The man in charge of Fiji’s oldest newspaper has high hopes for press freedom in the country following the tabling of a bill in Parliament this week to get rid of a controversial media law.

Fiji’s three-party coalition government introduced a bill on Monday to repeal the 2010 Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act.

The MIDA Act — a legacy of the former Bainimarama administration — has long been criticised for being “draconian” and decimating journalism standards in the country.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media freedom reports

The law regulates the ownership, registration and content of the media in Fiji.

Under the act, the media content regulation framework includes the creation of MIDA, the media tribunal and other elements.

“It is these provisions that have been considered controversial,” Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said when tabling the bill.

“These elements are widely considered as undemocratic and in breach of the constitutional right of freedom of expression as outlined in section 17 of the constitution.”

Not a ‘free pass’
Turaga said repealing the act does not provide a free pass to media organisations and journalists to “report anything and everything without authentic sources and facts”.

“But it does provides a start to ensuring that what reaches the ordinary people of Fiji is not limited by overbearing regulation of government.”

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley said he had a sense of “great optimism” that the Media Act would be repealed.

Wesley and the newspaper — founded in 1869 — were caught in a long legal battle for publishing an article in their vernacular language newspaper Nai Lalakai which the former FijiFirst government claimed was seditious.

But in 2018, the High Court found them not guilty and cleared them of all charges.

“After the change in government, there has been a change in the way the press has been disseminating information,” Wesley said.

“We have had a massive turnover [of] journalists in our country. A lot of young people have come in. At the The Fiji Times, for instance, we have an average age of around 22, which is very, very young,” he said.

Handful of seniors
“We have just a handful of senior journalists who have stayed on who are very passionate about the role the media must pay in our country.

“We are looking forward to Thursday and looking forward to the act being repealed and the draconian legislation kicked out.”

He said two thirds of the journalists in the national newspaper’s newsroom have less than 16 years experience and have never experienced press freedom.

He said The Fiji Times would then need to implement “mass desensitisation” of its reporters as they had been working under a draconian law for more than a decade.

He added retraining journalists would be the main focus of the organisation after the law is repealed.

‘Things will get better’
Long-serving journalist at the newspaper Rakesh Kumar told RNZ Pacific that reporting on national interest issues had been a “big challenge” under the act.

Kumar recalled early when the media law was enacted and army officers would come into newsrooms to “create fear” which he said would “kill the motivation” of reporters.

“We know things will get better now [after the repeal of the act],” Kumar said.

But he said it was “important that we have to report accurately”.

“We have to be balanced,” he added.

The bill to repeal the MIDA Act will be debated tomorrow.

While the opposition has already opposed the move, it is expected that the government will use its majority in Parliament to pass it.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Five weeks on from Christmas Eve, I think most of us are still a bit stunned at what has happened in Fiji.

A new government came to power in dramatic circumstances.

It took not one but two Sodelpa management board meetings to change it, with razor-thin margins.

• READ MORE: Other Richard Naidu articles on Fiji

The same drama extended into Parliament.

There was definitely a bump in the road when the military openly expressed concern about the speed of change.

But that was navigated smoothly.

One other thing stood on a razor-thin margin.

Nobody in Fiji should forget it.

‘Rule of law’
A little thing called “rule of law”.

In a Fiji Times column last week, I tried to capture the idea of this.

First, the idea that the law is more important than everyone, including the government.

But second, the idea that the law is more than just rules and regulations which restrict us.

Rule of law means also that the government is bound to respect ordinary people’s rights and freedoms.

That rule of law was seriously at risk under the FijiFirst government.

Things had gotten to the point where, using bullying and fear, unafraid of the courts or any other institution which might restrain it, the FijiFirst government just did what it wanted.

In its last year of power, the only restraint on FijiFirst was the fact that an election was coming.

Turned on opponents
Had it won that election, FijiFirst would have turned its guns on the only opponents it had left — the opposition political parties, the independent news media and the few non-government organisations that continued to criticise it.

Fiji would have fallen firmly into that growing group of countries now called “democratic dictatorships” — places which have elections and the other trappings of democracy, but which in truth severely restrict the democratic rights and freedoms of their people.

Four key officials holding important constitutional positions — the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Supervisor of Elections — have been suspended inside of four weeks.

That tells us one of two things.

Either the new government is particularly vengeful.

Or there are complaints against these officials that date back to the FijiFirst party’s time in power and which are only now coming to light.

After all, they’ve hardly had time to offend us under the new government.

And if these are in fact complaints about things which happened long ago, we must ask — why were they not actioned under the FijiFirst government?

No one dared complain
Or was fear of the government so pervasive that no one dared to complain against these officials — and the complaints are only being made now?

We need to know about these complaints.

Yes, each of these officials is innocent until proven otherwise.

But they are public officials, occupying some of the most powerful and critical positions in the country.

The decisions they make concern our most basic rights and freedoms — whether or not we spend a night in a cell, whether (and when) we will get a ruling on our employment dispute, or whether we are able to vote.

So we, the public, have a right to know what they are accused of.

What has changed?

The overwhelming sentiment for most of us — at least those around me — is a new sense of freedom.

Doesn’t change things
For many of us, that does not really change things from day to day.

Not everyone has the compelling urge to air their opinions on everything (in newspaper columns or elsewhere).

But it is simply the fact that if you want to rant about something on Facebook, you’re not worrying about what the government will think.

Most of us, day to day, are not worrying about whether we will be unfairly held for 48 hours in a jail cell.

Yet only two years ago in the covid crisis, the police were doing that to hundreds of people.

We are not worrying about whether we will be arrested for saying something which will “cause public alarm”.

Yet, every time an NGO or opposition political party leader issued a public statement in the last 10 years, this was a constant worry.

But much of the real damage done was at the next level down — the level where ordinary people like us want to get things done.

This week I met a small group of distinguished doctors.

Climate of fear
I heard with some amazement about the climate of fear which predominated in the Ministry of Health.

Criticism was not permitted.

In November last year, the permanent Secretary for Health publicly told politicians to “leave the Health Ministry alone”.

Nobody, he said, should talk about it.

Nobody should “undermine” it — because it was on the cusp of great things.

One senior medical specialist who famously criticised the state of our hospitals in The Fiji Times was immediately banned from entering them.

This was hardly a hardship — he was only volunteering his skills for free.

But what about all the patients who he was looking after?

He recounted to me, with some wonder the bureaucratic memo-writing process that is now being followed to bring him back.

Cash and volunteers
The International Women’s Association has cash and volunteers ready to improve women’s and children’s health at CWM Hospital.

We are talking about basic things, like hot water and decrepit bathrooms.

How do you run hospital wards without hot water?

IWA’s mistake was to make these deficiencies public on social media.

So the Health Ministry stopped talking to IWA.

Only with the change of government is IWA allowed to openly communicate with the Ministry of Health about what it wants to do — instead of whispers to officials on their gmail accounts.

For years, I have marvelled at the stupidity of the edicts issued from Ministry of Education headquarters.

Schools may not fund-raise without permission.

Schools may not invite speakers to their school assemblies without permission.

Schools may not run extracurricular classes for students without their permission.

‘In name of equality’
The policy seems to be “in the name of equality, we must all be equally dumbed down”.

As the Education Ministry pursued the government’s mad obsession with our “secular state”, schools owned by religious bodies cannot choose their own school heads, even if they pay for them and save the government money.

Education and health are critical issues for all of us.

The government can’t deliver everything.

Governments by nature are unwieldy, bureaucratic and slow (sometimes for good reason, because they have to carefully manage public funds and follow other laws).

So people have to get involved.

Get involved

We also have to get involved on a wide swathe of other issues such as poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, crime and economic opportunities.

Criticism not welcome
These are all things which, for the past 15 years, we were told, the government had under control — like “never before”.

Our input — and certainly our criticism — were not welcome.

Let’s be clear about our new government.

We might be glad that it’s there.

And we should never take for granted the rights and freedoms it has restored to us and the refreshing new attitude it brings after 15 years.

But soon the honeymoon will end, the shine will come off and we will all have to get down to the work (which never ends) of solving our deep social and economic problems.

The expectations on the new government are huge.

Everybody wants every problem to be solved and every complaint to be answered.

We want every crook who has received an unfair benefit to be (as we now always seem to say) “taken to task”.

Same huge debt
The new government has the same huge debt, the same shortage of cash and the same lack of resources the old government did.

It can move some money around and change some priorities — but it can never solve every problem.

But a government that is prepared to tolerate criticism has at least one advantage over one that is not.

It can hear from real people about where the real problems are.

That’s why freedom of expression is not just a nice thing to have.

It’s actually important to tell us what is going on.

This government, like the old one, will gradually become more complacent and unresponsive as it becomes burdened with the ordinary business of administration.

And that is why every democracy — at least every real one — prizes freedom.

Freedom to march
Freedom for people to criticise, to march in the street, to take the government to court, without being punished for it.

These are some of the tools we use to hold the government to account, to remind the politicians that it is about us, not them, and to embarrass the politicians into action.

But just as important is the responsibility on us not just to talk — but also to act.

Our new freedom also means freedom to get involved.

What are the things that are important to us?

Is it health?

Education?

Child poverty?

Prison reform?

Our local environment?

So what will we do?

Don’t take it for granted
We don’t need to be part of some official committee or NGO to fight for the things that are important to us.

We don’t need the government’s permission to hold a public forum to talk about problems and solutions.

After 15 years we need to be able to say to our leaders: “We’re in charge here. This is what we want. You work for us.”

They won’t always listen — but that’s what freedom is.

It was a close-run thing on Christmas Eve — but freedom is what we got.

So let’s not take it for granted.

Let’s use it.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who is fairly free with his opinions. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Today is a special day. On June 5 every year there is a concerted effort to promote awareness on the importance of our environment, issues that affect it and hopefully things we can identify to help us tackle major concerns.

It is a day when we acknowledge our biodiversity and how we can live and maintain our environment.

This day was first celebrated in 1973 and has become a very important day in the calendar of many countries around the world.

For Fiji, this year is extra special considering our presidency of COP23.

Today is about appreciating and tackling many environmental challenges ranging from climate change, global warming, and related issues like disasters, harmful substances, ecosystem management and resource efficiency.

It includes environmental governance.

Ideally World Environment Day should be every day.

Awareness campaigns
It should include awareness campaigns, organised clean-ups and many other community events that promote this special day.

It would be good to see the message of protection of our environment spread as widely as possible to every corner of the globe.

At home, we hope there is acknowledgement that we can all do with an improvement in the quality of our lives, and at the same time being mindful of the need to protect nature.

But as much as we will want to promote a good life for ourselves and our future generations, it is important that we each accept the need to embrace the campaign as individuals first. The onus is on each one of us to make a change in many aspects of our lives.

We do take a lot of things for granted and forget there are things that we do that negatively affect our environment.

The theme for this year’s World Environment Day is ‘Connecting People to Nature’.

United Nations secretary general Antonio Guterres urged people of the world to understand the role we have to play to protect our only home.

‘Oceans. Lands. Forests …’
In his message for the special day, he said, “Oceans. Land. Forests. Water. The air that we breathe. This is our environment.”

“It is the keystone of a sustainable future,” he said.

“Without a healthy environment we cannot end poverty or build prosperity.

“We can use less plastics.

“Drive less. Waste less food. And teach each other to care.

He urged people to reconnect with nature.

“Let us cherish the planet that protects us.”

The Fiji Times will endeavour to play its part in the dissemination of relevant news for people to make well-informed decisions in their lives.

Today, let us understand that we can make or break our environment. It is important that we take ownership of our country and make important changes in our lives today.

Fred Wesley is The Fiji Times editor-in-chief. His editorial today marking World Environment Day looks ahead to Fiji co-hosting COP23 in Bonn, Germany, in November.

In 2016, two of Fiji’s main media organisations, the privately owned Fiji Times and state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, came to public attention, for the wrong reasons — laws regarding ethnic sensibilities in multiracial Fiji.

The international community needs to note that taken together, they call into question the neutrality of Fiji’s prosecuting, regulating and defending institutions.

I make no statement on the neutrality of the judiciary presiding on the case currently — the public can make their own minds up when the judgments are given.

The Fiji Times (Na Lalakai)
On the 27 April 2016, Nai Lalakai (the Fijian vernacular publication owned and published by The Fiji Times) printed an article by one Josaia Waqabaca who pointed out that a petition had been handed to Aiyaz Khaiyum (Fiji’s Attorney-General) to either engage in a “veisorosorovi” (a formal indigenous Fijian reconciliation) with indigenous Fijians or leave Fiji.

The article also alleged:

“The Muslims are not indigenous Fijians. These people are the very ones who have invaded various countries, including Bangladesh in India, and have committed murder there and raped the women and abused their children, until they have come to power, and are now in possession of it.”

The generalisations about Muslims are abhorrent to most decent Fiji citizens and me, while the statement conveniently ignores that some indigenous Fijians are also Muslims.

The Director of Public Prosecutions promptly pressed charges, not just against the article’s author (Waqabaca) and the editor of Nai Lalakai editor (Anare Ravula), but also against the editor of the English language daily, The Fiji Times (Fred Wesley), to whom Ravula reports to, the Fiji Times publisher (Hank Arts) and Fiji Times Limited as well.

The charge was that they made or caused to be published, a statement in the iTaukei language Nai Lalakai newspaper that was likely to incite dislike, hatred or antagonism of the Muslim community.

While the original charges were laid in August 2016 with Magistrate Shageeth Somaratne presiding, the case has dragged on (justice delayed is justice denied?), with the presiding judge being changed at least once.

Opposing the bail variation for Arts
The DPP’s Office has subjected itself to even great public scrutiny through their opposition to a request for a bail variation by publisher Hank Arts.

The State Prosecutor and Deputy DPP (Lee Burney) alleged that the charges against publisher Hank Arts were “serious” and he should not be allowed to travel to New Zealand for two weeks.

No doubt the presiding judge will decide whether the charges against Arts are serious.

But why on earth would the DPP’s Office think that this responsible elderly citizen, who has not a hint of a criminal record, might abscond in New Zealand?

Arts had even offered his two properties in Fiji and his FNPF balance as surety, basically his life savings.

Even more, two prominent Fiji businessmen with unquestionable reputations in Fiji (David Aidney and Jinesh Patel), had also agreed to be Arts’ surety and not travel abroad while he was away.

But not just the previous magistrate, but also the current judge, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe, concluded that these financially massive sureties were not enough to grant the bail variation.

The judge’s judgment cannot be called into question by mere mortals like me.

But the treatment of Hank Arts and Fred Wesley by the DPP’s Office is extraordinary when viewed alongside the contrasting treatment accorded to the CEO of the government-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) in a comparable situation of the division of responsibility between the producer/editor and the CEO.

Is FBC privileged?
In November 2016, complaints were made by members of the public (Peter Waqavonovono, Seni Nabou and Jope Tarai) against the state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation to the Police, Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC), about the allegedly racist contents of an FBC programme Wasea Bhasha in which the host Nemani Bainivalu said in the Fijian vernacular words to the effect that Fijian education was lagging because:

* iTaukei did not speak English; some teachers drank grog all night and came to work lazy; if only iTaukei boys concentrated on their studies and not play, they too could reach universities and graduate.

Bainivalu is also supposed to have said that  “many iTaukei boys roam around in the night with their mobile phones, wasting time”  and that  “Indo-Fijian boys and girls do not roam around in the night”.

The complainants claimed that the content was tantamount to “explicit racism” insinuating that iTaukei people are inferior because they fail in universities because they spend more time participating in sports and that iTaukei people are academically poor because they do not know how to read in English.

The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum issued a statement noting that “promoting broad generalised comparisons between Fiji’s major ethnic groups without facts to base them is irresponsible journalism.” The CCF urged MIDA follow on with necessary investigations and recourse.

The Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Ro Kepa, called on the CEO of FBC to resign and for an investigation to be made.

The Leader of the opposition National Federation Party (NFP), Professor Biman Prasad,  asked if MIDA was being neutral and asked him to resign from one of his two posts so that he could do an effective job.

Government reactions
The Chairman of MIDA and FHRCAD Ashwin Raj stated that that the Wasea Bhasha episode contained generalisations and stereotypes that lacked “accuracy, balance and fairness about social progress of the iTaukei community”.

But he concluded that “the programme failed to meet the threshold for inciting communal discord.. There was no overt call to violence. …  there is no pattern of hostility towards any community…  The journalist has offered a public apology in all of the three major languages admitting negligence on his part as the producer and presenter of the programme.”

Raj determined that the issue would not be referred to the Media Tribunal.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (New Zealander Christopher Pryde) considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and presenter (Bainivalu), the chief executive officer (Vimlesh Sagar), and the acting manager (Mohammed Faiyaz Khan).

He concluded: “In order for a charge of inciting communal antagonism to succeed, the broadcast must have been of such a nature and sufficiently egregious to justify the sanction of the criminal law. In other words, the broadcast must do more than simply insult or cause offence to people. .. the item does not reach the necessary threshold for a reasonable prospect of conviction were the matter to go to trial”.

He announced regally “I decline to sanction a prosecution”.

Contrasting the two cases
It is clear that many indigenous Fijians took offence at the ethnic generalisations.

But I might even largely agree with the sentiments expressed by Cristopher Pryde and Ashwin Raj on the content of the sentences being translated by Nemani Bainivalu, Bainivalu’s statements were made as examples in a mere language translation programme, probably based on Nemani Bainivalu’s own personal observations and views. They were not presented as definitive statements by an FBC expert on the issues.

My personal view is that some of Bainivalu’s statements on ethnic behavioural differences are probably correct in general (for example the detrimental effects of not speaking English, drinking grog excessively, playing sports excessively) and can be backed by survey data from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Education.

One of Bainivalu’s statements is anecdotal (which ethnic community in general roams around more at night) while one is probably incorrect (which ethnic community wastes more time on mobile phones).

But the real issue is not the content of Bainivalu’s translation examples, but the contrasting approaches taken by DPP Pryde and MIDA Chairman Raj to the Fiji Times case, as to who exactly are charged for mistakes made by subordinates.

The approach with FBC
In the FBC case, it is reported that the DPP considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and host Nemani Bainivalu (as expected), but only against the acting chief executive officer Vimlesh Sagar and the acting manager Mohammed Faiyaz Khan.

There was no mention of the possible charging of the CEO of FBC, Riyaz Khaiyum or even of the board members of the FBC or the relevant government minister who are ultimately responsible for FBC, just as some Patels are owners of The Fiji Times and are being charged.

Riyaz Khaiyum hedged that it was an “unfortunate choice of words by the producer/presenter that was in total contradiction to the intention and policy of FBC as a responsible national broadcaster”.

When asked if FBC TV has checks and balances in place for the program before it goes on air, Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum easily passed the buck, alleging that Nemani Bainivalu eventually became responsible for the content of the show, implying that he himself, the CEO or his organization was not in any way responsible.

While the DPP thought that the charges against the FBC were not “egregious” enough (Pryde’s obfuscating version of “outstandingly bad” or “shocking”), the FBC CEO Riyaz Khaiyum thought it bad enough to terminate Bainivalu’s contract.

FBC then ran a slot on TV in English, Fijian and Hindi in which Bainivalu admitted abjectly that he had “acted irresponsibly” and said he had resigned, when he could have also asked “why only me?”

Before you rush to compare it all to Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the matter, remember it was not Pilate but the Jews who  crucified Jesus, whereas here it was Riyaz Khaiyum himself who gave Bainivalu “the boot” rather than taking any responsibility himself.

But more important than futile biblical comparisons, the Fiji public needs to ask why the DPP’s prosecution of the five entities associated with The Fiji Times case was so different when it came to those higher up.

The book is thrown at The Fiji Times
Every Fiji citizen with common sense understands that the language proficiency requirements of vernacular papers means that in practice, it is the vernacular editor who makes the day to day decisions on the content of each issue before it goes to print, just as the FBC CEO alleged for his program producer, Bainivalu, before it went to air.

In practice, neither the English edition editor, nor the publisher nor the owners of the parent publishing company can be reasonably expected to have direct daily roles in the vetting of content in the vernacular, as they cannot reasonably be expected to know the vernacular language enough, just as I doubt if FBC CEO (Riyaz Khaiyum) has any in-depth knowledge of the Fijian vernacular, enough to vet its sophisticated content.

Nevertheless, in The Fiji Times case, the DPP chose to prosecute not only the article author (Waqabaca) and the Nai Lalakai editor (Ravula) but also the English medium editor (Fred Wesley), the English-speaking publisher (Hank Arts) and the (English-speaking) Gujarati owners of The Fiji Times Limited.

Whether the English-speaking publisher Hank Arts and Fiji Times editor Fred Wesley can be held responsible for allegedly racist content in the vernacular newspaper they do not vet in practice, will be decided by the presiding Sri Lankan judge, even if cynics note that it will be under the constitution and media decrees that have been imposed on Fiji without the approval of any Parliament (before any generalisations are made about Sri Lankan judges, note that at least one Sri Lankan judge – in the Soko case- has gone against the political tide).

Note that there was no explicit call for violence in the Nai Lalakai/Fiji Times case either, a fact deemed by Ashwin Raj to be pertinent in not charging FBC’s producer/presenter of Wasea Bhasha.

But the public can legitimately ask, and indeed, if they want a free media in Fiji, it is their deep social responsibility to ask: are there different prosecuting standards for The Fiji Times CEO and for the FBC CEO?

Is the more severe and protracted treatment of The Fiji Times by the DPP’s Office intended to intimidate them further than has already occurred?

The public (and researchers into Fiji media) are reminded that Riyaz Khaiyum is the brother of the Attorney General (Aiyaz Khaiyum) and he not only became the CEO of FBC in “unusual” circumstances after the 2006 military coup, but his editorial policies have arguably favored the Bainimarama Government, while receiving preferential financial assistance from Government, assistance denied to their primary television competitor (Fiji One) or the private radio communication companies like Communications Fiji Limited.

The peculiar roles of Pryde, Raj and Riyaz
Historians of contemporary Fiji will one day put under the microscope all the many individuals (such as Christopher Pryde, Ashwin Raj and Riyaz Khaiyum) who have kept the Bainimarama regime ticking over.

Christopher Pryde appeared in Fiji soon after the 2006 coup and quickly assumed prominent positions in the military state’s apparatus, despite the military government being declared illegal by the 2009 Fiji Court of Appeal, a judgment never reversed.

Six years ago, Ashwin Raj was relatively unemployed or underemployed at the University of the South Pacific until two economics professors (no prizes for guessing who) prevailed upon the USP Vice Chancellor to offer him more substantive work, which he eventually obtained under a belligerent and aspiring Deputy VC of USP managing USP’s STAR project (now apparently gone into a Black Hole).

It was not long before the Bainimarama government discovered that Raj’s gift of the gab requiring the public to futilely buy dictionaries, would be a great asset as Chairman of MIDA.  Indeed, media censorship, intimidation and media funding biases flourished under Ashwin Raj’s benign gaze, while he pounced on any allegedly anti-government statements, such as the so-called “kerosene and water” comment by Ratu Timoci Vesikula at a village meeting.

Then Ashwin Raj was also appointed as the Chairman of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission, apparently or conveniently choosing not to recognise the many possible conflicts of interest in the two roles (“power corrupts absolutely”?).

The public might note (if they care) that the websites of both MIDA and the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission are virtually empty of serious content, probably an accurate reflection of the extent to which Ashwin Raj is fulfilling his responsibilities to the wider Fiji society (although no doubt pleasing the Bainimarama government).

Raj has made no public statement about the curtailment of the basic human right of Hank Arts to travel abroad for two weeks for an important family occasion — the marriage of his stepdaughter — despite his giving more than ample sureties.

Riyaz Khaiyum was once a good journalist and we oldies will remember his penetrating and humorous interview of Prime Minister Rabuka while both were jogging on the Suva Point sea front after the 1987 coup.

One of the sad outcomes of all of Fiji’s military coups is that the smears generated by the coup leaders inevitably sticks to even the well-intentioned citizens who choose to support illegal governments, their laws and their unfair prosecutions (no doubt personal benefits also help).

History may be harsh on coup supporters and accomplices who think that a few “good things” done by the coup makers justify the coups, and their own behavior.  But that is no comfort to those who continue to suffer the ill effects of coups and even more into the future when the huge increase in public debt has to be paid.

Especially when Fiji history proves that such individuals will merely brush off the dirt before they depart, scot-free and with their ill-gotten gains, to their eventual peaceful permanent abodes abroad, which follow rules of law and social behavior that they so readily helped to trash in Fiji.

An even bigger tragedy for indigenous Fijians and their future, is that those that remain in Fiji will be forgiven in “true Fijian tradition” and welcomed back into the fold, without ever fully and honestly revealing,  atoning or being punished for their sins.

While the carrots have always been there for those who have supported coups, there have been no sticks to discourage future coup makers.

The incarceration of George Speight is merely a reminder to sleeping historians to explain why that one jailed sparrow does not represent the caging of summer.

Academic and media commentator Professor Wadan Narsey blogs at Narsey on Fiji – Fighting Censorship and this article is republished here from his blog with permission.

• Muslim bashing in Fiji is a crime. But why is the law not applied equally to others? — FijiLeaks
• Court bars overseas travel for accused Fiji Times publisher

Fiji Times publisher Hank Arts’ bail variation application has been dismissed by the Suva High Court.

Justice Thushara Rajasinghe told Arts and his lawyer that they had 30 days to appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal.

Arts had asked to travel overseas to New Zealand for medical treatment and to attend his daughter’s wedding next month.

This is the second application to be rejected by the court.

Arts had offered to surrender his properties in Vuda and Lami as well as his entire superannuation savings to the court.

He is charged with inciting “communal antagonism” along with Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley, Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula, Josaia Waqabaca and Fiji Times Limited.

They are alleged to have made, or published, a statement that could likely
incite dislike, hatred, or antagonism against the Muslim community.

The charges relate to an article published in April 2016 in the newspaper’s i-Taukei language newspaper Nai Lalakai.

Defence counsel Feizal Hannif said they will go through the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.

Tokasa Rainima is a Fiji Times reporter.

• Fiji Times report of the court ruling
• Court hears Fiji Times bail variation case

It has been more than eight years since Nimilote Baleiloa saw the body of his late son Josefa Baleiloa in hospital.

Beaten and bruised, Josefa was laid up in a hospital bed, unconscious and unable to eat.

Josefa’s case was one of 11 featured in an Amnesty International (AI) report released this week titled Beating Justice: How Fiji’s Security Forces Get Away With Torture.

The report focuses on human rights violations perpetrated by Fijian defence forces on suspected criminals and escapees in their custody.

The report alleges Josefa was assaulted in Suva by a police and prison officers.

After the beating, his father claims Josefa was taken to the Nabua Police Station and left in the cell, calling for assistance and screaming in pain from the wounds he sustained.

He said when Josefa was finally taken to hospital, it was too late.

No arrests
He succumbed to his injuries several weeks later and no arrests were ever made in relation to his case.

When The Fiji Times visited Nimilote, he spoke of grief and guilt. Grief that he still carries at the loss of his son and guilt that he was unable to get justice.

He said eight years on, his soul was still not at rest.

Baleiloa said he could have fought harder, but did not have the money to pay lawyers to handle the case. He said it was not easy to live with the knowledge that he would not have justice done.

Baleiloa said he would not give up the fight.

Questions sent to the Fiji Police Force yesterday on the report remained unanswered

Under the 2013 Constitution, “absolute and unconditional immunity has been irrevocably granted to police officers from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in any proceedings including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment or involvement in the government from December 5, 2006, to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament elected after the commencement of the Constitution.”

‘Sharing a vision’
Fiji Times editor in chief Fred Wesley said today in an editorial that the release of the Beating Justice report “is going to attract a lot of interest”.

• Beating Justice: How Fiji’s Security Forces Get Away With Torture

According to an article published on Monday, the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, told famers in Seaqaqa not to read The Fiji Times because it “politicised issues and spread rumours”.

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief, Fred Wesley, spoke out in an article published by the newspaper yesterday. He said the newspaper had always dealt with an “unwanted tag” of being seen as a “pain in the back of the State”.

No side
The newspaper was not anti-government or pro-government, the article stated.

“We would rather be seen as a newspaper that takes no side; simply a newspaper of integrity.

“We are not a newspaper hell-bent on hurting a government.”

Wesley said the Fiji Times wanted to ensure that readers knew it had a sense of fairness about itself.

“Our charter is to strive for accuracy and balance with the intention to do justice to every story we print and picture we use,” the newspaper reported.

Freedom of choice
In the same article comments from the newly elected Fijian Media Association president Nemani Delaibatiki was published.

Delaibatiki said a part of democracy was the freedom of expression and choice and that it was up to the farmers which newspaper they chose to read.

“The Attorney-General and Minister for Economy is entitled to his views.

“The farmers are free to make their own choice.”

Women and girls’ news and issues make up only 24 percent of all reports in print, radio and television media.

Just living in Australia for a few months and watching television, makes you see clearly, how the Fiji public is so badly denied by the poverty of Fiji media offerings and silent censorship

There are wonderful Australian media programmes such as Q and A, Insiders, Catalyst, Landline, Insights, Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners, to name just a few, not even mentioning the many specials every week on ABC and SBS.

Just in the past two months alone, Landline explored how an Australian sugarcane farmer, successfully intercropped rice to pander to his Vietnamese wife. Another intercropped with sunflowers for the seeds and oil, and mung beans (which Fiji farmers have also tried on a very small scale).But what really stands out are the many robust public policy debating programs with sharp neutrality such as Q and A (Tony Jones) or Insider (Barry Cassidy) or Insights, where Opposition MPs or politically neutral commentators are given equal weight to that of government voices.

Often, intelligent studio audiences are allowed to comment or give their verdict on particular utterances with applause or sceptical silence,

Of course, we all remember that once upon a time, Fiji Television also had very robust programmes, such as Close Up, but sadly, no more.

Despite the ending of open censorship by the Fiji government, an invidious silent self-censorship is denying the public access to “alternative voices”.

My personal individual experience of censorship by the premier university – University of the South Pacific, by the Fiji media and by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics is only the tip of the iceberg of a much wider “silent censorship of many”.

The one rare exception is The Fiji Times whose survival must be defended, or the public won’t know what they have got, until it is gone.

Open and silent censorship
In the past, media censorship was quite easy to prove. Censors were physically in the newsroom, expatriate newspaper publishers were being expelled, large fines or jail terms were being handed down by courts, and warnings were given to certain media organisations.

Today’s censorship is not obvious simply because no journalist, media organisation or educational institution will publicly own up to “self-censorship”. But it is abundantly clear that there is an absence of dissenting voices from forums such as Close Up, 4 The Record, Talk Business, and the many talkback shows on TV and radio.

My personal absence from these programmes is obvious to many, given my obvious prominence in previous years. Also absent are other “dissenting” voices like Opposition Members of Parliament or critical NGO leaders, while voices sympathetic to government are given maximum exposure.

What is missing in government circles is any adherence to the dictum attributed to Voltaire (or Evelyn Beatrice Hall): “I disagree with your views but I will defend to the death your right to express them.”

The one bright media light in Fiji, is The Fiji Times which continues to serve the public as a channel for alternative views and as a proper watchdog on the government of the day, despite operating financially on a less than level playing field.

It saddens me that the Fiji public continues to show total apathy to the censorship of individuals such as me, or blatant unfairness with taxpayers’ advertising funds shown to The Fiji Times, the proven most popular print media in Fiji.

Censorship from USP
This individual has been a senior USP economist, former parliamentarian and well-known media commentator, yet there is no public comment on his continued censorship by not just that university but also the mainstream media and a supposedly neutral government department like the Fiji Bureau of Statistics.

Despite my decades of service from 1973, USP asked me to resign in 2012, alleging financial pressure from the government.

In 2013, USP refused to allow the Faculty of Business and Economics to host the launching of my FBS Report on the 2008-09 Household Income and Expenditure Survey, and the associated policy workshops for civil servants, NGOs and other stakeholders.

In 2013, an invitation by the USP Journalism Students Association to speak at USP for World Media Freedom Day was withdrawn.

This prominent economist has been excluded from several panel discussions in his area of expertise, organised by USP departments, while expatriate professors have been welcomed.

One Economics Department panel discussion on the Fiji government’s re-issue of a F$500 million (NZ$ 345 million) bonds (to which I had been invited) was cancelled.

A special edition of the Journal of Pacific Studies on the 2014 Election, excluded all writings by this academic, while pro-government non-academic outsiders were invited to contribute.

USP’s censorship is not confined to me. It is on record, that one senior member of the university management was strongly warned not to associate socially with a particular Member of Parliament (and former USP academic) or even with one of his friends, also a senior academic at USP.

Other senior USP academics, not perceived favourably by the management are deprived of acting headships, despite their proven experience.

The USP Staff Association fails to defend members’ rights and privileges, while USP students have been actively discouraged from responsible political activity.

The once robust intellectual life at USP of both academics and students, has been severely eroded without any show of concern by the University Council or the public.

Censorship by FBS
It is public knowledge that my FBS Report on the 2010-11 Employment and Unemployment Survey (Fiji Women and Men at Work and Leisure) completed in 2013 has still not been published. This denies the Fiji public essential and fascinating statistical results on gender gaps in employment, incomes, unpaid household work, sports and leisure activities like sports, kava drinking, watching television, and religious gatherings.

It is understandable that the FBS management cannot protest publicly for fear of loss of their employment. But sadly, neither has there been any public protest from university academics, or NGOs (like FWRM, WCC, CCF, Transparency International) or professional organisations such as the Fiji Institute of Accountants or Fiji Law Society, or social leaders, who all should be interested in the statistical findings being censored.

The public will not know that while the FBS has completed a 2013-14 Household Income and Expenditure Survey, this data is being processed now with World Bank assistance, while a local academic who did this work with them for the past seven years, has been completely shut out, undermining the self-reliance that has been built up these past 10 years.

Yet objective and freely disseminated statistics from FBS is vital for public policy decisions.

Media censorship of one
After the 2009 abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, not just my articles but also many letters to the editor were not accepted for publication by both Fiji Sun and The Fiji Times even when copied to the Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) chairman.

Media programmes such as Close Up, 4 The Record and Talk Business and the many radio talkback shows declined to invite this economist, who used to be ever-present on their programmes before 2009. On a rare positive note, just prior to the September 2014 Election, The Fiji Times began to publish and continues to publish my opinion pieces, sometimes only after vetting by its lawyers.

The Fiji public needs to appreciate the courage of The Fiji Times owners (Motibhai Patel family), FT publisher (Hank Arts) and editor (Fred Wesley) for their moral courage in producing a newspaper which remains the sole source of independent information in Fiji, and whose relative superiority has been independently verified by the Tebbutt Poll.

Lest we forget, in recent years, newspapers have been fined heavily, some expatriate publishers have been expelled, while editors have been given jail sentences.

A recent decision by government denying The Fiji Times fair access to taxpayers’ advertising funds, also drew no public comment from MIDA, the Commerce Commission, the Fiji Chambers of Commerce, or professional organisations such as the Fiji Institute of Accountants and Fiji Law Society, or NGOs (like FWRM, WCC, CCF, Transparency International) or social leaders, who all should be interested in ensuring that there is a robust competitive media environment.

If the Fiji public do not rise out of their apathy to defend the legitimate rights of The Fiji Times, then sadly, “the Fiji public won’t know what it has got, until it is gone”.

One day, they will also remember bitterly the words of Jawaharlal Nehru: “Evil unchecked grows and evil tolerated poisons the whole system.”

Oppressed people do leave
As occurred after the 1987 and 2000 military coups, there is also today an emigration of many educated and skilled people.

Sadly, that category now includes me, even though no comfortable refuge abroad will ever be the “home” that Fiji has been and will always be in my heart.

This will be my last article for The Fiji Times as I pursue professional work in Australia.

I thank the publisher, editor and other staff members of this newspaper who have facilitated my media contributions over the years.

I also thank its readers who have expressed appreciation for my articles.

Professor Wadan Narsey is adjunct professor at James Cook and Swinburne universities in Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Fiji Times and is republished with the permission of the author.

Dr Wadan Narsey’s blog on fighting censorship in Fiji

The Fiji Times is challenging the selection of the Fiji Sun as the government’s exclusive carrier of newspaper advertisements for the 2016 year.

In his reflective series of editorials, Fred Wesley wrote that it was encouraging to see the international community rallying in support but “the real cost to our nation” was not yet known.

Fijians had been “prepared” for the cyclone but the sheer scale of the disaster was “overwhelming”.

“Thousands [of Fijians] had made a beeline for stores to stock up on food and water, and batteries for torches and radio sets. They fixed their homes,” Wesley wrote.

“Some had been proactive and converged on evacuation centres to sit out the cyclone.

“But clearly no one was prepared for the raw power and strength of Winston. The devastation caused by this massive system was overwhelming.”

The editorial, headlined “International support” said:

International support
FIVE days after the most destructive cyclone to hit land in the southern hemisphere struck us, rehabilitation assistance is slowly getting to affected people around the country.

For some, there is relief as the state assistance machinery reaches them. For some others, it is probably not fast enough as food and water supplies start to dwindle.

The process of prioritising areas to target first has been made difficult by the fact that quite a large number of people and areas were badly affected by Severe Tropical Cyclone Winston on Saturday. Add to that the rising death toll and injury list. There can be no doubts about the fact that people were prepared for a cyclone.

Thousands had made a beeline for stores to stock up on food and water, and batteries for torches and radio sets. They fixed their homes. Some had been proactive and converged on evacuation centres to sit out the cyclone.

But clearly no one was prepared for the raw power and strength of Winston. The devastation caused by this massive system was overwhelming. No one was prepared for Winston’s average winds of up to 220km an hour and momentary gusts of up to 315km an hour close to its centre.

That was terrifying strength that turned Winston into a fully-fledged Category 5 mega-storm.

As it swept over Lau, and took a path straight through Lomaiviti, many Fijians battened down for the night, anticipating “just another” cyclone.

Because we are a country prone to such natural disasters, perhaps that has ingrained in us a sense of acceptance of our fate, and of cyclones in general.

That has now changed in the wake of Winston.

As the eye moved over Lomaiviti, the entire country for a moment was enveloped by this massive system that brought with it rain, very strong winds, flash floods and giant waves.

Winston left behind a nation that is now vulnerable. Fijians may be resilient. However, the devastation left behind by Winston is shocking and the recovery process will run into millions of dollars.

The real cost to our nation is yet to be known.

We may even guess the length of our recovery period.

As much as we may insist on being strong to get back on our feet, in such times, the assistance of our friends will be welcomed.

It is encouraging to see the international community rallying in support, to back the recovery process.

They are aiding state efforts by providing supplies, manpower and humanitarian assistance.
Because the cyclone left many Fijians without adequate food, water or shelter and cut-off from essential medical services, there will be some urgency to provide these.

The Indian Government, Australia, the US, the People’s Republic of China, France, New Zealand, Japan, French Polynesia, Tonga, Nauru, and the Asian Development Bank have made pledges in support of the State efforts.

In this, our time of great need, it is good to know that the international community is prepared to come to our assistance. This great show of support and concern is appreciated and will aid in our recovery process.

The onus now is on the powers that be to put in place measures to get needed assistance immediately to every affected Fijian around the country.

While insisting their right to be partisan, some newspapers still claim to be neutral or objective in Fiji, says University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism studies Dr Shailendra Singh.

Responding to results of the Tebbutt /Times Poll on the state of newspapers in Fiji, Dr Singh said Fiji’s print media have played a critical role in informing the public and in nation building, notwithstanding some failings, which, to a certain extent, was to be expected, and was not unique to Fiji.

“To put the issue into context, it is not all about the newspapers and their stances. Most people are not so naive to be easily swayed by what they read,” Dr Singh said.

“They can critically analyse media content and work things out for themselves. It is for the people to choose which media to trust and follow, and which ones not to trust or patronise, based on their own preferences, subjectivities and political leanings.”

He said readers were biased in one way or another.

“Ultimately, news consumers’ choice is reflected in the market. Papers that do not live up to market expectations will wither and die. That’s a certainty in a non-subsidised, free market environment.”

Dr Singh said that under the traditional British journalistic framework that Fiji inherited, newspapers had reserved for themselves the right to be partisan, while claiming neutrality.

In an editorial entitled “Important feedback”, editor-in-chief Fred Wesley wrote:

On pages 13 and 14 today, we run the second lot of results of a survey The Fiji Times had invested in for feedback on the views of readers on newspapers in Fiji.

The media obviously can influence people. It can lift spirits, build hype on an event and it can also focus attention on issues of concern.

For instance, we all just came off two weekends of top- class sevens rugby action in Wellington and Sydney.

Thousands of Fijians lapped up previews that appeared on television, listened to interviews on radio and read about stories and flipped through pages of pictures of the action from these two venues in newspapers.

Many of us were swept away by the magical atmosphere of the two events.

We craved news about our stars. We wanted to know the players national coach Ben Ryan would name in our starting line-ups.

We learned that Sonny Bill Williams had never played sevens rugby in his life. We were told about the impact of Super Rugby players on Sir Gordon Tietjens’ New Zealand All Blacks 7s and discovered they played with eight men at one stage of the event in Sydney.

We learned that Tomasi Cama Jr had moved on to become a video analyst for the New Zealand 7s.

Back home, there was a walkout in Parliament. A vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister was defeated and the National Federation Party was suspended.

There are a couple of things that will immediately stand out when we talk about the role of the media.

We are expected to disseminate information that allows people to make informed decisions on a daily basis.

The media is seen as a watchdog for society and has an important role to play in aiding transparency and accountability.

It informs, educates and entertains.

Surely democracy requires informed citizens.

In a representative democracy, we realise one of our roles is to inform readers and provide a sort of feedback system between the Government and the public, who are ultimately the voters.

We accept that there is a need to be fair, accurate, balanced and to allow readers, irrespective of their bias, an equal opportunity to have a voice. This we will endeavour to strive for.

At the end of all of this, we accept that we could be seen as both a friend and a foe, a constant reminder for people to do the right thing.

We realise that we have a critical role to play in disseminating information to thousands of people in Fiji and around the world.

That challenge, we accept, comes with a greater sense of responsibility.

Times more committed

Times a better newspaper with more reach, says Tebbutt poll

—

The Fiji Times and Fiji Sun perform useful roles in Fiji society by balancing each other, says an executive of the Fiji Media Association.

Stanley Simpson made these comments after viewing a summary of results for the latest Tebbutt/Times poll on public perceptions of the two newspapers.

“I believe both are attracting their own loyal and core readers based on their content and The Fiji Times‘ rich history and wider outlook has continued to give it the edge,” Simpson said.

“However, the Fiji Sun has shown itself to be adaptive and responsive to the current political and market environment and has made inroads.”

He said the divide in the readership of the two newspapers was being sharply defined between those who trusted The Fiji Times and those who trusted the Fiji Sun.

He added both played important roles in providing information and different perspectives, but readers needed to be critical of all information they consumed from the two.

“It will be healthy for people to remain critical about what they read in both newspapers, but appreciate that both newspapers are working hard to gain their attention and loyalty, and a lot of effort is being put into this,” he said.

“People will individually work out who is serving them best — and that is the beauty of media freedom and having a competitive media industry,” Simpson added.

Fiji Times a better newspaper

—

The Fiji Times is publicly perceived to be a consistently better newspaper with better reach than its main competitor by readers surveyed in polls conducted recently.

The Tebbutt/Times poll administered by Tebbutt Research was conducted from September 7-10 and measured public perception of each newspaper.

A total of 1020 respondents over the age of 18 across Fiji’s four divisions were surveyed and the perceptions of The Fiji Times were significantly different to those of its main competitor.

“When asked to rate each newspaper on the quality of their content; being committed and supportive of national unity, national identity development and nation building; being committed and supportive of the development of the Fijian economy; being committed and supportive of the welfare of all Fijians; and being unbiased and responsible in educating and informing all Fijians on development and government issues; The Fiji Times was consistently rated higher than the Fiji Sun across geographic regions and all other demographic variables recorded.”

“In each case, the public perception of The Fiji Times was found to be significantly better than the perception of the Fiji Sun.”

Fiji Sun publisher, Peter Lomas, when informed of a summary of the results, said he would have to view the full survey before commenting.

“I can’t comment on a survey which I have not seen. Please send me a copy so we can test its validity,” Lomas said.

Phone interviews
The survey interviews were conducted by telephone in which six questions were asked to respondents to gauge their views with interviewers trained to probe where necessary.

Private landlines and mobile phone numbers were called to achieve a national sample.

Landline numbers were selected from the Fiji White Pages listing, while random digit dialing (RDD) was used for mobile phones, with known prefixes for each carrier.

More than 10,000 numbers were loaded into a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system which randomly selected phone numbers to be called.

Speaker of Parliament Dr Jiko Luveni congratulated The Fiji Times, saying “the survey results reflect positively on the readership of The Fiji Times and I congratulate The Fiji Times for this achievement”.

Opposition Leader Ro Teimumu Kepa said The Fiji Times had been the standard bearer for fair and balanced reporting and for decades it had maintained this position.

“It should, above all, strive to maintain this position no matter what the challenges bring,” Ro Teimumu said.

More competitive
Fiji Media Association executive Stanley Simpson said while the results were favourable for The Fiji Times, an important point to note was that the newspaper business was becoming more competitive.

“I think a decade ago when the 2006 coup took place, The Fiji Times then would have had much more superior numbers and greater domination over the Fiji Sun,” Simpson said.

“The Fiji Sun has made a strong challenge to close the gap, but The Fiji Times remains the number one at present. It will be important to continue to observe these trends going forward.

“I think the test will come down to consistency and standards and who can sustain this over a longer term.”

Attempts to obtain a response from Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum were unsuccessful when this edition went to press.

FMA’s Stanley Simpson comments

Statistics from the Tebbutt/Times poll