rankings.
Steve Ratuva (middle) in Fiji election panel
SODELPA fought a hard and enterprising battle but fell far short of victory. They were disadvantaged from the beginning by their ethno-nationalist ideological and political strategy aimed fundamentally at mobilising the Taukei who made up 297,818 (60 percent) of the total votes of 496,364.
This meant that they had to win at least 247,188 (83 percent) of Taukei votes to be able to win 25 seats (50 percent), the minimum threshold for any party to claim victory.
SODELPA versus Fiji First

Instead, SODELPA won 139,857 votes which translated into 47 percent of the total Taukei votes. But assuming that some Indo-Fijians and minorities voted for SODELPA also, the figure could come down a bit to around 46 percent Taukei votes.

This meant that about 54 percent of the Taukei votes were cast in favour of Fiji First and the other minor parties. This clear division in Taukei votes is reflective of the shifting nature of Taukei interests, expectations and political choices in a fast changing social, economic and political environment. This is a significant lesson for electoral strategising in the next election for political parties who hope to win Taukei votes.
In contrast, Fiji First had a lower level of difficulty because it had a more trans-ethnic appeal and thus only needed at least 50 percent of Taukei votes, 50 percent of Indo-Fijian votes and 50 percent of minority votes to win the 25 seats threshold. Their overwhelming 59.17 percent victory consisted of about 50 percent Taukei (the other 4 percent would have gone to minor parties) together with more than 70 percent of Indo-Fijian and more than 80 percent of minority group votes.
SODELPA had to work harder by 33 percent than Fiji First to achieve the 25 seats threshold. This disadvantage was clear from the beginning and the only way forward for SODELPA if it is to have a chance of winning the next election is to achieve the 83 percent Taukei votes, an impossible feat indeed given the shifting nature of Taukei votes as mentioned earlier.
Bainimarama-claims-victory RM Republika 425wide
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama claims victory in last month’s general election … “rock star” phenomenon. Image: Mads Anneberg/PMC
The other option is to use a trans-ethnic approach like Fiji First and hope to rope in other ethnic group support. This means a fundamental transformation in its ethnic and political ideology and position.
SODELPA’s strategy in carving up the single national constituency into 50 sub-constituencies as the focus of campaign for the 50 individual candidates was quite innovative and commendable because it won the party most of their seats.
My detailed study of the individual polling station results clearly showed that winning SODELPA candidates did well in their allocated local areas by taking advantage of kinship and other socio-cultural links within the local community.
The only SODELPA candidate who collected substantive votes across the sub-constituency boundaries was party leader Ro Temumu who collected a massive 49,485, light years ahead of Niko Nawaikula who came second with 7,348 votes.
Rural strategy

However, this strategy worked well in rural areas but not in the semi-urban and urban areas. These were Fiji First territories.

The Fiji First approach was in direct contrast to SODELPA. They used the “rock star” phenomenon very strategically by cleverly using the VFR principles (visibility, familiarity and relevance), which underpin the voter-politician relationship in an open Proportional Representation (PR) system.
The focus was on maximising the VFR of the already well-known party leader to draw votes for the party. This also worked well in the context of the number grid system used in the ballot paper where one just needed to remember and mark a number. Also, their presidential campaign style, their use of cargo cult politics (provision of development projects) and pro-poor manifesto, among others, helped to consolidate their dominance.
These achieved phenomenal results and destroyed every conceivable belief about the PR system which is often assumed to ameliorate disparities in vote as well as seat distribution. With 202,459 votes, Bainimarama’s massive victory, which was more than four times Ro Temumu’s votes and more than 70 percent of the total Fiji First votes, was unprecedented in the history of the PR system anywhere in the world that I am aware of.
Fiji First also had the advantage over other parties in terms of resources and the fact that they were in power in the form of the post-coup regime and had control over the political and coercive means to restrict the media and freedom of association and was in control of development projects which it marketed effectively to voters.
Eight years of authoritarian rule and unrivalled hegemony entrenched their visibility, familiarity and relevance in the consciousness of voters. If the election had taken place in 2009, Fiji First would have lost badly since the country was still going through a turbulent period and the party had very little to market to voters at that stage.
The different ideological positions between Fiji First and SODELPA were major subjects of political contestation. SODELPA’s vision of land, Great Council of Chiefs, identity and the secular state was on the protectionist, ethno-nationalistic and conservative end of the continuum while Fiji First was more towards the reformist, modernisation and multi-ethnic side.
Psychological coercion

Both parties used psychological coercion in the form of private and public fear-mongering. Rumours, conspiracy theories and hate stories were circulated widely by some parties using blog-sites, social networks and other conceivable means of modern and traditional communication.

This created a lot of tension and negative energy which thankfully slowly withered away after the election.
The stark demarcation provided voters with a clear choice. Indo-Fijians and minority groups found the Fiji First’s position more trans-ethnically embracing and in favour of their long term security in Fiji compared to the ethnically exclusive SODELPA position.
For the Taukei, the choice was between either SODELPA’s cultural preservation or Fiji First’s cultural transformation and socio-economic modernisation.
The patterns of Taukei support for both parties were apparent.
SODELPA had massive support in the eastern division polling stations in Lau, Kadavu and Lomaiviti as well as in Cakaudrove and Bua while Fiji First performed well in Vitilevu, especially in Nadroga, Nadi, Ba, Serua, Ra, Naitasiri and Tailevu.
Overwhelming support

For instance, Cuvu, Nadroga’s “capital,” was overwhelmingly Fiji First, despite the close traditional links between Cuvu and the SODELPA leader. In Tailevu the tussle was quite even but SODELPA had dominance in Rewa, home of the SODELPA leader.

Data from polling stations in urban areas such as Lami, Kinoya, Nausori, Nasinu, Raiwaqa, Nabua, USP, FNU, Suva Civic Centre, among others, showed that Fiji First had unsurpassed support. It appeared that support for SODELPA was strong amongst the more traditional and conservative members of the rural Taukei community while support for Fiji First was prominent among the more urban and also those who had direct benefit from the government’s development projects.
Development didn’t always work as party loyalty payoff. For instance, although a large number of aid projects in the form of roads and mining had taken place in Bua, Fiji First still performed very badly in many Bua polling stations.
In a Kadavu polling station, despite the provision of solar electricity to the villages concerned, only 2 voted for Fiji First out of a total of 77 voters.
The NFP and minority parties

The rejuvenated National Federation Party (NFP), like the other minority parties, was overshadowed by the two giants, Fiji First and SODELPA. Its attempt to become a multiracial and nationally appealing non-ethnic party did not resonate well with Indo-Fijian voters, the traditional supporters. They were hoping to capture the Indo-Fijian exodus from the Fiji Labour Party but failed as they marched right past towards the Fiji First camp.

As a result of the 1987 and 2000 coups, Indo-Fijians have been yearning for security and stability and they saw the Fiji First as the only party capable of providing these, not NFP or FLP.
Although the NFP attracted a lot of potential Indo-Fijian voters during the campaign, in the last two weeks before the election when the media popularity polls showed a sudden drop in Bainimarama’s poll rating, there was anxiety which spawned a massive drift towards Fiji First by Indo-Fijian voters who feared a defeat for Fiji First could also mean uncertainty for their future. In addition many were also attracted towards Fiji First’s multiracial appeal and development initiatives.
The loss of the FLP’s traditional cane-belt support and the leadership crisis now marks the end of a once vibrant party. The breakaway party, the Fiji Trade Union Congress (FTUC)- sanctioned People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had high hopes and expectations but failed to attract the workers’ votes, many of whom voted for Fiji First as shown by a detailed examination of the polling station votes.
For instance, at the Denarau Island polling station where a large number of hotel workers voted, Fiji First polled the most. The Fiji First manifesto which promised free electricity, free water and 99 year lease for squatters together with provision of other goodies such as free education and infrastructure appealed very well to urban workers.
The minority parties such as NFP, FLP, PDP, One Fiji and Fiji United Freedom Party, together with the other two independent candidates as a group, could have gained about 13 percent of the votes or 7 seats if they had formed a pre-election coalition. As it turned out, NFP won only 3 seats and the rest of the parties and independents wasted their votes and squandered 4 seats. Perhaps this is a lesson for minor parties in the next election.
The future

There are valuable lessons to be learnt by political parties from the 2014 election. All political parties I talked to before the election provided me with seat estimates which were excessive and totally incompatible with their capability.

For me as a voter and political analyst, it was probably the most memorable election because of the unprecedented high level of enthusiasm and expectation among political parties and voters.
The picture of the new parliamentarians posing in front of the Parliament house symbolises our new democracy, new hope, new identity and new spirit as a nation, as we optimistically embark on a new journey towards the future. Let’s keep this symbol alive and unblemished.
Dr Steven Ratuva, a political sociologist at the University of Auckland, has recently been appointed professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Research at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He was the election expert analyst for Fiji TV and other international media during the Fiji election and contributes frequently to Pacific  Media Centre Online and Pacific Scoop.

Click Links to Find Out!


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

Friday, October 17, 2014

NZ Ministers' Pays Compared to Fiji as Unilaterally Determined by Bainimarama via Decree!

In NZ, outside of the PM and Deputy PM, all Ministers inside the Cabinet, Speaker and Leader of the Opposition are paid the same salary unlike Fiji which would be interesting to find out the basis for the hefty pay increases where:




  • Bainimarama gets a 217% increase to  $328,750 since July this year and;
  •  Khaiyum, 197% to $235,000;
  •  and ministers 153%!


Compare this to the Fiji National Minimum Wage increase of 16% planned for July 2015 to $2.32/hour!!

The Speaker being paid more than Cabinet Ministers and Leader of the Opposition paid less than Ministers.

PM Qarase was last paid a salary of $106, 967 in 2006.

Have a look below at the differentials among the MPs!

Following confirmation of the size of the New Zealand Executive, and composition of Parliament, here are the salaries different MPs will be paid as set by the independent Remuneration Authority:

mpspay

Worth noting that David Seymour as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is paid only slightly more than the Green Party Whip.

Also note that while the Green Party Leadership is shared, they get just one leader’s salary. I suspect what they do is split the additional $34,370 between them so they each get $164,985.

Select Committee Chairs and Deputies have yet to be determined. There are 14 main select committees, but it is possible there will be less than 14 chairs and deputy chairs as some MPs may be a chair of one and a deputy of another. I’ll update once committees are known, if it changes.

The total salary bill for the 121 Ministers and MPs will be $21,942,420. They each are eligible for a 20% (of base MP pay) superannuation subsidy which is $29,560 each, so if all 121 take that up, that is an additional $3,576,760 bringing total remuneration to $25,519,180.

The “median” MP will get $152,400 salary and $29,560 superannuation subsidy, which is $181,960. The average (mean) salary per MP is $181,342 plus $29,560 which is $210,902.

For a fair number of MPs, they take a significant pay cut entering Parliament. For others, it is the most money they have ever earned, or will earn. Overall the levels are about right, but as always they should set the pay levels to be constant for an entire term of Parliament.

Source:  http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz

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


The Fijian Government’s 20-member ministerial line-up will be paid a total of about $3.4 million (US$1.74 million) in salaries and allowances.
The salaries, inclusive of all allowances, were set in the Parliamentary Remuneration Decree 2014 on Friday 3 October.
Also set by the decree were the remuneration for Speaker of the House, Leader of the Opposition and members of Parliament.
According to the decree, the President will receive a non-taxable salary of $130,000 (US$66,660), while the Prime Minister will receive a salary of $328,750 (US$168,580).
The Minister for Finance portfolio carries a salary of $235,000 (US$120,510) while the salaries for Ministers for Health (Jone Usamate), Minister for Education (Dr Mahendra Reddy) and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (Pio Tikoduadua) will receive $200,000 (US$102,560) each.
The decree also sets a salary of $185,000 (US$94,870) each for the other 10 ministers with the five assistant ministers slated to receive $90,000 (US$46,150) each.
Other salaries include $150,000 (US$76,900) for Speaker of the House, $120,000 (US$61,530) for Leader of the Opposition and $50,000 (US$25,640) each for members of Parliament.
However, Parliament must also take into account prevailing economic conditions based on evidence from an authoritative source and may set a lower remuneration level. The decree allows Parliament to determine by resolution the remuneration paid to the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, Leader of Opposition, Speaker of the House and members of Parliament. The amounts set by the decree fix remuneration until any parliamentary resolution.
The decree also states that when determining salaries Parliament must have regard to:
  •  The need to achieve and maintain fair relativity with the levels of remuneration received by persons in the private sector;
  • That the salaries must be competitive so that persons of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country;
  • The salaries should reflect the ethos of political service which entails making sacrifices;
  • The salaries must be transparent with no hidden components or perks; and
The need to be fair to the taxpayer and to persons whose salary is being prescribed.
The decree further states that setting allowances and benefits will be determined by recognising the need for public understanding the core of the work of persons or members of Parliament and the services required to enable them to carry out their roles and functions.
- Source: www.pngloop.com



Click Links to Find Out!

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

NAIWAIKULA RESPONDS TO BAINIMARAMA’S THREATS



Opposition Member of Parliament Niko Naiwaikula today responded to alleged threats against him from Prime Minister VoreqeBainimarama, as outlined in the Fiji Sun of 16th October.

Honourable Naiwaikula said that Prime Minister Bainimarama and the Fiji Sunwould do well to read the context in which I referred to coups in the Hansard - if they had, they would realize that their claims that I  ‘threatened a coup‘ were not only baseless, but deliberately distorted to ‘sensationalize ’the issue for their own benefit of fear mongering.

Honorable Naiwaikula said his reference to coups was in relation to his remarks on ‘True Democracy’ where he said quote:-

True Democracy will only be achieved by a Constitution that contains the following essential elements:

1) It is the common will of the population;
2) It guarantees the rights of all citizens, and by that I mean, individual fundamental rights, indigenous group rights, minority rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights and all the other rights that are now established by UN Convention;
3) It provides within its mechanism a clear separation of powers; and
4) It must also provide within it a provision that guarantees accountability, transparency and good governance.

I will be so bold as to say that the sooner we convene a commission to look into and extract from all previous Constitutional documents, the good they have in them, combining them all into one that we all agree with containing those essential elements, the better it will be for us.

Not doing so will be an invitation for another coup because we have shown by the very way that we have been voting since 1987, that a coup is a legitimate way to change things. Unquote

This is clearly recorded in the Hansard records. 

Nowhere in that statement do I threaten a coup! 

The fact is, the Prime Minister and his side of the House and the 2013 Constitution are themselves the end product of the coups I referred to as the way we have been changing our political direction since 1987.This is a fact. Plain and simple.

By threatening me as he did, the Prime Minister himself is mocking the 2013 Constitution because he shows no respect or regard for my freedom of speech, expression and publication as stated in the Bill of Rights Sec 17, and my freedom of conscience and belief as stated in Sec 22.

The Honourable Bainimarama must understand that he is now a Prime Minister, not a Dictator with a mandate to govern, he must exercise his powers with humility, respect and accountability and that includes allowing others to freely express their view and he must protect their right to do so.

Authorized By: Honourable Niko Naiwaikula
                                Opposition Member
                                Parliament House

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

FBC News:

PM disappointed with Nawaikula’s comments

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has expressed disappointment in comments made by Opposition Member of Parliament Niko Nawaikula in parliament yesterday.

In his maiden speech yesterday, Nawaikula called for the establishment of a Constitutional Review Commission, failing this would be an invitation for another coup.

Bainimarama says he wanted to see Nawaikula today about his comments.
‘’I don’t think they were very serious, we were quite disappointed in the way his was speech was made, the way his statement was made especially with regards to the threat that he made, but I wanted to see him today to tell him that composition of a threat and how the military perceives threats but apparently, unfortunately for me, he’s not here because I want to tell him the composition of a threat, the composition of a threat is that of intention, will & capability and we are very worried about what he came up with yesterday, but what he should have done is listen, we should have all listened to the Minister of Defense, when reassured everyone that we will have a stable Fiji, that we already have a stable Fiji, that will continue to have a stable Fiji and that any sign of disruption to this stability, we will come down very hard on these people’’.

Bainimarama was frank, adding that any suggestion to get rid of the 2013 Constitution will not be allowed.

‘’The idea of him getting rid of the constitution is not going to happen, the idea of him having a coup to get rid of the constitution will definitely not going to happen, but I will tell him when he comes in, when he does come in that we will be keeping an eye on him, any form of disruption that will into the lives of the people of Fiji, we will look for him and bring him in for questioning’’

Niko Nawaikula did not attend this morning’s parliament session and could not be reached for comment.



Click Links to Find Out!

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