Builder in the Fijian Tradition

A builder by tradition

JONA BOLA
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - www.fijitimes.com

+ Enlarge this image

Akini Koroivalu in his boat building shed and a new boat in the background

TRADITION is a story or custom that is memorised and passed from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system.

Tools to aid the process include poetic devices such as rhyme and alliteration.

The stories thus preserved are also referred to as tradition or as part of an oral tradition.

One man who has learnt the art of building through tradition is Akini Koroivalu of Natacileka Village in the district of Dawasamu in Tailevu.

Traditionally, Mr Koroivalu is a mataisau, or traditional builder in the Fijian society.

In Fijian mythology, the mataisau clan are the descendants of the deity Daunisai, one of the sons of Lutunasobasoba who brought the Fijians people across the seas to Fiji.

Daunisai settled on Kabara Island in Lau when the Fijian people spread through the Fiji group from Verata.

Now at 72 years of age, Mr Koroivalu still practises his talent.

At the same time, he is passing his skills and knowledge to his sons, grandchildren and nephews in the village.

He said while he was a mataisau, what enhanced his skills more was that their mother was vasu to the mataisau clan and a direct descendant of Daunisai from Ucunivanua in Verata.

"It is in Verata where all the mataisau clan around Fiji originate from," he said.

His trade has made a name for himself around the Fiji group of islands.

He has left his mark, so to speak, because he has built most of the wooden boats that sail inter-island in the Fiji islands.

When we visited him last week he was doing what he likes best building boats.

"I started the trade of building boats on this beach at Natacileka in the early 1960s after coming out of Ratu Kadavulevu School," he said.

"My architectural skills were fine-tuned at RKS during my years there, from 1951 to 1958.

"I knew I was a mataisau and it was really the reason why I wanted to develop the gift which is a God-given talent.

"During my years at RKS, I was able to put all the skills I knew into practice and it really helped me a lot when I left the school.

"I was the headboy at RKS for two years, in 1957 and 1958, and was a member of Ma'afu House," he said.

It is interesting to know that Mr Koroivalu was never employed but did his own thing after he left school.

"I built boats for people in Yasawa, Lomaiviti, Naigani Island and other villages along the Tailevu coast.

"My work does not only involve building boats; I've built more than 100 houses.

"Most are village houses in Dawasamu and includes a couple of churches and schools," he said.

Some inter-island and village boats he remembered building include the Vasu i Darata, Gone Vasu, Tai Tiki and Rosi ni Toba.

"Most of the boats I built here on the beach and when I complete them, I would take it with my family to the owner.

"It was during one such trip that I found my true love at Kese in Naviti, Yasawa," he said with a smile.

"The feeling of satisfaction is something that comes in me when I see that the boat is near completion and we all enjoy the end product," said Mr Koroivalu.

He said the most important part of his work was when he taught his family about the art.

"It is something that I always stress to my relatives and that is to develop the traditionally God-given talent and develop it much further.

"From what I am seeing now, most of my nephews and grandchildren are quickly learning and know more, for which I am very grateful," he said.

Mr Koroivalu said he would continue with his work until he knew that he had done enough.

"God has a plan for each one of us and as long as he wants me to continue with my work, I will do so," he said.

Mr Koroivalu said tradition was frequently changed to suit the needs of the day and the changes quickly became accepted as part of tradition.

A National Identity for Fiji?

Fiji lacks national identity: Yabaki

Sunday, March 11, 2007

At the heart of Fiji's problems lies the lack of national identity, says Citizen's Constitutional Forum executive director, Reverend Akuila Yabaki.

The comment is part of Mr Yabaki's personal testimony to an audience including Queen Elizabeth II, at London's Westminster Abbey tomorrow Commonwealth Day.

Other high profile personalities to be present include the Duke of Edinburgh Prince Philip, Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon, senior ministers and 2000 other people.

In his statement to be presented tomorrow, Mr Yabaki said the use of the term 'Fijian' to describe nationality was resisted by many indigenous Fijians.

"For example, the use of the name "Fijian" to describe all citizens of Fiji is resisted by many indigenous people," he said.

"Those who fear that the promise of equality before the law in a multicultural society threatens the protection of their own status.

"The other communities, such as the IndoFijians, who have lived here for three or four generations, feel alienated by the political system and find it difficult to identify with national symbols."

Mr Yabaki said Christianity was used by the indigenous majority to justify the political situation.

"I am working to keep alive the vision that all Fiji citizens can have a sense of belonging to the country of their birth," he said. "We in Fiji must move beyond racialised politics and military coups."

Mr Yabaki was invited by the Council of Commonwealth Societies.

The theme of this year's celebrations is "Commonwealth Respecting Difference, Promoting Understanding".

Meanwhile, Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon told AFP there was no reason in Fiji for a military leader to decide to take over the Government.

He said even if there was corruption identified and highlighted, that is no reason as there were the political and judicial systems to deal with that.

He said if people do not like a government, they could vote it out.

Fiji President's Health Under Scrutiny

People watch chief's health

Saturday, March 10, 2007

The Vanua o Vuda is concerned about its paramount chief and President Ratu Josefa Iloilo's age but will not ask him to step down and return to his people, it has been revealed.

His nephew and Taukei Sawaieke Ratu Tevita Momoedonu said the vanua (traditional subjects) had seriuously considered approaching Ratu Josefa to step down as President last year.

But he said it did not work out because the Great Council of Chiefs soon after re-appointed him to the vice-regal post.

Ratu Tevita said the idea was discussed in January 2006 but it was decided to put it on hold until the Great Council of Chiefs met in March 2006.

Ratu Josefa, 86, was reappointed by the council. Ratu Tevita said the vanua had considered approaching Ratu Josefa last year to step down because of his age.

"Considering his age we wanted him to come back home to the vanua," he said.

Ratu Tevita said they would just wait and accept whatever decision was made on the presidency.

"We have accepted the GCC's decision," he said.

"Until now, there is no other discussion to go and ask him to step down. The vanua will not do anything now unless he tells us."

It follows arrangements being made for Ratu Josefa to undergo further medical examinations overseas.

It is understood security arrangements for him and his entourage would be slightly amended because his military bodyguards would not be allowed to travel to Australia.

Secretary to the President's Office Rupeni Nacewa said Ratu Iloilo was entitled to overseas medical treatment once a year.

An Australian High Commission spokesperson said there had been no changes to the position announced immediately after the coup that Australia would restrict travel to Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, his supporters, members of the interim administration and their families.

It includes the travel ban of all members of the Fiji Military Forces.

Meanwhile, yesterday while launching the $100 note, Ratu Josefa urged everyone to work together and assist in moving the country forward.

"While we have problems to solve, we should not lose sight that we have opportunities that we can exploit in service areas like tourism and ICT (Information and Communication Technology)," he said."We cannot change the past, but we can do something to change the future. "I call on the nation and our people to hold on to that hope. We can, and we must, now look ahead and build the future for our children and grandchildren."

The vanua o Vuda has five yavusa Sabutoyatoya, which Ratu Josefa is the head of, Tububere which Ratu Tevita leads, Nakoivuda in Lauwaki, Draulunavuda in Lomolomo, Navatulevu and Viagoisaukova in Abaca.

Ratu Tevita said the Yavusa Sabutoyatoya and Tububere lived in Viseisei Village.

Chiefs take on the military. But where to from here?

By Samisoni Pareti -  Island Business

- http://www.islandsbusiness.com

Do traditional leaders have a role to play in a political crisis? Some people in Fiji surely think so, although the chiefs' claim to being the sole repository of God-given mana has been tested in recent times.

Chiefly talk... Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara and Sitiveni Rabuka who are members of the Great Council of Chiefs.

Meeting 15 days after the Fiji military ousted the government of Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, Fiji's Council of Chiefs (GCC) was hard-pressed to come up with a solution that will be accepted by both the military and the government it toppled.

At the end of what was initially set to be a two-day meeting but dragged on to the third day, the chiefs decided to side with the law. 

Expressing "profound regret" at the "unlawful overthrow of Fiji's democratically-elected government," the chiefs went on to urge Commodore Frank Bainimarama and his men to return to the barracks to allow aging president Ratu Josefa Iloilo to form an interim government. 

In return, the chiefs will ask Prime Minister Qarase to resign given that his government "has been rendered ineffective and incapable of discharging its constitutional responsibilities".

Interestingly enough, Qarase when contacted after the second day of the chiefs' meeting, said he holds the GCC in the greatest esteem and he stands "ready to listen" to its decision. 

But Bainimarama and his soldiers would not play ball. Angry that the council had invited him as the military commander, thus not recognising his takeover of government and his consequent sacking of Iloilo, his deputy Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi and Qarase and his government as well as parliamentarians, together with some senior public officials, Bainimarama stayed out of the GCC meeting. 

When told on the final day of the meeting that a GCC delegation, to be led by chairperson Ratu Ovini Bokini, would like to deliver personally to him the council's decision, the army chief said he was busy and refused to receive them. 

"Now they want to recognise that I have the executive authority," Bainimarama told the Suva-based Pacific Islands News Association's news agency, PACNEWS.

"The only message I want to tell members of the (council) is for them to go to their villages and enjoy their Christmas and New Year. We don't recognise them."

Whilst Bainimarama snubbed the GCC meeting, he did allow one of his senior officers to attend-Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara-who heads the Fiji Military's 3rd Infantry Regiment. 

He is one of the three Lau province's representatives on the Great Council of Chiefs. Lau at this December emergency meeting was hopelessly split and could not put up an unanimous front. 

Mara, a lieutenant-colonel, was pushing the military's position, another rep from Moala was a die-hard Qarase supporter, leaving its third rep, Ratu Josefa Basulu, to walk the middle ground. 

Basulu is currently chair of the Lau Provincial Council and happens to be Qarase's chief. Whilst he agrees that his island of Vanuabalavu and the entire province of Lau are solidly behind the ousted prime minister, he admits that Mara and the military should get a fair hearing.

"I think we the chiefs are meeting fire with fire," Basulu told ISLANDS BUSINESS.

"If we really want to achieve something and resolve this crisis, we need to adopt a more softer approach."

But many Lauans wouldn't agree with him. He is even accused of being a traitor in the Qarase camp. There are, however, reasons for Basulu's cautious stance. He confirmed that his province's chief administrator, the Roko Tui Lau, has already been summoned to the Queen Elizabeth Barracks where he was warned by none other than Lt Col Mara.

"Tell Tui Mavana (Basulu's traditional title) to watch what he says or I will arrest him too," was Mara's message to the Roko.

Basulu said on another occasion, soldiers were found outside his home where he and a few other Lau councillors were meeting days prior to the chiefs' meeting.

Interesting is the young Mara's participation at the December meeting of the Council of Chiefs. Irritated by his constant intervention during the first day of the meeting, insisting-officials said-that the council offers its support for the military, a council representative from Tailevu province reminded the army officer to remember what the military did to his late father, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.

Haunted by the detention in parliament of his favourite daughter who was tourism minister in Mahendra Chaudhry's Government in 2000, Ratu Mara had fought hard to get the council to uphold the law and reject the George Speight-led coup. 

The GCC heeded Ratu Mara call and relented, only to have its position severely compromised when its supposed mediation committee entered parliament only for many of them to openly support Speight and his cronies. The Council of Chiefs' only commoner and life-time member Sitiveni Rabuka was then chair of the council. The life membership was the payoff he got when he executed Fiji's first coup on May 14, 1987. 

Then, the council sided unashamedly with Rabuka, praising him as a hero for ousting the Labour Government of Prime Minister Dr Timoci Bavadra.

Unbeknown to many is Rabuka's proposals to the December Council of Chiefs meeting. Many of his recommendations were already contained in a discussion paper the chiefs' secretariat had circulated to delegates. But three stood out as original and revolutionary. 

It included getting Bainimarama to resign but to continue to receive his military commander salary until he reaches the age of 55. As well, it was Rabuka who identified another source of the provision of immunity for members of the Fiji Military Forces. 

He says the president of Fiji has the "inherent powers as the fount of mercy" to grant pardon to Bainimarama and his men and women.

The third, which the chiefs ignored, was a drastic re-structuring of the Fiji military. Rabuka recommended splitting up the military into two independent services: the navy and the army with a non-executive commander to be named Chief of Defence Staff who will work with the Secretary of Defence under the Minister of Defence.

So with the chiefs' intervention reaching a stalemate, what's next then for Fiji? For one thing, the chiefs will need to revise their resolutions if they want the Fiji military to come to the negotiating table. 

While they want the president to form an interim government to take the country to fresh elections, they however are recommending a 10-member privy council to "advice him (the President) to establish the interim government of national unity." 

After enjoying uninterrupted and unfettered access to Iloilo, it will take more than a three-day meeting of chiefs to convince the military to give it up to a privy council that relegates it to a minority voice.

A Historial Event at My School RKS

Historical Event to Happen Tomorrow at RKS www.fijivillage.com Mar 1, 2007

Ratu Kadavulevu School old scholars and students are looking forward to a historical event in their school tomorrow when they will present a traditional apology to the landowners of the site where the school is built.

Principal Joji Tabua has confirmed that the "matanigasau" will be presented to the landowners asking forgiveness for the way in which their land was taken from them to construct the school.

Tabua said that Interim Education Minister Netani Sukanaivalu will also be present to witness the event which they believe will bring good fortune to the school.

It has been highlighted that RKS students have been facing a lot of problems in the past years, academically and in sports, and they hope tomorrow's event will be able to solve their problem.

Cakaudrove Provincial Scholarship Fund

Making the most of the fine weather

By Sitiveni Rabuka
Fiji Times - Sunday, February 25, 2007

Ni sa Bula! It is Saturday and a great day here in Savusavu and the whole of Vanua Levu.

People are out making the best of the fine day out here.

Men looking over their plantations to see if the standing crop will survive the effects of the heavy rains and strong winds of the past fortnight, or whether they will have to be uprooted for the usable to be used and the damaged, cleared for new ones to be planted.

The Soqosoqo Vakamarama of Cakaudrove had a soli day at the Cakaudrove Provincial Compound at Yaroi yesterday to collect money as the women's contribution towards the Province's Scholarship fund.

A few tikina sent in their request to be excused as they tried to clear the debris of the flash floods (I don't know why we call them flash floods we knew they were going to come when we blocked the natural waterways by cutting trees, building roads and houses where water used to run etc.!) that damaged houses and villages in parts of Vaturova, Tawake and Saqani.

Undeterred by the decision of those in the villages, those women from Vaturova and Tawake on the good roads side of the damaged road came along, and the Turaga ni Vanua of Saqani also left behind those that needed to work and brought the rest of the women to the soli because his daughter in law is of the Ai Sokula household and he did not want to embarrass her when the ladies of the Ai Sokula called for the soli, that his daughter-in-law would be seen to be disrespectful to her Naus by not coming to the soli.

It was a beautiful day and the women came in their different coloured muumuus and jabas and the few Turaga ni Vanua that came sat and drank yaqona in support of their ladies at the Vakatunuloa.

The singing was beautiful and weather great perhaps made greater by the company and the fact that we had just come out of a bad rainy and windy spell here in Vanua Levu.

The passersby might have wondered why so many ladies and some men spent so much time most of the day, sitting, singing and some drinking yaqona.

I told those few men I was with that the Cakaudrove Provincial Scholarship fund is for the good of Fiji not just the recipients, their families or Cakaudrove.

When I was in Secondary School at Queen Victoria School, all boys from Cakaudrove received $27 which was the fees for one term at that school at that time. The fee for the whole year was $81 probably the highest of all the schools of that era.

Cakaudrove students at Queen Victoria School, Ratu Kadavulevu School, Adi Cakobau School and Navuso Agricultural School were the original beneficiaries of the provincial scholarship, and those that went to Ballantine Memorial School, and Lelean Memorial School later also qualified for the scholarship.

I said Fiji benefited because the sons and daughters of Cakaudrove that were helped through their secondary school education by the scholarship later became great servants of Fiji, some distinguishing themselves alongside the distinguished sons and daughters of the other provinces and Rotuma and the other races capable of holding their own among the elite of our nation.

Those a few years ahead of me and those of my age group whom I can remember include my generation of the Lalabalavu, Ganilau, Kubuabola, Lesuma children, Ratu Inoke Vakataraisulu Tabualevu a great rugby and cricketing son of Cakaudrove, the late Ratu Jone Filipe Radrodro, a long time permanent secretary in the civil service of our country, Sekonaia Tui Mailekai, a long time head of the former Inland Revenue Department and founding head of the new Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority and his wife Ulamila, Doctor Laisa Naivalulevu, a former national table tennis gold medalist, the late Deputy Commissioner of Police Aseri Tagicakiverata, the ever-so-humble late Savenaca Siwatibau, the Gonelevu brothers Vili and Tomasi of Vanuavou, Vaturova, former senator Ratu Seru Buliruarua, the recently dismissed CEO's Sakiusa Rabuka and Anasa Vocea of Drekeniwai, Navatu, our own Roko Tui Cakaudrove, Waisele Wainiqolo of Korocau, Cakaudrove, who also served as Roko Tui in Namosi and Ba before coming to serve in his own Province, and I will also mention my two sisters one recently retired as a long time Head Teacher at Namaka, Nadi and the other still at the Institute of Applied Sciences in the Laucala Campus of USP.

We all owe so much to those leaders of our vanua who introduced the scholarship.

So to those who might have wondered why we spent so much time at Yaroi on Friday, I can say we were sacrificing one day to raise money for our provincial scholarship that will fund the further education of our sons and daughters to better prepare them to be servants of our country.

My sincere thanks to the two ladies of the Ai Sokula household who came to our villages at the behest of our Paramount Chief, Na Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau, to inspire our women to take up this great challenge and help our province support our children to help Fiji.

Vinaka Di Mitimiti, vinaka Di Kavu.

And it was great to see my wife among so many ladies from all the other thirteen provinces and Rotuma the "marama vakawati mai" supporting their adopting province.

Perhaps the Cakaudrove Scholarship is just as much a national investment as a provincial one.

Vinaka Vakalevu.

The GCC and its Place

The GCCs lost aura

ROBERT MATAU
www.fijitimes.com - Friday, February 23, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

August but silent...members of the GCC at a meeting

The ever assuring voice of the Great Council of Chiefs has helped shape Fiji into what it is today. Without this august body we would not have modernisation in its present form, nor would we have adopted the Western concepts of governance and democracy.

In the absence of their voice through their current stand-off with the military, we take a look at the GCCs history and the consequences that shaped this institution up until recent times, in this three-part series.

SINCE that first shot was fired on May 14, 1987 in Fijis unknowing parliament, the fluidity of Fijian politics has never recovered from the so called coup culture.

It has become the main catalyst to legitimise the overthrow of any tyranny of democracy in Fijian politics.

Caught in this vice-like grip is the Great Council of Chiefs, the last bastion of the Fijian race. For many years Fiji has looked up to the Great Council of Chiefs for answers to a wide range of its problems in its darkest hours.

And many times they have bailed out a nation on the brink of collapse with their wisdom and aura.

That is why it has been revered and tagged with the label, august institution. However, the 2006 coup and the leadership problems that continue to plague Fiji, have given fuel to the growing number of critics who are losing confidence in this institution.

The continuous silence on the part of the chiefs has also fuelled rumours that the GCC may have been too politicised, and, that what the public now hears is only the voice of the institution called the GCC making decisions but without the full mandate of all chiefs.

This school of thought is also bold enough to claim that the GCCs aura and manna have been lost.

Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimaramas public swipe at the GCC, though considered harsh by many, has also given fuel to that same school of thought.

The erosion of chiefly rule, stemming from the 1987 coup, was sensed and opposed strongly by the late Josevata Kamikamica.

He said the chiefly body should be apoliticial, with reference to the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei Party the first political party to receive the backing of the chiefly body.

Mr Bainimaramas slating the GCC was blasphemy in the eyes of any Fijian. But could it be that he knew certain truths within the roots of all things chiefly that gave him the ammunition to conduct the so called clean up campaign, starting with the GCC?

In the absence of the chiefly voice maybe it is an opportune time to review the roles of this institution, its origins and what its initial functions were.

To do this we have to go back into history to fully understand the initial establishment and purpose of the GCC. The Great Council of Chiefs was a brainchild of William Pritchard, the British Consulate who initiated the first ever general meeting of chiefs in Levuka on December 14, 1859 to pave the way for the cessation process of Fiji to the British Crown. Like the 1997 Constitution, the old Matanitu could understand what its true purpose and benefits were.

Their ignorance of understanding the issues was interpreted by the Colonialists as a major threat to their chosen leading chiefs led by Ratu Seru Cakobau the then Vunivalu of what was to be regarded by many, as the leading military and naval power in Fiji, supported by white historians.

He was under threat from the Americans to pay up the debts for the burning of the US Counsels residence in Nukulau on July 4, 1846, which plagued Cakobau for the next 20 years. Pressed from all corners to avoid the same fate that Veidovi of Rewa in 1840 faced for his crimes against visiting American ships when he was shipped out of Fiji in chains by Commodore Wilkes to America to answer for his crimes, Cakobau needed a way out.

At the same time, Cakobau, who became fascinated by the Hawaiian monarchial system through his secretary Samuel A St.John, assumed the title Tui Viti. He was sending out the message that he held absolute power throughout the divided yet pocket and strongly entrenched matanitu that made up Fiji.

Each matanitu operated under a sophisticated and civilised system of its own chiefdoms your chief did not recognise the other, hence the adage manu dui tagi (you only rule in your own land) common to the chiefs of Kadavu. Even more true to this debate were the Colo states that now come under Naitasiri.

Each small state had their own chief and there was no recognised paramount chief in their eyes.

The opportunity to consolidate his position through the first of many coups (with the overthrow of the principle chief of Bau the Roko Tui Bau) during his own lifetime and his continued skirmishes, armoured with muskets and fierce warriors was a war itself against the ancient Fijian chiefly hierarchy. A hierarchy that had stood the test of time over 15 generations before his time.

In the eyes of the old matanitu or old guard if you may, the uprising Bau matanitu was a junior state yet it had the gall to challenge the old ways.

To achieve his goals, Cakobau subjected the seniority of many other matanitu and gave prominence to the lesser matanitu that gave him their support forming the provinces to be their leader. Many of these old matanitu were at war with the emerging power for a long time including that of Rewa, Verata and Lau under the Tongan prince Enele Maafu.

(Next we look at the assessment of the British advance party to check Ratu Serus claims as Tui Viti)

Vanua is Not Alienable

Interim government is on the right path to the future
www.fijidailypost.com -14-Feb-2007

THE return of 86 acres of ancestral lands to the Raviravi people of Vugalei, Tailevu, is a welcome sign of greater things to come from the Interim government, we would hope. There is much restitution to be done for Fijian landowning units who have suffered the alienation of traditional vanua as a result of past chiefly deals, dubious conquests, bureaucratic confusion, contested claims, and past government inaction.

The indigenous people of our islands deserve to have all of the books of dispossession thrown open for reassessment. The issue of how some of Fiji became ‘freehold property’ needs to be reconsidered in the light of global trends to revalue the worth of indigenous peoples and to re-assign their heritage to them. ‘Freehold’ is a Western and European conception of the relationship between humans and their physical environs; it has no root or principle in the indigenous Pacific. It has no history or legitimacy here beyond that of an introduced ideology that came with gunboat diplomacy and Christian mission cooperation.

The idea of the vanua as a permanently tradeable resource is simply and unalterably opposed to historic ancestral notions of what the Fijian is as a person, and what their heritage is, as a God-given resource. The Western and European idea of ‘land-use it or lose it’ is anathema to the indigenous mindset – not just in Fiji, but all over the world.

No Fijian saw their vanua as something to be traded – it may be won by conquest for a generation or so, but it could never be traded simply because it was never conceived of as something alienable. That idea had to be planted in the mind of a chief – as it was. And once planted, we know what happened: tracts were traded and thereby alienated in the interest of cementing alliances, paying debts, seeking advantages, or punishing enemies.

To make the trade in land stick, another idea had to be planted and take root too. That was the idea of ‘the state’. The state became the judge and jury of what was to be traded and what wasn’t. Deals between parties were no longer private affairs, but had to go through the examination and adjudication processes of ‘the state’. In colonial times, the state was the colonising power, the government or more specifically, the governor of the day. So a promised deal – a land trade - that no Fijian had any interest in honouring beyond meeting the satisfaction of their own purposes or their own lifetime, took on a permanence through the instrument of the state.

The state became the trans-generational source of creating, defining and sustaining ‘freehold’. by recourse to ‘law’ and specifically ‘property law’. By this invention, the Fijian relationship to their vanua was codified and rendered transcendent – the law no longer emanated from a shared oral tradition reinforced by the club, but now stood over and above them. The law took on a mystical power because it was unreadable and therefore not understandable by the predominantly illiterate Fijian people. It was no longer a collective consensus, but the domain of an elite of experts who held their authority at the behest of the state.

The meaning of ‘freehold’ became a new orthodoxy with its own sacred power, and ‘the law’, ‘the state’ and ‘freehold’ became a sacred ideological triangle that ensured Fiji would never be the same again. Ultimately this set of alien ideas and their corresponding institutions were reinforced by ‘it goes without saying’. In other words: don’t question what has been done to Fiji and its ancient culture for to do so is to upset too many apple-carts (as it were).

The fact is history is only as sacred as we suppose it to be. But whose history? The history of indigenous values or the history of introduced ones? There is no sure answer to this, but in relation to the vanua, the response of the interim government in honouring the claim of the Raviravi is a worthy signal that it values the history of the older (and prior) over the younger – especially where that priority can be honoured without cost to those who have gained through the subversion of that order. We applaud this move.

Suva City Claim by Fijian Landowners

Suva worth more than $1billion
www.fijilive.com - Tuesday January 30, 2007

A High Court has heard that the value of the total land area in the Suva Peninsula, which is home to Fiji’s capital, is worth $1,402,450,000.

Former chief valuer in the Lands Ministry Josefa Dulakiverata, said this was the average cost of the 4007-acre land at $296,000 per acre last year.

Dulakiverata was testifying in the trial of Suvavou landowners, who are claiming that the land taken on October 10, 1874, was done unlawfully.

The court heard that in 1999, the peninsula was worth $1,186,072,000. The value increased in 2000, as the same piece of land was worth $1,402,450,000 at $322,000 per acre.

Dulakiverata said the figures were based on the average market value and they were instructed to value the land as if it was not developed.

"The whole area is subdivided into residential, commercial and industrial class but we just looked at the whole area.

"We looked at the potential of the land," he said.

Landowners also claim that land belonging to the three yavusa - Nayavumata, Nauluvatu and Vatuwaqa - was converted to private freehold land from 1882 to date.

The landowners are claiming compensation for about 675, 653 acres of their ancestral land which they say are now mostly in private hands.

Court hears $1.2bn claim

www.sun.com.fj - Monday 29 January - By Harold KOI

More than a billion dollars is owed to landowners of the Suva peninsula area, an economist told the High Court yesterday. Economist and lecturer Jese Verebalavu took the witness box before High Court judge, Justice Devendra Pathik and read out information regarding the real landowners of the land that the capital city occupies.

Ms Verebalavu said Suvavou landowners were deprived of their rights to the land of their ancestors and did not receive the benefits enjoyed by other landowners. Ms Verebalavu based her arguments on research saying for the last 114 years the Suvavou people had been alienated from what was rightfully theirs.

Referring to the Suvavou people as ‘kai suva’, she said land was sold by the colonial administration at $750 pounds, which was the fixed exchange rent established between 1886 and August, 2000. She said 4007 hectares belonged to the kai suva and estimated the money owing to them at $1.2 billion.

Suva peninsula includes the junction of the Tamavua River and creek ascending to the course on the hill Na Ului Roko Leka, thence to the hilltop Namadai descending to the junction Waisomo and Waiqarati thence downstream to the junction of the creek Nabuni and Wai Ko Nasamabula - down to the sea around the sea coast past the old European town of Suva to the mouth of the Tamavua River. Ms Verebalavu said that compared to landowners of the Fijian Resort and Warwrick Hotel, the kai suva has lost their ancestral home ground, lost traditional roles, rights to protect their own social destiny and property rights.

“The rightful owners of the Suva land do not have any more space for expansion of their village in Lami,” she said Suvavou people were asked to move by Ratu Seru Cakobau when the capital of Fiji was being decided. The village people were requested to move to Kiuva in Tailevu but this request was later refused because they opted to stay in Samabula. However the crown had plans to develop the area and Suvavou people were finally moved to Lami where they stay today.

Ms Verebalavu said Ratu Seru Cakabau was not the King of Fiji when he sold most to the land to Polynesians and the colonial administration, after abolishing the deal by Ratu Cakobau did not give land back to the proper owners. Questioned by Justice Pathik on how she knew that the land belonged to the Suvavou people, Ms Verebalavu said she based her findings on facts of research.

Dear Commander

www.fijidailypost.com 29-Dec-2006 - Dionisia Lewanavanua, Bau, Fiji.

Sir,

I WOULD like to take this opportunity to utter a few words of gratitude to our self proclaimed President and current Commander of our military forces, Mr Frank Bainimarama. I would like to speak my mind about the current situation and show our brave and noble dictator how I’m feeling right now. Because of you Mr Bainimarama:

My mother has lost her job that she has been doing for the last 5 years;

My father’s pay has been reduced by half of what he was getting before all this happened;

My parents will not be able to send me to school next year because of financial problems;

I didn’t get to visit my grandparents in the village like I use to every single year during Christmas and New Year;

I will not get the opportunity to meet my cousins from overseas who were supposed to visit my family for Christmas and New Year; and

I didn’t get what I would have normally wanted for Christmas (gifts and presents);

Finally I would like to say that you Mr Bainimarama probably had a wonderful Christmas Day spending it with your family, friends and most of all your grandchildren.

I’m sure that they (your grandchildren) must have really enjoyed their Christmas receiving all those wonderful gifts and presents while me and thousands of other innocent children in Fiji had to go through Christmas without those special pampering. I’m sure that the good Lord will look down upon us all and comfort us in these times of need and most of all, in these times of misery.

Same Old Swan Songs

www.fijidailypost.com.fj 29-Dec-2006. T Lesu Woodridge, QLD, Australia

Sir,

I CONTINUE to be amused by the repeated comments from the National Alliance Party headed by Ratu Epeli Ganilau and the Kadavu Provincial Council Chairman, Ratu Jo Nawalowalo.As we know, Ratu Epeli was dropped from the GCC by Laisenia Qarase and he did not even attract a significant number of votes in the May 2006 General Election to make him or his party pretend that they speak for a lot of people.And Ratu Nawalowalo got overlooked by the SDL party to be their candidate for Kadavu, even though he applied for an SDL ticket.Their bitterness with Mr Qarase and the SDL party and their support of the military clean up is therefore understandable.I am just wondering why they continue to beat aloud their drums of support in the same tune, with the same words in the media almost everyday.If you support the military, which is your right, say it once maybe twice then enough. No need to keep shouting it aloud for everyone to hear it again and again, especially when you are speaking for yourselves only, or for a minority of people that voted for you in the last election.I am sure the military has noticed your support already and will give you two men senior positions in the new interim government.Just put to rest saying the same thing over and over again. We want to read and hear something new and more constructive in the media and not the same song and tune from Ratu Epeli’s party and my tauvu, Ratu Nawalowalo in Kadavu.If you want to comment again, sure do so. That’s your right. But say something different and better too please.

Chairman of Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs - Ratu Ovini Bokini

AMELIA VUNILEBA Sunday, December 24, 2006
www.fijitimes.com

THE Bose Levu Vakaturaga or Great Council of Chiefs is an important part of Fiji's society and has been so for quite some time now.
This is a body that is made up of chiefs from different districts and provinces and is often looked upon for wise counsel.
The position of GCC chairman could be considered as one that comes with a lot of power and demands a person who can rise to the challenge of whatever situation or issue is thrown his way.
The GCC was brought to the fore of the country's political spectrum recently during the impasse between the military and the Government.
And in the midst of all the furore, there stood the GCC chairman, Ratu Ovini Bokini in all his calmness.
Ratu Ovini holds the title of Tui Tavua of the district of Tavua which comes under the province of Ba in the Western Division.
Since his appointment to the GCC chairmanship and with all the issues the council has to deal with, Ratu Ovini always seems to maintain his composure no matter what the mood of the council or the country for that matter at that particular time.
You can't help but wonder if ever he raises his voice in anger because he is a very soft spoken person.
Such is his stature and such is his personality.
He is 62-years-old, having turned a year older just last month and he is the son of Ratu Etuate Bokini and Sereima Lalavanua.
He was born in Tavualevu and educated at Tavua District School, Marist Convent School, Ratu Kadavulevu School and Queen Victoria School.
Apart from that, he attended some management courses at the University of the South Pacific and worked firstly at the Colonial Sugar Refinery before it changed to the Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited.
He is married to Tavo Bokini and they have four children and it was his eldest son Ratu Inoke Bokini who shed a little light about Ratu Ovini.
"I may be a bit biased but he is a good father no, he is the best father," Ratu Inoke laughed.
"He was always firm and caring and always believed in sharing whatever we had with others," he said.
"We grew up with a lot of cousins because he wanted us all to have an education and for us his children, we had to go without some things so that there was enough for all of us."
"And that was not only for family members but for anyone who would come to him for help."
Ratu Inoke said although Ratu Ovini was well employed at FSC, the family didn't have much in terms of material things or that which many young people yearned for.
This, he said, was because his father centred his attention on education and would try and spread his earnings to cover for the educational costs of family members who came to stay with them.
"Now the FSC homes were big but our home was always full," he laughed.
Ratu Inoke said although there were four children, and they were a family of six (including Ratu Ovini and Tavo), this was extended by two members when Ratu Ovini took in two nephews who are now counted as part of the family.
He said one was named after Ratu Ovini and he works at the Tavua Water Supply while Nacanieli was considered the youngest and was presently a student at the Fiji Institute of Technology in Suva.
He said although these two cousins were registered in the Vola ni Kawa Bula under their father's name, Ratu Ovini took them in as his own sons and that was how things remained to date.
Apart from Ratu Inoke who is the Human Resources Manager at the Housing Authority, the other son is Ratu Totivi who works at Douglas Pharmaceuticals, Kelera Naborisi, a teacher at DAV Girls College in Samabula and Sereima Korosaya who works at the Bank of Baroda in Suva.
Altogether, Ratu Ovini has 13 grandchildren 10 from his four children and three from his namesake.
Ratu Inoke said because his father was very busy with his work and his traditional commitments when they were growing up, he didn't really have much time for them.
But, he says, that is a totally different story with his grandchildren.
"One woman who looked after us while we were younger and who passed away recently, used to tell us that when we were babies, he (Ratu Ovini) would hardly change our nappies or carry us when we cried," he said.
"But it is totally different with his grandchildren when one cries, he is there ready to carry them and he changes their nappies whenever he can," he laughed.
"Oh they are getting a lot of love and attention from him and when he's home, they get to choose what movies they watch at home and he sits and watches with them."
Ratu Inoke says his father is one person who doesn't really show much emotion but takes in whatever's happening and "keeps his cool".
He said Ratu Ovini was the kind of person who accepted other people's views but didn't make decisions straight away, rather, choosing to listen to everyone's views before he makes up his mind.
And in the recent weeks with what has transpired in the country, Ratu Inoke says Ratu Ovini's grandchildren provided a welcome distraction for him when he would get home as he would sit and talk with them and would end up laughing with them.
"He hardly loses his temper but I suppose he has a good 2IC in our mother," he laughed.
Ratu Inoke says his brothers and sisters talk with Ratu Ovini frequently and this has become a daily thing since the impasse started.
Daily Routine
Ratu Ovini has maintained a similar routine for a number of years now where he wakes up at 3am everyday and has his morning devotion.
"So when we get a call at around 4am, we know that its him because that is a time when he makes some calls," said Ratu Inoke.
At around 5am, the family is woken up and a family devotion follows suit.
Following that, Ratu Inoke says the village elders or qase ni vanua would come for a meeting at his home and they would then plan what sort of work is to be done in the village on that particular day.
"They would discuss developments that are useful like plans for planting crops that could earn cash for the villagers or things that would ultimately eradicate poverty," said Ratu Inoke.
He said these developments would also include discussions like getting computers for the village or getting youths and villagers to learn courses that would enhance their knowledge.
Also, this included discussions that could get women involved in cooking courses that were on offer.
Ratu Ovini was one who believed in mixing with other cultures and sent his children to Drasa Indian School.
"He wanted us to mix with other races and encouraged us to learn Hindi and we speak it fluently now," he said.
Beliefs
Ratu Inoke says his father is a spirited and firm person and a disciplinarian but was very patient.
He said his father would never forget being asked to serve in the government that was formed following the 1987 coup by then prime minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.
"All his life he has worked for the FSC and when he was called by Ratu Mara to serve in the interim government, he had some second thoughts at first but these were quashed when Ratu Mara told him it was an opportunity to expose himself and his talents which would help in nation building.
"He was still working at FSC then and was receiving more money but decided to resign and join the interim council.
"He thought the call of duty was more important than the money he would have received and that's why he accepted.
"It was a call of duty and when he finished off from there, he was the general manager of the Rarawai Mill.
And just like that time, Ratu Ovini Bokini is now served with the task of heeding the call to duty. Ratu Inoke says the family has rallied behind their father/ grandfather during this time.
And he would like to thank all those who've prayed in ernest for Ratu Ovini and asked them to keep praying and remain calm even.
And just like his nature, Ratu Inoke says his father has remained calm throughout this ordeal between the military and the Government.
"Basically I know he's a person who speaks from the heart and I suppose that is why he's penniless," Ratu Inoke joked.
Career Brief
Apart from being a member and chairman of the GCC, Ratu Ovini held previous positions in various boards and committees like the Fiji Development Board, the Liqour Tribunal in the Western Division.
He has held senior managerial positions at both the Fiji Sugar Corporation Limited and the Penang Mill in Rakiraki.
While his hobbies were gardening and fishing before, his eldest son Ratu Inoke says that has changed to spending time with his grandchildren.
Ratu Ovini became the chairman of the GCC in 2004 and was re-elected to the position in 2005 for a term of three years.
Ratu Ovini became chairman after his predecessor Ratu Epeli Ganilau was not re-elected by the GCC.
This was in July of 2004, after the GCC decided that the position of chairman should go to a chief from either the Kubuna or Burebasaga confederacies since Ratu Epeli was from the Tovata confederacy.
Last year when the Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill was introduced by the Laisenia Qarase led government, Ratu Ovini said the council was not consulted and their attempts to get a copy of the controversial Bill was futile.
And during Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna Day celebrations, he stated in his speech that reconciliation was not something that could be forced or was one sided.
Ratu Ovini also holds the position of chairman in the Ba provincial Council in his capacity as the Tui Tavua.
He was a member of Parliament in the 1990s during the Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei government's term in power and also held Cabinet positions.
He contested the Tavua open seat in the 2001 general elections but failed to win the seat and he stayed in his village, involving himself in various activities in his village of Tavualevu.

What is Commodore Bainimarama Running Away From?

TIME South Pacific magazine - Dec 18 2006 Issue

For months before he appointed himself President and put Fiji's elected leaders under house arrest, military commander Frank Bainimarama had been threatening to stage a coup unless Laisenia Qarase's government abandoned plans to pardon those behind the abortive coup and mutiny of 2000. But some in Fiji say Bainimarama, who during the mutiny narrowly escaped assassination by rebel troops, has another motive: ending a police probe into the killings of four soldiers from the mutinous special- forces unit.

"It's cold-blooded murder," says Ana Kalounivale, "and that's what Bainimarama is running away from." The 37-year-old widow says Bainimarama must bear some responsibility for the bashing deaths of her husband and three other special-forces soldiers. If he did not order or know about the killings at the time, she believes, then he failed to properly investigate them afterward. "Now we don't know if we will ever have justice," says the mother of four.

The commander has repeatedly denied any responsibility for the deaths of Selesitano Kalounivale, Jone Davui, Epineri Bainimoli and Lagani Rokowaqa." I never gave any orders to kill," he said in 2003. However, in the weeks before the coup Bainimarama was under increasing pressure over the murders. Police probes and court actions by victims' families and surviving soldiers could have seen him suspended, forced to give evidence about the killings, and potentially facing charges and a six-figure compensation claim against the Fiji Military Force. During the mutiny by members of the elite Counter-Revolutionary Warfare unit, three loyalist soldiers were shot and-in an experience which some officers say has haunted him ever since-Bainimarama was hunted by armed rebels through a jungle-choked valley behind Suva's Queen Elizabeth Barracks. After the barracks were retaken, loyalists rounded up CRW soldiers regardless of whether they had taken part in the mutiny. Selesitino and the other soldiers allegedly fell victim to a violent paroxysm of revenge.

Among Bainimarama's increasingly peremptory demands to the Qarase government were the shutting down of the police investigation into the murders and the removal of Fiji's Police Commissioner, Andrew Hughes. The day after the coup, Dec. 7, Bainimarama sacked Hughes, who had already left the country after death threats to his family, and appointed Army intelligence chief Jim Koroi as acting Police Commissioner. Next day his soldiers took in for questioning six former CRW soldiers, alleging that they could foment civil unrest.

In the past year, Bainimarama and the military had been fighting four separate legal actions. Three were lodged by former CRW soldiers who survived beatings in 2000. The fourth was a compensation claim by Ana Kalounivale, who successfully sued the Commander and the government for worker's compensation over her husband's death but has yet to receive any money. In a hearing last April, the court was told that after he was first picked up, Selesitino had a 30-minute meeting with Bainimarama and was then taken to the local police station on the Commander's orders. He was later taken from the station by four or five soldiers. Acquaintances of his told the court they were working in a building next door to the police station when soldiers arrived with Selesitino. They said they heard him crying out for help as he was driven away in a military vehicle. According to the judgment of Magistrate Ajmal Gulab Khan, "He was on the floor of the van and bystanders could hear swearing, hitting with rifle butts and kicking at the back of the tray." Around midnight, his hideously injured body was delivered to the morgue. Magistrate Khan found that "the assaulting soldiers may have exceeded in the scope of their duty by assaulting the deceased, but they acted as soldiers of FMF and were responsible for their actions in the general scope of their duties." He awarded Ana Kalounivale $24,000, but she says the military is appealing the judgment. But it has never explained where the soldiers took Selesitino or why he was singled out. But documents lodged in support of civil lawsuits by the three CRW soldiers who survived beatings give a chilling insight into what might have happened. The soldiers "seized me at gunpoint and handcuffed my hands behind my back," said Sergeant Viliame Lotawa of the night he was taken from the police station. "I was punched, kicked and beaten with blunt objects such as rifle butts and iron rods. I was beaten all the way to [Queen Elizabeth Barracks]." Lotawa says his attackers included a former Fijian rugby international, Sergeant Jack Komaitai. Komaitai told Time last week there was no truth to the allegation. Another survivor, Metuisela Railumu, told the court he was taken by soldiers to a shooting range and "beaten with wood and iron rods all over my body." The case of the third survivor, Barbados Mills, is due to go to trial early in 2007.

All three suits include Bainimarama as a defendant, charging that as military commander he was responsible for the actions of his troops. Police have interviewed 12 soldiers about the bashings, but the military has reportedly insisted that a senior officer attend all interviews; in at least one case, the officer prematurely terminated the interview. When Time put Lotawa's allegations to Bainimarama's spokesman, Major Neumi Leweni, he said, "Who told you that?" He has since refused to speak to the magazine.

Police have told Time the military conducted its own investigation, under the supervision of then officer Jack Koroi, Bainimarama's hand- picked new acting Police Commissioner. None of the alleged perpetrators named by Lotawa and his fellow survivors has faced any military trial or disciplinary hearing. Police are unhappy about Koroi's appointment. Says one officer, who asked to remain anonymous: "Koroi knows what to look for in the files. He's a former Criminal Investigations Department officer and he was the point of contact up at the barracks for people wanting to interview soldiers in the past." Contacted by Time last week, Koroi said of the police investigation,"[The suspects in the bashings] have all been questioned but they have decided to stay mute. There is a lot of difficulties with this. I have to see the file before I comment."

Since leaving Fiji, sacked Police Commissioner Hughes, an Australian, has said one reason for the coup was self-preservation on Bainimarama's part. "He's been resistant to the investigation into the murder of the Counter-Revolutionary Warfare soldiers in 2000," Hughes told ABC News. "We believe he has some questions to answer in that regard himself." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer shares Hughes' view. "I think, in particular, Commodore Bainimarama is deeply concerned about investigations by the police into the Fiji military itself," he told ABC Radio. A senior Fiji police officer tells Time he and his colleagues have new evidence suggesting some of the "top [military] brass ordered the actions." Now, he says, they are bracing for the day when soldiers march in and remove their files. But "We've got copies," he says. "We won't give up." Ana Kalounivale may get justice yet.

Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) a colonial invention

By VICTOR LAL, www.sun.com.fj - 19 November 2006

‘Wherever I go now,’ the first British colonial governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon wrote, ‘the natives shout Woh! and crouch down, as before their own great chiefs, and they admit and understand that I am their master’. His house was declared tabu: all persons passing it on the road or sailing before it in canoes, gave the tama, or shout of respect to a high chief. The people had no choice, for it was Gordon who had created the Bose Levu Vakaturaga or the Great Council of Chiefs, and had come to see himself as chief of the Fijian chiefs.
The GCC is, therefore, merely a colonial invention, which Gordon had created in order to rule Fiji through the chiefs. In fact, there was nothing new about Gordon’s invention, for the British had devised similar institutions, to rule Africa through the African chiefs on that continent.
The British also introduced the African native system of government into Fiji. In other words, the British were not treating the Fijian chiefs as special although they couched their policies in that term.
However, Gordon mixed and matched titles to create Fijian customs, traditions, and institutions. He borrowed the title ‘Buli’ from Bua, where it applied to a minor chief, and that of ‘Roko Tui’ from the head of the priestly clan in Tailevu and Rewa.
It was not long before the Fijian chiefs began to accept the institution and the paraphernalia and the inventions that went with it as uniquely Fijian. They also swore to obey everything that Governor commanded them to perform during the long years of British colonialism.
As historians of Fiji have argued, there is no evidence that the councils set up by Gordon were ‘purely native and of spontaneous growth’.
The chiefs rarely met in Council until the imported institutions of government required them to do so.
In 1875 the Government interpreter David Wilkinson refused to accept that the GCC was a body based on Fijian tradition: ‘The Fijian custom being that high Chiefs seldom, if ever, meet each other in Council.’
The GCC was directly subject to Gordon’s authority, the regulation that provided for its establishment stating: ‘The Governor is the originator of the Council and he alone can open its proceedings’.
The power Gordon held over the GCC was manifestly demonstrated when he threatened to abolish it on finding out that some of its chiefly members were drunk.
He recorded his dealings with the chiefs in his personal diaries that he published in four volumes between 1897 and 1912.
The disputes over chiefly successions, which are still prevalent today, were rampant.
Ratu Bonaveidogo of Macuata, giving evidence on the position of Tui Macuata when asked to explain the customs of his tribe in the matter of chiefly succession replied that the custom was to fight about it.
Another contentious issue was the ownership of land, which has again reared its ugly head following the introduction of the Indigenous Lands Claims Tribunal and the Qoliqoli Bills.
The Bua Government was the earliest in the country to have taken the effective measure to control the sale of land in Fiji, passing, in 1866, an ‘Act to regulate the sale and leasing of lands within the kingdom and state of Bua’.
The Act stripped the power of the chiefs to sell or lease land and vested it to the Government, which fixed the price and shared the profits with the landowners. However, any rebellious tribe who did not conform to Tui Bua or conspired against him, faced expulsion, as the Korovatu people found to their cost in 1866.
The Yasawa islands, conquered by Ma’afu on behalf of Tui Bua, was not spared - the rebellious chiefs of Nacula and Tavewa found their islands sold to planter Hennings as a punishment for supporting Bau.
Other chiefs, especially Ratu Seru Cakobau and the Tui Cakau were equally ruthless. A year before the Deed of Cession was signed, as historian Peter France and others have demonstrated, the survivors from the vanua of Magodro, Qaliyalatina, and Naloto, following the outbreak of war in Ba, were deported from their lands and offered for sale to white settlers, their lands being confiscated and included in the offer of cession to British Crown.
The Lovoni people, who had revolted against Cakobau, had their lands mortgaged and sold by auction, and they themselves were sold as plantation labour at three ponds a head.
Cakobau also gave away 200,000 acres of land to the Polynesian Company, including the Suva Harbour, in exchange for the payment of debts to the Americans.
King Cakobau’s son Ratu Epeli, on being appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of Ba and Yasawa sold most of the northern islands to European settlers.
Commenting on the deeds of sale in Nasarawaqa, Bua, the Lands Commission noted that ‘they bear the signature of an extravagant of chiefs, most of whom had very little to do with the lands sold, culminating with the name of Ratu Epeli of Bau, who had about as much authority at that time, and in that part of Fiji as the Emperor of China’. Chief Ritova had alienated over 100,000 acres of land along the coast of Vanuabalavu.
The Tui Cakau had even given away the rights of levy over Cicia to Ma’afu in exchange for the Tongan chief’s canoes. Ma’afu had also taken up residence at Lomaloma after putting down a rebellion on Vanuabalavu and assuming control over the islands. The Tui Cakau had also given away a coastal stretch on Natewa Bay to planter Hennings, and also sold Natasa in Natewa, without informing its occupants. The lists are endless.
The missionaries were not behind - they appropriated huge tracts of land in the name of Christianity and civilisation.
It was against that background that Governor Gordon finally summoned the chiefs in 1876 to outline the traditionally recognised rights to land so that legislation could framed.
The chiefs were not sure of the immemorial traditions to land rights. The Land Commissioners equally struggled, with Basil Thomson concluding as follows: ‘The Fijians had no territorial roots. It is not too much to say that no tribe now occupies the land held by its fathers two centuries ago.’
In the end the present system of land ownership was devised, with the Native Lands Trust Board as the guardian of land rights in Fiji. Those championing for the introduction of the Qoliqoli and Indigenous Lands Claims Bill have, as I have written elsewhere, law on their side. However, the whole land debate and legislation of the old was framed in the aftermath of native and settler disputes over land rights in Fiji.
Sir Arthur Gordon had never factored into his policy the likelihood of Fijians refusing to share with other fellow Fijians the proceeds of their tribal lands, seas, and foreshores in the 21st Century. Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and other interior Fijians have nothing to benefit from the Qoliqoli Bill, and it is this that I suspect that is driving him and others to oppose it to the bitter end. He even went to the extent of claiming that the Lauans pushing for the Bill will not be affected from its fall out. After all, the Lauan chief Ma’afu was not even a signatory to the Deed of Cession, which had unconditionally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria in 1874.
The question that follows is who should be held accountable for the wanton loss of Fijian lands? Who should pay compensation?
It is quite clear that it should be the descendants of the chiefs and the churches in Fiji. It is wrong, especially for the present chiefs and the Government, to blame only the colonialists and white settlers.
It was the present chiefs ancestors who are the real culprits, for it was they who sold the lands or sold lands over which they had little claim in the first instance to white settlers, planters, and missionaries.
The Governor Sir Arthur Gordon had come up with a land policy in the 19th Century to ensure that Fiji survived under his governorship.
According to one of his successors, Im Thurn, ‘It is too true that all Sir Arthur Gordon’s successors as Governors of Fiji have unquestionably followed him into the pit which he first dug. We-for I am a culprit too-followed his lead in thinking that the Fijians had good claims to the surplus land’.
It should not come as any surprise that in 1907 Gordon, by now Lord Stanmore, supported his land policy in the British House of Lords, for the chiefs had also given away two islands to him as a gift from the Fijian people. Which Fijian people? And who owned those two lands to which Gordon had become the turaga taukei - a land owning chief in the country?
Sadly the Fiji of 1876 is very different from the Fiji of 2006. The current stand-off between the Prime Minister and the Commodore on the Qoliqoli Bill is a testimony to that fact.

The commander and his advisers

By MAIKA BOLATIKI
Political editor, www.sun.com.fj - 18 November 2006

At a joint conference on professional ethics attended by special advisers to military commanders at Springfield, Virgnia, in January 1999 Dr Michael O Wheeler (Strategic Group) said: “The decisions reached by commanders and the positions they adopt may or may not be influenced by what they hear. Special advisers should have a healthy perspective on this matter. Presumably, however, commanders retain the types of special advisers because they value their opinions and the information they provide which, even when not accepted, may help them sharpen the commanders’ own thinking, focus comprehensively as well as in great detail on the important considerations, and inform judgments on critical issues. The advisers, while not responsible for the final decisions, have a special responsibility to offer advice as carefully and soundly as possible.”

The conflict between the Government and the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is directly linked to the advice given to the commander, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama. The Minister for Home Affairs, Josefa Vosanibola, speaking in support of the 2007 Budget said in parliament: “The Government sees the impasse and the stand off as arising directly from the continuing assertion of the commander, founded as the Government believes on erroneous advice, that the army has an extensive role to play in the political life of the nation.”

“The assertion of such role by the commander threatens to undermine the rule of law, as do the continuing threats by the commander against the democratically elected government.”The continuous outburst from the camp against the Government raises the question of the quality and qualification of the advisers to the commander. I am not degrading those advisers.I know the advisers to the commander are well qualified and have experience. However, I believe they should do a lot of research before preparing the final draft of advice for the commander. For the advice given to him on the role of the military is the cause of the entire problem. Let us have a look at the role of the military as outlined by the solicitor general Nainendra Singh, one of the legal advisers to the Government, early this year.

“The establishment of the Republic of the Fiji Military Forces is outlined in section 112 of the Constitution. Section 112(1) states that the RFMF as established by the Constitution of 1990 continues in existence. The 1990 Constitution outlined in section 94 the military’s establishment, the appointment of the commander, and the fact that the military has the overall responsibility to ensure the security, defence and well being of Fiji and its people at all times. Much controversy surrounds the interpretation of section 112(1) and whether this section can be construed to mean that section 94 is incorporated into section 112. “Of course, the short answer is that section 94 of the 1990 Constitution has been repealed in its entirety. Therefore essentially, section 94 is not incorporated into section 112 of the 1997 Constitution.

“The provision “….Military Forces established by the Constitution of 1990” could be interpreted as `the retention of the armed forces as an institution’. “Moreover, the provision for the existence of the RFMF lies in Acts of Parliament, and not in the Constitution [as per section 112(4) of the 1997 Constitution].” The commander’s advisers think otherwise.

Because of the advice given to him, the Commander had continuously issued statements against the Government that have threatened the stability of the nation. The Minister of Home Affairs says it has already had disastrous consequences in terms of the international perception of Fiji and in respect of the tourism industry and the economy, which have continued to deteriorate as a consequence of the stand off.

In the tourism industry, as confirmed by the Minister responsible, Tomasi Vuetilovoni, there is a 40 per cent reduction in new bookings. “We run the risk of new bookings virtually drying up, leaving 2007 as one of the worst ever for Fiji tourism - quite a turn around from our target of becoming a billion dollar industry in 2007,” Mr Vuetilovoni told parliament while supporting the 2007 Budget. “Air Pacific, which is already experiencing challenges highlighted earlier, will limp more badly from the 40 per cent reduction in bookings. Forty nine percent or so of foreign exchange contributed by tourism will drastically reduced. The employment of some 45,000 people becomes jeopardised. The millions of dollars of huge investments we have been experiencing are at risk.”

This is another negative impact of the advice given to the commander.Another piece of questionable advice is contained in the documents handed to the Prime Minister. The demands include that the Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes be removed, all the government members involved in the 2000 coup be removed, the Police Tactical Response Team be disbanded and the Reconciliation, Qoliqoli and Land Claims Tribunal Bills be dropped. Did the advisers look at the legal implications of these demands, especially the ones that involve the police? Did they seek advice from outside? Did they feel they were correctly advising the commander to make such demands on the Prime Minister? Did they know that the office of the Commissioner of Police is a constitutional office?

The demands are outside the constitution and surely the Prime Minister is fully aware of this.
On the removal of all government members involved in the 2000 coup, why? The people referred to by the military had been investigated and cleared. Time and again, the military has been harping about some in parliament who were imprisoned for their involvement in 2000, but regained their seat after the releaseAdvisers should be mindful of the fact that the constitution clearly states that an MP who has been sentenced to more than 12 months in prison loses his right to vote and consequently his place in the House of Representatives. Less than 12 months, they did not lose their seatThe two involved here are Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu and Ratu Josefa Dimuri.

In the debate on the 2006 Budget on November 19, 2005 the Turaga Bale and Tui Cakau said as prisoner number LB3205, he did not regret his actions in assembling with his people of Cakaudrove at the army’s Sukanaivalu Barracks during the 2000 upheavals. “I will live with it without regret or shame because I do not only believe, but I know, I know, I know that what I did then was right because if I did not do anything, then part of my people, who were soldiers at Sukanaivalu Barracks would have been dead,” said Ratu Naiqama. The paramount chief had served his sentence and is now free.

Other advice given to the commander that he can just walk into the Prime Minister’s office and ask him to step aside and for the military to take over is laughable. Did the advisers tell the commander of the legal repercussions of such a move? These advisers are actually working out a ploy for the removal of their own boss through legal means where the blame will not be theirs but the Government’s.The commander should be reminded that his enemies are not outside but within.The commander has worked hard through the ranks to occupy the highest office of the RFMF.

In 2000 his leadership was tested, but his advisers at that time helped him to save the nation and the institution. They have all gone.The advisers should be mindful of the fact that the commander must have a knowledge of, and appreciation for, the legal aspects of the conduct of operations. The commander must be reminded by the advisers that breaches of the law during operations at even the lowest level have the potential to be placed under public scrutiny.They should be reminded that in the modern political and legal environment in which military forces are required to operate the military commander is confronted with an increasing number of legal issues that can affect the successful completion of the military mission.

Poll on Military Stance

www.fijitimes.com - Friday, November 17, 2006

The prolonged stand-off between the Government and the military has reinforced the racial polarisation of the nation, according to the results of an exclusive Tebbutt-Times poll.

Overall, 45 per cent of those polled supported the Government and 36 per cent the military.

However, it was in the ethnic breakdown that the differences were most apparent and followed the trend set in the May general election, where the vote was divided along racial lines.

Conducted this week, the poll found that 67 per cent of Fijians backed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and 54 per cent of Indians supported army chief Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.

The poll asked more than 1000 adults who they believed was in the right in the stand-off that raised fears of a coup and heavily affected tourist bookings.

Just 6 per cent said both were right, 4 per cent said neither was right, 8 per cent were not sure and 1 per cent refused to answer the question.

Only 18 per cent of Fijians polled supported the military, raising doubts about claims by Commodore Bainimarama that the indigenous community is deeply split over the controversial Qoliqoli and Reconciliation Bills.

However, only 24 per cent of Indians support the Government, indicating the majority see its determination to push the pro-Fijian legislation through Parliament as not being in their best interests.

Other races tended to support the Government, although the split was not as well defined.

Overall, 47 per cent of "Other" races backed Mr Qarase and 29 per cent supported Commodore Bainimarama.

Interestingly, the "Other" races group had the highest incidence of those unsure who was in the right - 13 per cent. Surprisingly, there was also solid support for the Government in the West, with 51 per cent people polled there in support, compared to 31 per cent in favour of the military's stand.

In Suva, the difference was much closer 42 per cent of people supported the Government and 38 per cent the military.