The first time Sitiveni Rabuka was elected into office was more than 30 years ago. Today marks a little over a month since he became Fiji’s Prime Minister for a second time. He catches up with Tagata Pasifika’s John Pulu to discuss his return to office, Fiji’s covid-19 recovery and the investigation of Fiji’s former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
It’s been a busy start for the newly elected leader of Fiji, Sitiveni Rabuka.
And while he’s only held the role for a little over a month, walking into the Prime Minister’s office felt familiar for the leader of the People’s Alliance (PA) party.
“The office dynamics are still the same,” he says.
“It was just like going back to an old car or an old bicycle that you have driven before or ridden before.
“The people are new…[there’s] possible generational difficulties and views but I have not encountered any since the month I came into the office.”
However, his journey into office was not an easy one. After the initial tally of votes at last years’ December election, neither Rabuka nor his predecessor Voreqe Bainimarama had gained a comfortable majority to take Parliament.
Sodelpa (Social Democratic Liberal Party) became the kingmakers, voting to form a coalition with the PA, and they were joined by the National Federation Party (NFP).
Bainimarama out of office
For the first time since 2014, Bainimarama was out of office. Rabuka says they have not spoken since the election.
“There has been no communication since the outcome,” he says.
“It was something I tried to encourage when I was in the opposition and opposition leader, for across-the-floor discussions on matters that affect the nation.
“We grew up in the same profession…we are friends,” Rabuka insists.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka talking to Tagata Pasifika . . . returning to office as PM is like “going back to an old car . . . you have driven before”. Image: TP Plus screenshot APR
However, there’s plenty else to keep Rabuka busy at this time.
The coalition trinity means more cooks in the kitchen, but Rabuka is confident that they can work together to lead Fiji.
“I worked with the National Federation Party in 1999. Sodelpa was the party I helped to register,” he recalls.
‘Differences in past’
“There might have been differences in the past but we are still family and it’s only natural for us to come together and work together again.”
They’ve already enacted a number of changes including lifting a ban on a number of Fijians who were exiled by the previous government.
“It’s interesting that many of those returning thought they were on a blacklist,” Rabuka muses.
“When we asked Immigration, Immigration [said] ‘there is no such thing as a blacklist, or anyone being prohibited from coming back’.
“They all came back and they were very happy. But it also reflected the freedom in the atmosphere.”
And speaking of freedom, investigations into former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum have reportedly been suspended.
Under investigation
According to FBC News, Sayed-Khaiyum was under investigation for allegedly inciting communal antagonism.
Rabuka says Sayed-Khaiyum is a person of interest, but isn’t yet subjected to any prosecution processes at this time.
“But if it develops from there, there might be restrictions on his movement – particularly out of Fiji.”
Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air. Republished from Tagata Pasifika with permission.
Counterspin Media visits Peka Peka . . . "the seen and the unseen". Image: Political Bytes
COMMENTARY:By Ian Powell
On 14 December 2022 German police arrested 25 people over what was called the “Reichsburger plot”. Two days later The Observer published an article by Philip Oltermann posing the question of whether this was a far-right “…sinister plan to overthrow the German state or just a rag-tag revolution?”
Although a long way away from our shores, this bizarre event has implications for New Zealand which should not be ignored. It got me to thinking about the attempted coups by electorally defeated presidents in the United States and Brazil.
This then led on to considering the occupation of Parliament grounds in early 2022 and a recent sighting in a tiny community about seven km away from my home on the Kāpiti Coast.
In the midst of writing this all up, came the unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern last week. Then union leader Robert Reid popped up with a pertinent observation. But first, Germany.
German coup-plotters Along with25 other German co-conspirators, one Maximilian Eder was arrested. They were accused of planning to overthrow the state by violent means and install a shadow government headed by a minor German aristocrat.
Few of these coup plotters were well-known public figures. But they included some with a military background, doctors, judges, gourmet chefs and opera singers, a Lower Saxony civil servant at the criminal police office, and “…several of the ragtag bunch of wannabe revolutionaries seemed to have been radicalised in the comfortably well-off, respectable centre of society.”
Maximilian Eder, a leading German far-right coup plotter. . . . genuine commander of one of Germany’s armoured infantry battalions between 1998 and 2000. Image: Political Bytes
Eder was a genuine commander of one of Germany’s armoured infantry battalions between 1998 and 2000. He had served in Kosovo and Afghanistan and was a founding member of Germany’s special forces command.
What further rattled Germany’s cage was the inclusion of a former member of the federal parliament from the far-right AfD party. She had knowledge of security arrangements and special access privileges to the complex of parliamentary buildings in the heart of Berlin.
Eccentrics or serious threat? The plotters’ potential targets included seven members of Germany’s Parliament, including the Foreign Minister, conservative opposition, and two leaders of the governing Social Democrat party.
German police found weapons in 50 of the 150 properties linked to the co-conspirators (there may have been other weapons stashed away elsewhere). This was an insufficient arsenal to overthrow the government of a country with a population of 83 million. However, it was enough to carry out a targeted terror attack killing and maiming many.
The question remains unanswered as to whether these conspirators really did seriously threaten German democracy as it presently exists or were they “…just a bunch of eccentrics with a hyperactive imagination…”
Coup conspirators plotted to take over Germany’s Parliament, the Reichstag. Image: Political Bytes
One of the difficulties in making this call is that previously the growth of the German far-right had been under-estimated. The relatively recent electoral success of the AfD party was unexpected. Oltermann concluded his interesting article by citing a German terrorism expert who noted that while he didn’t believe the coup-plotters would have overthrown the government, the question that remained was how much damage they would have caused in trying to.
Washington DC and Brasilia While we await a fuller analysis of the extent to which these coup-plotters were a threat to German democracy, we know enough to make some conclusions, especially in an international context.
The German coup-plotters may have included eccentrics. But their defining characteristic was that they were from that part of the extreme far-right of politics which was prepared to use violence to achieve their objectives.
There are similarities with two actual attempted coups seeking to overturn election results and putting back into power two far-right presidents who were defeated at the polls. These occurred in the respective capitals of the United States (Washington) in January 2001 and Brazil (Brasilia) two years later.
These attempts to put Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro back in power were both far-right led and involved short violent destructive occupations of their parliaments. The major difference was significant high-level military involvement in the attempted Brazilian coup.
Far-right levering off anti-vaccination protests In February-March 2022 there was an anti-vaccination occupation of New Zealand’s Parliament Grounds. Last February I published a Political Bytes blog on the far-right agenda in this occupation.
My essential point was that the susceptibility, to say the least, of many of these protesters was fertile territory for far-right leaders to exploit, influence and shape its more violent direction. This was well-highlighted in the excellent Fire & Fury podcast documentary published by Stuff.
Fire & Fury: Who’s driving a violent, misinformed New Zealand – and why? Video: Stuff
The documentary has come under some peculiar criticism from those who believe it should have given similar or greater blame for the actions of Parliament’s Speaker in trying to dissuade the occupiers from continuing the protest.
However, aside from overstating his impact, this criticism misses the whole point of the documentary. Its focus was on what was behind the occupation and related protests, including the significant far-right influence and support.
One of the biggest beneficiaries of these protests was the far-right Counterspin Media online outlet. It reported the occupation virtually non-stop, quickly becoming the main source of news for the occupiers and their supporters.
Run by local far-right leaders, Counterspin Media relies on a far-right media outlet in the United States for support (Trump confidant Steve Bannon is in its central leadership). From a very small base its viewing numbers have rocketed upwards.
The occupation also accelerated the use of two new terms to designate some people within the far-right – “sovereign citizens” and “sheriffs”. The former believe they are not bound by laws unless they personally consent to them. They carry out violence although this is largely verbal.
The latter, sheriffs, believe they can take the law into their own hands, including apprehending, violence and even execution. In other words, those holding either designation are vigilantes.
Now to Peka Peka This leads on to the peacefully seaside locality Peka Peka on the Kāpiti Coast of the lower North Island with a population of around 700. As it happens, it is seven km from where I live. I frequently cycle through it and walk dogs on its beautiful beach.
Its name is derived from a native New Zealand bat, the Pekapeka, which represents the interwoven nature of the spirit world and the world of the living — the seen and the unseen.
But following the end of the occupation of Parliament Grounds a small group of occupiers moved on to the land of a supportive local farmer. While numbers have diminished there are still there.
While driving past earlier this month I noticed a conspicuous vehicle parked outside on the road as photographs I took show. The vehicle belongs to Counterspin Media.
The issue at hand was the far-right’s support for the parents of a critically ill baby who tried to deny him access to a life-saving blood transfusion because overwhelmingly donors are vaccinated. They and Counterspin Media have also denied the right of their baby to privacy by breaching a court order for name suppression. [The matter was resolved by the court overruling the parents which enabled a successful transfusion that saved the baby’s life.]
The “sheriff” is in Peka Peka. Image: Political Bytes
What was particularly relevant to this blog, however, was the fact that the far-right Counterspin Media was present visiting the small group who among them are believed to include sovereign citizens and a sheriff or two.
It is a very long bow to suggest that the occupation of Parliament Grounds was responsible for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s dramatic resignation last week. Nevertheless its ferocity (including intimidation and threats of execution) and duration rattled her government’s cage and confidence.
Outgoing NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern . . . many commentators are attributing her resignation to the volume and viciousness of the personal attacks on her, much of which was misogynous. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation
Many are attributing Arden’s resignation to the volume and viciousness of the personal attacks on her, much of which was misogynous. They are right to make this conclusion but it is much deeper than this. To begin with, had her government been more successful in policy development and implementation or been doing better in the polls, she was less likely to have resigned.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) also came under vicious misogynous attacks but, as she has acknowledged, the attacks on Ardern far exceed those on her. What is the difference? First, social media’s influence in Clark’s time was much less than Ardern’s.
Second, the far-right was politically much less influential than now. We now have far-right governments in countries such as Italy, Poland, Hungary and India. There are strong far-right movements threatening countries like France and Spain. Both the United States and Brazil have had single term far-right presidents.
Germany had a follow-up from the December coup-plotters this week with five more far-right activists arrested for a second alleged coup plot, including kidnapping the health minister, to overthrow the government which The Guardian reported on January 23.
In New Zealand, the far-right’s levering off the anti-vaccination protests has led to an environment of threats through a sense of deluded entitlement, as Stuff reported on January 20, of a magnitude far greater than Clark and her government ever experienced.
Union leader Robert Reid was as close to getting it right as one can get in a Facebook post on January 20. He observed that, on the one hand, unlike the United States and Brazil, New Zealand was able to keep right-wing and fascist mobs from storming their parliaments.
However, on the other hand, in New Zealand they “…scored their first victory of bringing down the political leader of the country. Not a good feeling.”
I agree with Reid but would make the qualification that these far-right influenced and led “mobs” significantly contributed to bringing down a political leader.
Sociopaths and psychopaths Soon after commencing working for the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists over three decades ago, I asked a leading psychiatrist, Dr Allen Fraser, what was the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths (Dr Fraser was the union’s first elected vice-president and second president).
His response, which I have never forgotten, was to repeat what he advised medical students and doctors-in-training: Sociopaths believe in castles in the sky; psychopaths live in castles in the sky
In other words, while Helen Clark was threatened by sociopaths, Jacinda Ardern was threatened by psychopaths. The transition from the former to the latter was the increasing influence of the far-right.
Robert Reid is right; it is not a good feeling. He is a master of the understatement.
Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.
The planned RNZ/TVNZ merger . . . reliance on commercial media for political discussion is prone to being style over substance, posturing over policy, soap operas over documentaries. Image: New Zealand Herald/Asia Pacific Report
COMMENTARY:By Myles Thomas
How the RNZ/TVNZ merger went from its first reading in Parliament to the legislative extinction list is an example of why New Zealand actually needs more public media and not less. Let me explain.
It has been labelled a grenade, a dog and a monolithic, monopolistic monster. Yet it is actually a reasonable policy that would bring New Zealand public media in line with most other developed countries.
No other developed country has separate national television and radio networks. They have seen how it fails us and said, “no thanks”.
Most other developed countries spend quite a bit more on their public media platforms too. Brits pay $81 each, Norwegians $110, Germans $142, but Kiwis just $27 each year to fund RNZ, TVNZ and NZ On Air.
Even with the government’s funding increase over the next three years, we’ll still be spending less per person than Australia, Ireland or any other country we like to compare ourselves to.
A big part of our public media underspend is successive governments’ policy that TVNZ pay its own way and rely on advertising dollars.
Other countries subsidise their public media because they realise that a reliable source of news and information is too important to be left in the hands of marketers and advertising departments.
Other end of the spectrum
At the other end of the spectrum is the US spending just $3 per person on public media. You have to wonder how different US politics might be if it had fully-funded public media.
It is true that TVNZ does receive funding for programmes through NZ On Air but those shows still have to be simple and entertaining because TVNZ sells adverts around them. Only Sunday mornings have programmes for minorities or long-form political interviews, and of course, that is when there is no advertising.
That is the big difference between public media and commercial media. Public media doesn’t rely on advertising so it isn’t so desperate to get your attention and blast adverts at you.
Public media has time to examine public issues in-depth.
Commercial media needs to make money and with advertising dollars drifting to Google and Facebook, they work even harder to make content as eye-catching, entertaining and easy to understand as possible.
You may have noticed it on TVNZ, Newshub, Stuff or at the New Zealand Herald. These days there are more articles about crime, car crashes and weather bombs because they catch people’s attention.
Political reporting also wants to catch your attention. While public media can spend half an hour discussing a policy in-depth, commercial media want eyeballs so they go for the fun stuff — who’s up and who’s down in the pugilistic soap opera of daily politics. It is entertaining and it’s quick and easy to explain.
Complicated issues
Unlike this opinion piece I’m writing for you now — I’m already halfway through my allotted word count, yet I’ve spent all of them just explaining the background. Complicated issues take more time to explain. I had better get on with it.
It was in this commercial political reporting soap opera that the media merger lost its way. Like many politicians, opposition broadcasting spokesperson Melissa Lee exploited commercial media’s focus on simplification and pugilism to attack the government. She repeatedly claimed the government could not explain why we need the merger, but the government had tried to explain it, only the public hadn’t heard because it is too complicated to explain quickly and simply on commercial media (as I’m trying to do here).
Political reporting fixated on Willie Jackson’s various stumbles as though this reflected the policy, rather than analysing the policy itself.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon also exploited commercial media’s lack of examination. He criticised the merger for being “ideological”, claiming it would destroy TVNZ’s business model, and saying he would demerge it if National win the election.
But none of the interviewers asked Luxon to explain his figures or why the destruction of TVNZ’s business model would be a bad thing. None asked him if demerging would also be “ideological” and none asked if he would get a cost-benefit analysis done before demerging.
Lee and Luxon’s criticism worked. A Taxpayers Union poll in November claimed 54 percent opposed the merger and 22 percent supported it.
Different polling outcome
My organisation, Better Public Media Trust, also polled on the subject but we added some information about the merger, its costs and benefits. We got quite different results with just 29 percent opposing and 44 percent supporting the merger.
That shows what a little bit of information can do to public opinion. It also shows that reliance on commercial media for political discussion is prone to being style over substance, posturing over policy, soap operas over documentaries.
That is why the merger should go ahead. People would see it’s not a dog, grenade or monster, but intelligent, diverse and informative public media. Just in time for the election.
Myles Thomas is chair of the Better Public Media Trust (BPM). He is a television producer and director of various forms of “factual” programming, and in 2012 he established established the Save TVNZ 7 campaign. This article was first published in the New Zealand Herald and is republished here with the author’s permission.
Police gather evidence near the site of a bomb explosion that took place outside the house of Jubi editor Victor Mambor, in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, on 23 January 2023. Image: AJI for Benar News
By Dandy Koswaraputra and Pizaro Gozali Idrus
A veteran journalist known for covering rights abuses in Indonesia’s militarised Papua region says a bomb exploded outside his home yesterday and a journalists group has called it an act of “intimidation” threatening press freedom.
No one was injured in the blast near his home in the provincial capital Jayapura, said Victor Mambor, editor of Papua’s leading news website Jubi, who visited New Zealand in 2014.
Police said they were investigating the explosion and that no one had yet claimed responsibility.
Tabloid Jubi editor Victor Mambor being interviewed by Pacific Media Watch’s Anna Majavu during the first visit by a Papuan journalist to New Zealand in 2014. Image: Del Abcede/PMW
Mambor is also an advocate for press freedom in Papua. In that role, he has criticised Jakarta’s restrictions on the media in Papua, as well as its other policies in his troubled home province.
The AJI awarded Mambor its press freedom award in August 2022, saying that through Jubi, “Victor brings more voices from Papua, amid domination of information that is biased, one-sided and discriminatory.”
“AJI in Jayapura strongly condemns the terrorist bombing and considers this an act of intimidation that threatens press freedom in Papua,” it said in a statement.
‘Voice the truth’ call
“AJI Jayapura calls on all journalists in the land of Papua to continue to voice the truth despite obstacles. Justice should be upheld even though the sky is falling,” said AJI chair Lucky Ireeuw.
Amnesty International Indonesia urged the police to find those responsible.
“The police must thoroughly investigate this incident, because this is not the first time … meaning there was an omission that made the perpetrators feel free to do it again, to intimidate and threaten journalists,” Amnesty’s campaign manager in Indonesia, Nurina Savitri, told BenarNews.
The Papua region, located at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, has been the site of a decades-old pro-independence insurgency where both government security forces and rebels have been accused of committing atrocities against civilians.
Foreign journalists have been largely barred from the area, with the government insisting it could not guarantee their safety. Indonesian journalists allege that officials make their work difficult by refusing to provide information.
The armed elements of the independence movement have stepped up lethal attacks on Indonesian security forces, civilians and targets such as construction of a trans-Papua highway that would make the Papuan highlands more accessible.
Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, has accused Indonesian security forces of intimidation, arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings and mass forced displacement in Papua.
Security forces kill 36
Last month, Indonesian activist group KontraS said 36 people were killed by security forces and pro-independence rebels in the Papua and West Papua provinces in 2022, an increase from 28 in 2021.
In Sydney, Joe Collins of the AWPA said in a statement: “These acts of intimidation against local journalists in West Papua threaten freedom of the press.
“It is the local media in West Papua that first report on human rights abuses and local journalists are crucial in reporting information on what is happening in West Papua”.
Collins said Canberra remained silent on the issue — ‘the Australian government is very selective in who it criticises over their human rights record.”
There was no problem raising concerns about China or Russia over their record, “but Canberra seems to have great difficulty in raising the human rights abuses in West Papua with Jakarta.”
Republished from Radio Free Asia with additional reporting by Pacific Media Watch.
Victor Mambor as an advocate for media freedom in West Papua. Image: AWPA
The Suva-based lawyer Richard Naidu at home . . . "Aiyaz’s FijiFirst party government applied the constitution as it suited them." Image: Atu Rasea/The Fiji Times
ANALYSIS: By Richard Naidu
Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff.
He pontificated at length while his party’s MPs stood silently behind him.
From what I could tell, Sayed-Khaiyum’s speech was a mixture of political criticism and claims about the law. The politicians can respond to the political rhetoric. But claims that the government has broken the law are a more serious matter.
Sayed-Khaiyum has raised a number of complaints suggesting that the new government has broken the law. He has not been very clear about why this is so. However, for the record, let’s go over these complaints (or at least what he seems to be suggesting):
that former Constitutional Offices Commission members were unlawfully removed from office
Wrong. The Commissioners were asked to resign. They did so. No law prevents them from resigning. If they had refused to resign, they would have remained in place (as others have done).
Sayed-Khaiyum says that the PM had “no authority” to ask them to resign. Wrong. Nobody needs “authority” to ask anyone else to commit a voluntary act. The former Constitutional Offices Commissioners are not the property of the FijiFirst party. No law has been broken.
that the Minister for Home Affairs should not have asked the Commissioner of Police to resign
Wrong. It is a free country. The minister may make any request he wants — and the commissioner may accept or refuse that request.
The commissioner refused the minister’s request, saying he wanted the Constitutional Office Commission process be followed. The commissioner remains in place.
No law has been broken.
that prayers at government functions breach the Constitution
The Fiji Times front page today . . . featuring lawyer Richard Naidu’s reply on constitutional matters. Image: Screenshot APR
Sayed-Khaiyum read out s.4 of the Constitution (“Secular state”) and claimed that at government functions prayers were now only offered in one religion (presumably the Christian one).
To suggest that this is something new — that this did not happen under the FijiFirst party government — is fantasy. And I too wish that those who offer prayers were sometimes a little more sensitive to other religions.
But that is not the point. The Constitution does not tell any of us how to pray.
No law has been broken.
“not referring to all citizens as Fijians”
The Constitution may refer to all citizens as “Fijians”. But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. There is no law that says we must all call each other “Fijians”. We may call each other what we want.
No law has been broken.
replacing boards of statutory authorities before expiry of their terms
Sayed-Khaiyum should be specific. Which boards is he referring to? If board members have resigned and been replaced, then what I have already said about resignations also applies.
For a number of statutory bodies the minister has, under the relevant law, the power to appoint board members. This power generally includes the power to dismiss them.
Replacing boards or board members mid-term is certainly nothing new. Sayed-Khaiyum may recall a recent example while he was Minister for Housing. He requested the entire Housing Authority board to resign before the expiry of their terms (and they complied).
No law has been broken.
taking back ATS [Air Terminal Services] workers. Sayed-Khaiyum seems to think that because a court decided that ATS is not required to take the workers back, ATS cannot do so.
Wrong. Any parties to litigation — including employers and employees — can decide to settle their differences at any time — including after a court ruling. The new government has requested ATS to take its former employees back. If ATS has a legal problem with this, no doubt it will tell government.
No law has been broken.
that using vernacular languages in Parliament breaches Standing Orders
Other than for the formal process of electing the Speaker and the Prime Minister, Parliament has not yet even sat yet.
The new government wants to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament. The current Standing Orders do not permit this.
So, to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament, the government will have to propose changes to the Standing Orders and parliamentarians will have to vote for them. That is normal procedure (Standing Order 128).
No law has been broken.
“separation of powers”
Former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum during his attack on Fiji’s new coalition government claiming breaches of the law and Constitution. Image: The Fiji Times
Under the FijiFirst party government, this phrase seemed to be thrown around to justify anything. For example, the Parliament Secretariat would frequently refuse to allow opposition MPs to ask questions of government ministers because of “the separation of powers”.
This justification made no sense. Section 91 of the Constitution requires ministers to be accountable to Parliament.
In layman’s terms, “the separation of powers” means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each “stay in their lanes”.
They should not interfere in each other’s functions. Sayed-Khaiyum has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?
FijiFirst and the Constitution
Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst party government applied the Constitution as it suited them.
It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121) It never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149).
It never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150). This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.
His government treated Parliament — the elected representatives of Fiji’s people — with contempt. Almost all of its laws were passed under urgency (Standing Order 51).
Typically, parliamentarians got two days’ notice of what new laws the government was proposing, sometimes less. That meant no one had time to review the laws
or consult the people on them.
The FFP government treated the people’s laws as its own property. Sayed-Khaiyum complains about board members being removed and public service appointment rules not being followed. He says nothing about the numerous arbitrary terminations of many public servants under the FijiFirst party government, including the Solicitor-General and the Government Statistician.
It was no less than the Fiji Law Society president who this week described rule of law under the FijiFirst government as “sometimes hanging by a thread”.
Against this background, not many lawyers are prepared to listen to Sayed-Khaiyum lecture us on the law.
#LOCALNEWS Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format. #TimesNews#FijiNews#FijiPolhttps://t.co/sblh8koJBs
The “separation of powers” doctrine is also clear that if you have a problem with the lawfulness of any government action, the courts are there to solve that problem. It is the
courts who decide if anyone has breached the Constitution. It is not the secretary of the opposition political party.
So, if Sayed-Khaiyum has a complaint that the law has been broken, he should do what the rest of us do — take it to court. That is what he frequently told the Opposition to do when it complained about what his government did.
Sayed-Khaiyum has a little more time on his hands now. He is a qualified lawyer with a practising certificate. So — get on with it. Bring your complaints to court, because
that is where they belong. Should Sayed-Khaiyum really be lecturing us about the law?
Finally, Sayed-Khaiyum has still not explained to anyone how, in the space of three days in January, he got himself kicked out of Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission — and then had to resign from the Constitutional Offices Commission when asked how he could continue as general secretary of the Fiji First Party.
Should we really be taking legal advice from him?
Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer and a columnist. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.
NZ's Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni . . . she also made history 15 years ago when she became New Zealand's first Tongan MP. Image: Dan Cook/RNZ News
RNZ News
Leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand’s Pacific community believe the appointment of the country’s first deputy prime minister of Pacific descent will bring positive change.
Incoming Prime Minister Chris Hipkins — who is taking over the reins from Jacinda Ardern just nine months away from the general elections — chose Carmel Sepuloni as his deputy yesterday.
She also made history 15 years ago when she became New Zealand’s first Tongan MP.
Reverend Setaita Veikune of the Methodist Church of NZ told RNZ Morning Report the Kelston MP’s promotion would serve as an inspiration for the younger generation, particularly girls.
“This is a visible example of what we can achieve and proof that for our people, the sky really is the limit,” she said.
“Carmel being a Tongan, Samoan woman as deputy prime minister, is a profound contribution in my opinion to eliminating negative stereotypes and reducing unconscious bias against us.
“This alone does more for our communities than many realise, such as reducing advancement barriers, which are biased against us in different spaces.”
Historic moment
Pacific community leader Sir Collin Tukuitonga told Morning Report this was a historic moment not just for their community, but the whole country.
“I think it’s a statement of ourselves as a nation that perhaps we’re maturing and being serious about inclusivity.”
Sepuloni’s experiences and networks in Pasifika and Māoridom communities would bring benefits as she supported Hipkins’ leadership, he said.
Veikune hoped Sepuloni — who currently holds portfolios for social development, Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), and arts, culture and heritage — would work to bring the Pasifika community forward with her.
“I find her very strong in her quiet and humble way . . . She brings strength, courage, and determination, to do what is required, and I believe her humility is something that will take us forward greatly.”
In an interview with E-Tangata in 2017, Sepuloni said she had thought of entering politics from a young age, with the ambition of helping create a fairer society.
“Interestingly, growing up — and friends still remind me of this — I used to say that this is what I would do. That I would be a politician. And they found it so funny at the time,” she said.
‘Unfairness around us’
“We can see the unfairness unfolding around us, whether it be health statistics or educational outcomes. Pay inequality. All of those things that we see in our own lives, our families’ lives, and our communities. So, I think it’s really difficult not to feel political in some way.”
As Minister of Social Development for the past five years, Sepuloni has been steadily reforming the system via measures including raising benefit levels, adopting a less punitive approach to sanctions and overseeing a review of the Working for Families welfare scheme.
Writing in the Herald at the time of ram raids last August, Sepuloni reflected on her time as an at-risk youth educator with tertiary students.
“I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t, and punitive approaches to young people – or people in general, really – already experiencing complex challenges don’t. I liken it to pushing someone over who is wanting and trying to get up, while yelling at them to get up.”
But in 2021, a report from Child Poverty Action Group found almost three years on from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s 42 recommendations for overhauling the system, none had been fully implemented.
Sir Collin Tukuitonga . . . “Perhaps she will have a bit more sway and influence in getting . . . things done.” Image: University of Auckland/RNZ Pacific
Sir Collin said it would be tough to lay all of the blame on Sepuloni alone — it was more complex than that.
Building consensus
“She would have to build consensus from among a number of parties to get those implemented, she has moved on some of the recommendations but I think it’s a bit rough to just put it on her.
“There will be expectations and some would say she’s now in a deputy prime minister role that perhaps she will have a bit more sway and influence in getting these things done.
“There’s no question there are serious social issues in our communities that need to be addressed, I expect that Carmel would need to lead that process of building consensus and acting on those priorities.”
While Sir Collin acknowledged he was among those who criticised the government in the early days of the covid-19 pandemic over the “sluggish and slow” response to the outbreak in Pacific communities specifically, he said they got it right in the end.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
While the Marshall Islands was under US trusteeship, the US government detonated 67 atmospheric and ground weapons over a 12 year period. Image: Pacific Islands Forum
By Susana Suisuiki
More than 100 activist groups, including Greenpeace, Veterans for Peace, and the Arms Control Association have signed a letter calling on US President Joe Biden to apologise for nuclear tests conducted in the Marshall Islands.
The letter urges Biden to deliver on promises his administration has made regarding justice for those affected by the tests.
And it said this should be done before the Compact of Free Association with Washington is signed by all parties.
So far, Palau and the Marshall Islands have signed memorandums of understanding that outline the frameworks for what will become their third Compact of Free Association, while the Federated States of Micronesia has yet to sign up.
“The US government clearly has an ongoing moral obligation to help address the adverse impacts of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands,” the letter states.
“We do not believe that any new Compact of Free Association can be considered fair or equitable without fully addressing these issues in a way that is acceptable to the Marshallese people.”
Between 1946 and 1958, 23 nuclear tests were carried out on Bikini Atoll and forty-four near Enewetak Atoll. The weapons tested had an estimated explosive yield equivalent to one-point-seven times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Crippling impact
Executive director Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association said the US needs to acknowledge the crippling impact of these tests.
“It’s important to remember the past legacy of US nuclear weapons testing,” he said.
Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball . . . “The United States an enormous debt to pay for the devastating effects of the 67 United States nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands.” Image: RNZ Pacific
“We feel we have in the United States an enormous debt to pay for the devastating effects of the 67 United States nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands.”
Kimball said the effects of the tests are still present within the Marshallese community today.
“The nuclear testing has led to serious illnesses over time such as radiation poisoning, elevated cancer rates, birth defects, and the contamination of food and water sources continues to this day,” he said.
Runit dome built by the US on Enewetak Atoll to hold radioactive waste from nuclear tests. Image: Tom Vance/RNZ Pacific
A close up of Runit dome. Image: RNZ Pacific
“One of the islands — Runit Island, where waste from the past nuclear test is contained within a dome — has become completely uninhabitable.
“Many of the islands in the Marshall Islands are still contaminated and some may not be able to be fully restored. We have to remember that these islands are low-lying, they’re being affected by climate change and being battered by a number of different forces.”
Actions called for
The activist groups’ letter states that before the Compact can be renewed a number of actions should be taken including:
Compensation claims of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal;
Expanding access to health care, especially for those with illnesses associated with radiation exposure; and
Prompt declassification of all documents relating to the relocation of displaced Marshallese people.
“When the first compact was signed in 1986 it was not clear the extent of the devastation of the damage,” Kimball said.
“The United States has not been as forthcoming as it needs to be about the information to declassify a lot of the records that were late, and frankly the Marshallese people — because of the economic hardships created in large part by the history of the testing — they themselves don’t have the technical capacity to deal with these issues and so we see these issues persisting.
“New efforts need to be taken, additional resources need to be provided to recompense for the damage to health, culture and the economy.”
Kimball said that an apology could not make up for the lives lost and the damage created by the nuclear tests, but “it’s the right thing to do”, he said.
“It would recognise the wrongs that were committed and teach future generations that these wrongs can never be and should never be created.”
West Papuan leader Benny Wenda (left in red shirt) with Vanuatu government and West Papuan officials at a summit in Port Vila in December 2017 . . . "We cannot develop on top of all the suffering in West Papua." Image: Australia West Papua Association/RNZ Pacific
By Len Garae in Port Vila
West Papua independence campaigner Benny Wenda is in Vanuatu to meet Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau’s newly-installed government.
Wenda said he would also “strategise” on the way forward towards gaining eventual sovereignty from Indonesia and would be discussing ongoing issues in West Papua.
These include human rights abuses, and internal displacement of at least 160,000 Papuans by the Indonesian military while, he says, Jakarta continues to “pretend that nothing is happening in West Papua”.
Wenda said seven church pastors were among more than 200 people who had died in the conflict in the region in the last five years.
Wenda’s United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has observer status in the Melanesian Spearhead Group.
“We are developing in Melanesia, but unfortunately we cannot develop on top of all the suffering in West Papua which is another Melanesian country,” he said.
“I look forward to meeting Vanuatu’s new government leaders to brief them on the realities happening in West Papua. For example in the last five years, almost 240 Melanesians have died in West Papua.
‘Seven pastors killed’
“So far seven of our church pastors have been killed, including the most well-known Pastor Sanabani — a Bible translator.
“Indonesian soldiers also target our children while women give birth in the bush. Nobody has any statistics because Indonesia has banned all journalists for almost 50 years now from entering and reporting on what has been happening in our country.”
Comparing their situation with that of Russia’s war with Ukraine, he said television viewers are focused on their screens while no one really cares about what is happening in their next door neighbour of West Papua.
“We, the Melanesian countries call ourselves Christians but where is the Melanesian spirit of Christian brotherhood regarding West Papua?
“We badly need Melanesian Good Samaritans and perhaps now is the right time to prove that level of responsible leadership,” he said.
Vanuatu has pushed through the West Papua case at the Pacific Islands Forum as well as further abroad through the Organisation of Asia Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) in Brussels.
Len Garae is a Vanuatu Daily Post journalist and RNZ Pacific correspondent. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
NZ's new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins . . . he distinguished himself during the covid pandemic as a hard-working and competent leader who contributed a much-needed clarity and common sense. Image: Getty/The Conversation
The handover from Ardern to Hipkins has been achieved with the same efficiency as the handover from Andrew Little to Ardern in 2017. But will it be as successful?
Hipkins entered Parliament in 2008 — along with Ardern. Under Ardern’s leadership, he held ministerial portfolios in education, police and public services, and was Leader of the House.
His role as education minister includes a (not altogether successful) centralisation of all the country’s polytechnics under one administrative umbrella — a form of restructuring typical of this Labour government.
He distinguished himself during the covid pandemic as a hard-working and competent leader who contributed a much-needed clarity and common sense. He is a dependable and intelligent politician who does not mind being an attack dog when it is called for.
As leader with Tongan Carmel Sepuloni as his deputy, however, Hipkins now faces an uphill battle, with his party trailing the opposition National Party in the most recent published polls. But he lacks Ardern’s charisma.
In 2017, there was an instant “Jacindamania” effect when she took the party leadership, and Labour’s polling shot up. One simply can’t imagine a “Chris-mania”, however. But maybe that’s not a bad thing right now.
Jacinda Ardern . . . charismatic and highly competent but also polarising. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation
Game over? There are two ways this could go now. First, the nightmare scenario for Labour: the government continues to be sniped at over controversial and unpopular policies such as the Three Waters programme and the income insurance scheme, economic problems continue to damage household budgets, the opposition leaders (both National’s Christopher Luxon and ACT’s David Seymour) have a field day.
In head-to-head debates with Luxon once the election campaign begins, Hipkins lacks the fire that Ardern was able to show when she needed it, and becomes political roadkill at the ballot box on October 14.
With Labour’s ongoing slump in the polls, trailing National by around five or six percentage points, this scenario cannot be ruled out. Following defeat, Labour could go into the kind of spiral it endured after Helen Clark’s loss in 2008, with one unsuccessful leader after another.
We can recall the defeat of Labour’s Phil Goff in 2011 and David Cunliffe in 2014 when up against National’s John Key. And, to be fair, National suffered a similarly bad run after Bill English stood down in 2018 and until Luxon became leader in November 2021.
“Chris Hipkins has been part of a government that has spectacularly failed to get anything done and what New Zealanders need is a National government that is going to get things done.”https://t.co/w67vxckHaw
A new hope? So is there a dream scenario for Labour? With Ardern’s charismatic — and now rather polarising — personality heading for the exit, the party could turn things around.
New leadership licences a significant cabinet reshuffle and (more importantly) a refresh of policy. Labour could now neutralise (or even dump) some policy proposals that are presently causing public dissatisfaction.
Rather than Hipkins having somehow to fill Ardern’s shoes, he could follow his own path in his own trusty trainers.
An advantage he has is an apparent unanimity of support from his caucus. This suggests his team is focused on beating National rather than beating one another.
But can Labour win back the support of those middle-ground voters who have shifted to the centre-right? It appears many of those who have swung away from Labour actually liked Ardern.
We could infer from this that a leadership change on its own will not suffice to woo these voters back. The loss of Ardern could indeed precipitate a further drop in polling for Labour.
A policy reset Late in 2022, Ardern had stated that the government’s focus this year would be the economy. And National will inevitably use the line that they (National) are the more competent when it comes to “managing the economy”.
If Labour is serious about winning the 2023 election, then, they need to convince enough voters of the following:
they are addressing the real economic concerns that are affecting people presently;
they have taken heed of people’s disquiet over some current policy changes and are prepared to revise them; and
they are not going any further with controversial matters, especially co-governance with Māori, without first seeking a wider public understanding and consensus.
Hipkins is a competent and reliable person. If he has his party’s backing to revise or backtrack on policy, then he may have some success. With less focus on personalities this time around, his best hope may be to convince people his government is serious about resetting the country’s direction.
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks holds up a copy of The Guardian newspaper as he speaks to reporters on July 26, 2010 in London, England.
Image: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images/Common Dreams/Creative Commons
ANALYSIS:By Brett Wilkins
As Julian Assange awaits the final appeal of his looming extradition to the United States while languishing behind bars in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison, leading left luminaries and free press advocates gathered in Washington, DC, on Friday for the fourth sitting of the Belmarsh Tribunal, where they called on US President Joe Biden to drop all charges against the WikiLeaks publisher.
“From Ankara to Manila to Budapest to right here in the United States, state actors are cracking down on journalists, their sources, and their publishers in a globally coordinated campaign to disrupt the public’s access to information,” co-chair and Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman said during her opening remarks at the National Press Club.
“The Belmarsh Tribunal… pursues justice for journalists who are imprisoned or persecuted [and] publishers and whistleblowers who dare to reveal the crimes of our governments,” she said.
“Assange’s case is the first time in history that a publisher has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” Goodman added.
“Recently, it was revealed that the CIA had been spying illegally on Julian, his lawyers, and some members of this very tribunal. The CIA even plotted his assassination at the Ecuadorean Embassy under [former US President Donald] Trump.”
Assange — who suffers from physical and mental health problems, including heart and respiratory issues — could be imprisoned for 175 years if fully convicted of Espionage Act violations.
Among the classified materials published by WikiLeaks — many provided by whistleblower Chelsea Manning — are the infamous “Collateral Murder” video showing a US Army helicopter crew killing a group of Iraqi civilians, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs, which revealed American and allied war crimes.
Arbitrary detention According to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Assange has been arbitrarily deprived of his freedom since he was arrested on December 7, 2010. Since then he has been held under house arrest, confined for seven years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London while he was protected by the administration of former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, and jailed in Belmarsh Prison, for which the tribunal is named.
Human rights, journalism, peace, and other groups have condemned Assange’s impending extradition and the US government’s targeting of an Australian journalist who exposed American war crimes.
“That the extradition proceedings against Assange are an unexpected legal outcome — is a lie. Based on my experience as Ecuador’s foreign minister…the British government wanted to extradite him all along.” — @GuillaumeLong
In a statement ahead of Friday’s tribunal, co-chair and Croatian philosopher Srećko Horvat said:
The First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the life of Julian Assange are at stake. That’s why the Belmarsh Tribunal is landing literally just two blocks away from the White House.
As long as the Biden administration continues to deploy tools like the Espionage Act to imprison those who dare to expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe.
Our tribunal is gathering courageous voices of dissent to demand justice for those crimes and to demand President Biden to drop the charges against Assange immediately.
Belmarsh Tribunal participants include Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, US academic Noam Chomsky, British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn, former Assange lawyer Renata Ávila, human rights attorney Steven Donziger, and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.
The Belmarsh Tribunal hearing in Washington DC on January 20, 2023 – The case of Julian Assange. Video: Democracy Now!
Assange’s father, John Shipton, and the whistleblower’s wife and lawyer Stella Assange, are also members, as are Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola, Chip Gibbons of Defending Rights, Selay Ghaffar of the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, and ACLU attorney Ben Wizner.
Former U.K. Labour Party leader @jeremycorbyn is in Washington for the Belmarsh Tribunal to advocate for Julian Assange’s freedom as he fights extradition from Britain to the United States.
“We’re standing up for the right to know. We’re standing up for journalism,” Corbyn says. pic.twitter.com/A4v6QbNSN0
First Amendment foundation
“One of the foundation stones of our form of government here in the United States . . . is our First Amendment to the Constitution,” Ellsberg — whom the Richard Nixon administration tried to jail for up to 115 years under the Espionage Act, but due to government misconduct was never imprisoned — said in a recorded message played at the tribunal.
“Up until Assange’s indictment, the act had never been used… against a journalist like Assange,” Ellsberg added. “If you’re going to use the act against a journalist in a blatant violation of the First Amendment… the First Amendment is essentially gone.”
Ávila said before Thursday’s event that “the Espionage Act is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in the world: an existential threat against international investigative journalism.”
“If applied, it will deprive us of one of our must powerful tools towards de-escalation of conflicts, diplomacy, and peace,” she added.
“The Belmarsh Tribunal convened in Washington to present evidence of this chilling threat, and to unite lawmakers next door to dismantle the legal architecture that undermines the basic right of all peoples to know what their governments do in their name.”
The Belmarsh Tribunal, first convened in London in 2021, is inspired by the Russell Tribunal, a 1966 event organised by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre to hold the US accountable for its escalating war crimes in Vietnam.
Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.
