The twin undersea volcano beneath the twin islands of Hunga-Ha’apai and Hunga-Tonga erupting as shown on Al Jazeera television. Image: Al Jazeera English screenshot APR
Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the catastrophic volcanic eruption tomorrow, Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni spoke to RNZ Pacific’s Finau Fonua.
Hu’akavameiliku shared his experiences of the eruption and its aftermath, as well as some of the challenges left in the wake of the disaster.
Hu’akavameiliku was meeting with a local church community group when he heard what he had first thought was thunder. Within minutes he was notified of the volcano’s eruption.
Hu’akavameiliku recalls his first thoughts:
“It was scary. But at the same time, most of my time was just worrying about what’s happening, finding out what’s happening here, who’s affected, the scope of the problems and all that.
“But at the same time, we’re mindful that I’m there with my family, what will be the best course of action in terms of whether we are evacuating or staying home? But that’s what went through my mind.”
Communications cut off
For the next three days all communication services were down, and Tonga was effectively cut off from the world.
Hu’akavameiliku remembers sending people to determine the effects of the eruption in western Tonga, as well as boats to the islands who soon reported that tsunami waves were incoming.
It was later confirmed that three people had died in the disaster.
Although there was a need to determine exactly what had happened, that meant accessing satellite images of the eruption, which was not possible while communications were down.
Hu’akavameiliku explained how the priority remained with the affected people, both on Tongatapu and on the outlying islands.
“But those couple of days, it was more about finding out what’s happening and working out our response, making sure that families are safe, relocating some of the islands over down here. So that kept us busy, didn’t give us much time to worry about other stuff.”
Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni (right) with Health Minister Dr Saia Piukala. Image: Iliesa Tora/NZ Pacific
Hu’akavameiliku expressed gratitude for the international assistance Tonga received in the wake of the disaster, particularly from New Zealand, Australia and its other Pacific neighbours. The food, drinking water and building materials received were vital for the survival of those most affected by the eruption.
An aerial photo taken from a New Zealand Defence force P-3 Orion on January 16, 2022, shows Mango island in Tonga with no houses left after impact from a tsunami. Image: NZDF/RNZ Pacific
Hu’akavameiliku said the decision to resettle the islanders was based on an understanding of how vulnerable their communities had become.
This relocation has been challenging for the people of Mango and ‘Atata: “Some of them are not used to where they are right now because they grew up in very small islands and now they are in Tongatapu or in ‘Eua, so helping them get hold of that and rebuilding their livelihood.
“The way they utilise will be different in the other islands than down here. So we are helping them. We adjust their way of life to the new environment they are in, that’s one of the biggest focuses, and on a higher level, the economics.
“We are reallocating some of the resources, we are just building not just houses but infrastructure.”
To mark the anniversary of the eruption an exhibition is being held. Hu’akavameiliku also noted that Tongans also reflected on the impact of the disaster through their strong spiritual communities.
“And, on the Sunday services, is to thank the Lord that we’re still here and to acknowledge our various partners. And we hope that things will keep getting better.”
Finau Fonua is an RNZ Pacific journalist. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Dr David Robie is a New Zealand author, journalist and media educator who has covered the Asia-Pacific region for international media for more than three decades.
Dr Robie is the author of several books on South Pacific media and politics and is an advocate for media freedom in the Pacific region through Pacific Media Watch. – Wikipedia
Papuan Governor Lukas Enembe . . . arrest in handcuffs over corruption allegations widely regarded as the "humiliation" of an elected Papuan leader by Indonesian authorities. Image: Liputan 6
ANALYSIS:By Yamin Kogoya
Following months of legal limbo and a health crisis, Papua Governor Lukas Enembe was arrested this week by the country’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in a dramatic move condemned by critics as a “kidnapping”.
At noon on Tuesday, January 10, Governor Enembe was dining in a local restaurant near the headquarters of Indonesia’s Mobile Brigade Corps, known as Brimob.
After the arrest the Brimob transported him directly to Sentani Theys Eluay airport — an airport named in honour of another prominent Papuan leader who was callously murdered by the same security forces in 2002, not far from where the governor was arrested.
Governor Enembe was immediately flown to Jakarta to arrive at the Army Central Hospital (RSPAD), Gatot Soebroto, Central Jakarta, reports Kompas.com.
In what seems to be a cautiously premeditated arrest, Jakarta targeted Governor Enembe while he was alone and without the support of thousands of Papuans who had barricaded his residence since September last year.
Once the news of his arrest was leaked, supporters attempted to gather in Sentani at the airport, but they were outnumbered by heavy security forces. A few protesters were shot, and several were injured, with one protester dying from his injuries.
1 shot dead, several wounded
Papua Police Public Relations Officer Kombes Ignatius Benny Prabowo said when contacted by Tribunnews.com in Jakarta: “Yes, it is true that someone was shot dead on Tuesday.”
Among those who were shot were Hemanus Kobari Enembe (dead), Neiron Enembe, Kano Enembe, and Segira Enembe.
Surprisingly, they share the same clan names of the governor himself, indicating that only his immediate family were informed of his arrest.
Hemanus Kobari Enembe paid the ultimate price at the hand of Jakarta’s calculated planning and arrest of Papua’s governor.
The crisis began in September 2022, when Governor Enembe was named a suspect by the KPK and summoned by Brimob after it accused him of receiving bribes worth 1 million rupiah (NZ$112,000). This amount was then escalated into a rush of accusations against the governor, including a new allegation that the governor had paid US$39 million to overseas casinos, disclosing details of his private assets such as cars, houses, and properties.
Governor Lukas Enembe . . . ill, but heavily guarded by the BRIMOD police after his arrest. Image: CNN/APR
Voices of prominent Papuan figures
A prominent Papuan, Natalius Pigai, Indonesia’s former human rights commissioner, was interviewed on January 11 by an INews TV news presenter regarding these extra allegations.
“If that’s the case,” Pigai replied, “then why don’t we use these wild extra allegations to investigate all the crimes committed in this country by the country’s top ministerial level, including the children of the president, as a conduit for investigating some of the crimes committed by his office in this country?
“Are we interested in that? Why just target Governor Lukas?”
Papuan Dr Benny Giay . . . his view is that the arrest of Governor Lukas Enembe serves the “interests of the political elite” in Jakarta. Image: Jubi screenshot APR
Papuan public intellectual Dr Benny Giay was seen in a video saying that the arrest of Governor Enembe by the KPK in Jayapura was to serve the interests of Jakarta’s political elite, whom he described as “hardliners” in relation to the power struggle to become number one in Papua’s province.
According to him, Governor Lukas Enembe was a victim of this power struggle.
Dr Socrates Yoman, president of the West Papua Fellowship of Baptist Churches, described the arrest as a “kidnapping”. He said the governor had been arrested illegally, without following any legal procedures — and neither the governor nor legal counsel was informed of his arrest.
According to Dr Yoman, Governor Enembe is ill and in the process of recovering from his illness. Thus, this pressure exerted by the state through the military and police violated Governor Enembe’s basic rights to health and humanity.
The behaviour of the state through BRIMOB constituted a crime against humanity or a gross violation of human rights because the governor was arrested during lunchtime without an arrest warrant and while he was unwell, he said.
“The governor is not a terrorist — he was elected Governor of Papua by the Papuan people.
“This kidnapping shows that the nation or country has no law. The country is controlled by people who have lost their humanity, opting instead for animalistic rage and a senseless lust for violence.
“Our goal is to restore their humanity so that they can see other human beings as human beings and become whole human beings,” said Dr Yoman.
The governor’s health
The governor’s health has deteriorated since he was banned from traveling to Singapore for regular medical aid since September last year.
The 23 November 2022 letter from the Singaporean doctors appealing for Governor Enembe’s medical evacuation . . . ignored by the Indonesian authorities. Image: APR screenshot
Last October, Governor Enembe received two visits from Singapore medical specialists who have been treating him for a number of years.
Despite these visits, his health has continued to deteriorate, which led Singapore’s medical specialists to send a letter in November to authorities in Indonesia requesting that the governor be airlifted to Mount Elizabeth hospital.
The letter from Royal Healthcare in Singapore said:
“We have treated Governor Lukas remotely with routine blood tests, regular zoom consults and monitoring of his glucose and blood pressure levels since November 1, 2022. However, his condition has deteriorated rapidly the last week. His renal function is at a critical range (5.75mg/dl), and he may require dialysis sooner than later. His blood pressure is hovering 190-200/80-100 increasing his risk of morbidity and mortality. He has been advised on immediate evacuation to Singapore with direct admission to Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital.”
The letters were ignored, and the sick governor was arrested and taken to a hospital in Jakarta, where he had previously refused to go.
Governor Enembe had previously written to KPK requesting that he receive urgent medical treatment in Singapore. Papuan police chiefs and KPK members were asked to accompany him, but this did not happen.
On November 30, 2022, Firli Bahuri, Chairman of KPK, visited the governor at his barricaded residence in Koya Jayapura, Papua, in what appeared to be a humane approach.
But what happened on Tuesday indicates that KPK had already decided to arrest him and take him to the Indonesian capital of Jakarta — almost 4500 km from his home town.
Many Papuan figures who go to Jakarta return home in coffins. Papuan protesters did not want their leader to be taken out of Papua, partly due to this fear.
Despite these protests, letters, and requests, Jakarta completely disregarded the will of the people and of the governor himself.
The plot to kidnap Governor Enembe appears to have been well planned over a period of four months since September, providing enough space for the situation in Papua to calm down and allowing the governor to leave his barricaded house alone without his Papuan “special forces”.
It was during the lunch hour of noon on Tuesday that KPK targeted him in a cunningly calculated manner.
Governor’s image in social media
Governor Enembe is portrayed in the Indonesia’s national narrative as a representative of the so-called “poor and backward” majority of Papuans, while portraying him as a man of a lavish lifestyle, owning properties and cars, and with great wealth.
Comments on social media are flooded with a common theme — portraying Papua’s governor as a “criminal”, with some even calling for his “execution”.
Some social media comments emerging from those fighting for West Papua’s liberation are echoing these themes by claiming that Governor Enembe’s case has nothing to do with the Free Papua Movement– his problem is with Jakarta only as he is a “colonial puppet ruler”.
It is true that Lukas Enembe is governor of Indonesian settler colonial provinces. However, Papuans have failed to understand the big picture — the ultimate fate of West Papua itself.
What would happen if West Papua remains part of Indonesia for the next 20-50 years?
Our failure to see the big picture by both Papuans and Indonesians, as well as the international community, is a result of Jakarta fabrication that West Papua is merely a national sovereignty issue for Indonesia. That is the crux of that fatal error.
The isolation of the governor from the rest of the Papuans as a “corruptor” and other dehumanising labels are designed to destroy Papuans’ self-esteem, stripping them of their pride, dignity, and self-respect.
The images and videos of the governor’s arrest, deportation, handcuffing in Jakarta in KPK uniform, and his admission to the military hospital while surrounded by heavily armed security forces are psychologically intimidating to Papuans.
Through brutal silence, politically loaded imagery has been used to convey a certain message:
“See what has happened to your respected leader, the big chief of the Papuan tribes; he is no longer a person. Jakarta still has the final say in what happens to all of you.”
Papuans are facing a highly choreographed state-sponsored terror campaign that shows no signs of abating.
For Papuans, the new year of 2023 should be a time of hope, new dreams, and new lives, but this has been marred once again by the arrest and kidnapping of a well-known and popular Papuan figure, as well as the death of a member of the governor’s family on Tuesday.
As human miseries continue to unfold in the Papuan homeland, Jakarta continues to conduct business as usual, pretending nothing is happening in West Papua while beating the drum of “development, prosperity, and progress” for the betterment of the backward Papuans.
With such prolonged tragedies, it is imperative that the old theories, terminologies, and paradigms that govern this brutal state of affairs be challenged.
A new paradigm is needed
The very foundation of our thinking between West Papua and Indonesia must be re-examined within the framework of what Tunisian writer, Albert Memmie, described as “coloniser and colonised”, when examining French treatment of colonised Tunisians, who emerged concurrent with Franz Fanon, the leading thinker of black experience in white, colonised Algeria.
The works of these thinkers provide insight into how the world of colonisers and colonised operates with its psychopathological manipulations in an unjust racially divided system of coloniser control.
These great decolonisation literature treasures will help Papuans to connect the dots of this last frontier to a bigger picture of centuries of war against colonised original peoples around the world, some of which were obliterated (Tasmania), able to escape (Algeria), or escaped but are still trying to reorganise themselves (Haiti).
Therefore, the coloniser and colonised paradigm is a useful mental framework to view Jakarta’s settler colonial activities and how Papuans (colonised) are continuously being lied to, manipulated, dissected, remade and destroyed — from all sides — in order to prevent them from uniting against the entity that threatens their very existence.
The real culprits in West Papua and proper Papuan justice
Most ordinary Papuans are unable to gain access to information regarding who exploits their natural resources, how much they are making, who receives the most benefits and how or why.
But Jakarta is too busy displaying Governor Enembe’s personal affairs and wild allegations in headline news — his entire existence is placed on public display, as an object of humiliation, just as the messianic Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross in order to convince Galilean followers that their beloved leader failed.
Let us not forget, however, that it was this publicly humiliated and crucified Jesus who forever changed the imperial world order and human history.
If true justice is to be delivered to colonised Papuans, then Papuans must put the Dutch on trial for abandoning them 60 years ago, and then hold the United Nations and the United States responsible for selling them, to Indonesia, 60 years ago.
In addition to arresting all international capitalist bandits that are exploiting West Papua under the disguise of multinational corporations, Indonesia should also be arrested for its crimes against Papuans, dating back over 61 years.
However, the question remains… who will deliver this proper justice for the colonised Papuans? Jakarta has certainly set itself on a pathological path of arresting, imprisoning, and executing any figure that appears to be a messianic figure to unite these dislocated original tribes for its final war for survival.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic/activist who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
How Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes featured the FLNKS boycott on the front page for the last of three referendums. Image: Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes screenshot APR
An Australian-based French law professor says it is up to the French people as a whole, and not the voters in New Caledonia, to decide the territory’s future statute.
Professor Eric Descheemaeker of the University of Melbourne’s Law School said New Caledonia’s three votes against full sovereignty meant that legally, the power to determine the future standing of the Pacific territory had reverted from New Caledonian voters to France as a whole.
In the three referendums between 2018 and 2021, a majority of New Caledonians rejected independence from France.
Professor Eric Descheemaeker . . . French constitutional framework still applies. Image: Merlbourne Law School
However, the last and third referendum under the 1998 Noumea Accord was boycotted by the pro-independence parties after France refused to postpone the vote to 2022 because of the covid-19 pandemic’s impact on the indigenous Kanak population.
The pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) has been adamant that it will not recognise the referendum outcome, describing it as a humiliation of the Kanak people.
He said the rejection of the proposed sovereignty meant that New Caledonia was subject to the French constitution with its definition of national sovereignty.
The text says “no section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof”.
Process not binding
Professor Descheemaeker also said the referendum process granted by Paris was not binding because a vote for independence would still have had to be approved by the French legislature and in a referendum.
He said the 1988 referendum involving all of France approved the Matignon Accords that paved the way for a vote on independence in New Caledonia within 10 years.
It did not take place, and political leaders deferred a decision by signing the Noumea Accord in 1998, which extended the deadline by another two decades.
Professor Descheemaeker said that with the referendum outcome, the provisions from 1988 could no longer be used to claim a separate entitlement for voters in New Caledonian, similar to there not being one for Parisians.
The political discussions are due to resume later this month once the FLNKS movement, which is a signatory to the Noumea Accord, has held its congress.
Formal talks on a new statute are yet to be launched, but speaking in the French National Assembly last month, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin ruled out any further voting on the issue for five years.
Days after the last referendum in 2021, the then-Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu said he planned to have a vote in New Caledonia on a new statute by June 2023.
The last of three Kanaky New Caledonia referendums on independence on 12 December 2021 … “no validity without us”, the indigenous Kanak people. Image: FLNKS
Undertaking scuttled
But amid the political impasse and the absence of any substantive talks, the undertaking was scuttled.
The pro-French parties have said that with a new statute the restricted electoral rolls, which were brought in as part of the Noumea Accord process, must be opened to all French citizens.
Reserving voting rights in referendums and provincial elections to long-term residents and indigenous Kanaks, more than 40,000 French residents now lack full voting rights, being allowed to vote in French national elections only.
Professor Descheemaeker said that although there was no specific expiry date to the restrictions in New Caledonia, they would have to be reviewed.
He said the partial withdrawal of the right to vote from certain French citizens living in New Caledonia was contrary to the most fundamental constitutional principles.
He said the measures had only been validated by French and international authorities insofar as they were transitional.
Pro-independence parties are opposed to changing the rolls.
For them, the ringfencing of the electorate was an irreversible gain attained through the Noumea Accord.
They say this forms the bedrock of New Caledonian citizenship and identity as they pursue their campaign for an independent New Caledonia, which has been on the UN decolonisation list since 1986.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The village on Serua Island, Fiji . . . coastal erosion and flooding have caused severe damage over the past two decades. Image: Merawalesi Yee/The Conversation
Climate change is forcing people around the world to abandon their homes. In the Pacific Islands, rising sea levels are leaving communities facing tough decisions about relocation.
Some are choosing to stay in high-risk areas.
Our research investigated this phenomenon, known as “voluntary immobility”.
The government of Fiji has identified around 800 communities that may have to relocate due to climate change impacts (six have already been moved). One of these is the village on Serua Island, which was the focus of our study.
Coastal erosion and flooding have severely damaged the village over the past two decades. Homes have been submerged, seawater has spoiled food crops and the seawall has been destroyed.
Despite this, almost all of Serua Island’s residents are choosing to stay.
We found their decision is based on “vanua”, an Indigenous Fijian word that refers to the interconnectedness of the natural environment, social bonds, ways of being, spirituality and stewardship of place. Vanua binds local communities to their land.
Residents feel an obligation to stay
Serua Island has historical importance. It is the traditional residence of the paramount chief of Serua province.
A house on Serua Island is submerged by seawater. Image: A Serua Island resident/The Conversation
The island’s residents choose to remain because of their deep-rooted connections, to act as guardians and to meet their customary obligations to sustain a place of profound cultural importance. As one resident explained:
“Our forefathers chose to live and remain on the island just so they could be close to our chief.”
Sau Tabu is the burial site of the paramount chiefs of Serua. Image: Merewalesi Yee/The Conversation
The link to ancestors is a vital part of life on Serua Island. Every family has a foundation stone upon which their ancestors built their house. One resident told us:
“In the past, when a foundation of a home is created, they name it, and that is where our ancestors were buried as well. Their bones, sweat, tears, hard work [are] all buried in the foundation.”
Many believe the disturbance of the foundation stone will bring misfortune to their relatives or to other members of their village.
The ocean that separates Serua Island from Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu, is also part of the identity of men and women of Serua. One man said:
“When you have walked to the island, that means you have finally stepped foot on Serua. Visitors to the island may find this a challenging way to get there. However, for us, travelling this body of water daily is the essence of a being Serua Islander.”
The ocean is a source of food and income, and a place of belonging. One woman said:
“The ocean is part of me and sustains me – we gauge when to go and when to return according to the tide.”
The sea crossing that separates Serua Island from Viti Levu is part of the islanders’ identity. Image: Merewalesi Yee/The Conversation
Serua Islanders are concerned that relocating to Viti Levu would disrupt the bond they have with their chief, sacred sites and the ocean. They fear relocation would lead to loss of their identity, cultural practices and place attachment. As one villager said:
“It may be difficult for an outsider to understand this process because it entails much more than simply giving up material possessions.”
If residents had to relocate due to climate change, it would be a last resort. Residents are keenly aware it would mean disrupting — or losing — not just material assets such as foundation stones, but sacred sites, a way of life and Indigenous knowledge.
Voluntary immobility is a global phenomenon As climate tipping points are reached and harms escalate, humans must adapt. Yet even in places where relocation is proposed as a last resort, people may prefer to remain.
Voluntary immobility is not unique to Fiji. Around the world, households and communities are choosing to stay where climate risks are increasing or already high. Reasons include access to livelihoods, place-based connections, social bonds and differing risk perceptions.
As Australia faces climate-related hazards and disasters, such as floods and bushfires, people living in places of risk will need to consider whether to remain or move. This decision raises complex legal, financial and logistical issues. As with residents of Serua Island, it also raises important questions about the value that people ascribe to their connections to place.
Serua Island is one of about 800 communities in Fiji being forced to consider the prospect of relocation. Video: France 24
A decision for communities to make themselves
Relocation and retreat are not a panacea for climate risk in vulnerable locations. In many cases, people prefer to adapt in place and protect at-risk areas.
No climate adaptation policy should be decided without the full and direct participation of the affected local people and communities. Relocation programs should be culturally appropriate and align with local needs, and proceed only with the consent of residents.
In places where residents are unwilling to relocate, it is crucial to acknowledge and, where feasible, support their decision to stay. And people require relevant information on the risks and potential consequences of both staying and relocating.
This can help develop more appropriate adaptation strategies for communities in Fiji and beyond as people move home, but also resist relocation, in a warming world.
France’s highest court has revived French Polynesia’s largest corruption case, which had been closed almost more than three years ago.
Eight people, including former president Gaston Flosse, were given jail sentences by Tahiti’s criminal court in 2013 for their roles in a kickback scheme to secure public sector contracts from the OPT telecommunications company.
On appeal in 2015, the case was thrown out over a technicality. In 2019, judicial authorities in Tahiti dismissed efforts to revisit the matter, saying the statute of limitations applied in the affair.
However, the court in Paris has now annulled their decision, saying that the relevant texts had been misunderstood.
The alleged misuse of public funds centred on French businessman Hubert Haddad paying US$2 million in kickbacks over 12 years to Flosse and his party to get the OPT contracts.
During the investigations and trial, it was established that Flosse’s secretary Melba Ortas used to collect the money as regular cash payments from Haddad’s local company, and Flosse admitted disbursing the money for private expenses.
While investigations were underway in 2009, Flosse was jailed for three weeks.
Imprisoned for three months
Haddad, who had been arrested in France, was also imprisoned for three months in Tahiti as part of the investigations, but on paying a US$800,000 bail, he secured his release.
The former head of the OPT and Air Tahiti, Nui Geffry Salmon, spent six months in preventive detention until he was freed on US$120,000 bail.
At their trial in 2013, Flosse and Haddad were given five-year prison sentences and fined US$110,000, but they appealed.
Flosse’s lawyers failed, however, in their bid to get France’s highest court to move the appeal case away from Tahiti after claiming they wouldn’t get a fair trial.
The criminal court also ordered that the OPT be reimbursed US$5.6 million.
Four months after the verdict, Flosse was elected president and within months, the lawyer acting for the OPT, James Lau, was dismissed.
Lau noted that those convicted had taken over key aspects of the impending appeal trial, likening the case to a “mafia-style affair”.
Procedural errors
In the appeal court in 2015, the case was thrown out because of procedural errors by the prosecution.
Attempts by the prosecution to revisit the case were quashed in 2019 when the case was closed.
The lawyer acting for Flosse, Francois Quinquis, said the latest decision in Paris to allow the affair to be retested is no surprise as the court tried to save the case.
He told Tahiti-infos he wished the prosecution good luck as the decisions reached so far had made the affair inextricable.
Haddad’s lawyer said the case would end once there were no protagonists left.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka (second from left) and Deputy PM Professor Biman Prasad (left) talk to the media in Suva after their meeting with the Sodelpa management before winning the prime ministership vote. Image: Timoci Vula/The Fiji Times
By John Mitchell in Suva
In any true democracy, the role of journalists and the media outlets they represent is to inform the people so that they can make educated and well-informed choices.
The role of politicians is to represent those who elected them.
They are to make decisions that best serve the public interest and to ensure that the concerns of citizens are heard, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.
In such a political system, the journalist and the politician must both serve the people but in peculiarly differing ways.
Journalists act on behalf of citizens by exploring and covering issues that concern the people and in doing so they include a diversity of voices and political opinions that offer different viewpoints and opinions.
The bottom line of their job is ensuring that politicians do their job transparently, with accountability and through better public service delivery.
In the end, journalism enhances, encourages meaningful dialogue and debate in society.
On the other hand, politicians use the media to reach the masses, make them understand their policies and through this — get acceptance and approval from the public.
Politicians love media spotlight
Politicians naturally love the media spotlight for without reporters nobody knows their policies and their good deeds, no matter how grand they may be.
Politicians love talking to reporters so they can get publicity.
Reporters like politicians too because they provide them with stories — there goes the long story of the symbiotic relationship between the press and powerful members of the legislature.
What a perfect relationship.
Absolutely wrong!
Some say the relationship is one of “love and hate” and always hangs in the balance.
This liaison of sorts is more than meets the eye and the truth is simple.
Like the legislature, the media has a prominent and permanent place in national leadership and governance (known as the Fourth Estate).
Critical components of democracy
Both are critical components of a democracy.
Because of their democratic mandate, the media and politicians cannot be fulltime bedfellows.
And as the saying goes, they will have their moments.
However, in past years The Fiji Times has always been seen as the “enemy of the state”.
This had nothing to do with the media’s work as a watchdog of society or the Fourth Estate, but rather with the way in which the former government muzzled the media and created an environment of fear through draconian media laws that stifled freedom of expression and constricted media freedom.
Simply put, a newspaper and any truly independent media outlet must be fair and in being fair, its content must reflect the rich diversity of views and opinions that exists in the public sphere, as well as the aspirations, fears and concerns of the varied groups that exist in the community.
Experts, academics or anyone outside of government is welcomed to use this forum of information exchange, dissemination and sharing.
Politicians, if they have nothing to hide, can use it too, provided what they have to say is honest, sincere and accurate.
Listening to pluralistic ‘voices’
A responsible government deliberately chooses to listen attentively to pluralistic “voices” in the media although these expressions may put it in an uncomfortable position.
A responsible government also explores avenues in which valid ideas could be propagated to improve its own practices and achieve its intended outcome.
In other words, a newspaper exists to, among other reasons, communicate and amplify issues of concern faced by citizens.
This includes voicing citizens’ complaints over any laxity in government’s service delivery, especially people in rural areas who often do not enjoy the public services that we so often take for granted in towns and cities.
So whenever, people use the mainstream media to raise concerns over poor roads, water, garbage disposal, education and inferior health services, the public does so with the genuine yearning for assistance and intervention from government.
And in providing this platform for exchange, the media achieves its democratic goal of getting authorities to effectively respond to taxpayers’ needs, keep their development promises and deliver according to their election manifestos.
Remember, a responsible newspaper or media does not exist to act as government’s mouthpiece.
Retaining media independence
If media outlets give up their independence and allow themselves to be used by politicians for political parties’ own political agenda and gains, then citizens who rely on the media as an instrument for meaningful dialogue, discussion and discourse will be denied their participatory space and expressive rights.
A responsible and autonomous newspaper like The Fiji Times does not exist to make government feel good.
For if this ever occurs, this newspaper will compromise its ability to provide the necessary oversight on government powers and actions, without which, abuse of power and corruption thrive to the detriment of ordinary citizens.
If media organisations and journalists who work for them operate in the way they should, then for obvious reasons, all politicians in government will “sometimes” find the media “upsetting” and “meddlesome”.
Copping the flak from ministers and those in positions of authority is part and parcel of the media’s work.
It is a healthy sign that democracy works.
This newspaper was instrumental in calling on the SVT (Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei) government and its then prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, (now Fiji’s Prime Minister again under the People’s Alliance Party-PAP/National Federation Party (NFP) and Sodelpa coalition) to account for the enormous financial loss which caused the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji in the 1990s.
Last government ‘vindictive, authoritarian’
But no government was as vindictive and authoritarian as the last government.
Today, early in the days of the PAP/NFP and Sodelpa coalition government, we are seeing the good old days of media freedom slowly coming back.
We can now doorstop the Prime Minister and call the Attorney-General at 9pm for a comment and get an answer.
The openness with which ministers talk to the press is encouraging.
We hope things stay that way and the government accepts that we will sometimes put out stories that it finds positive and there will be times when we will make its life difficult and uneasy.
At the end of the day, it is the people that we both work hard to serve.
Sometimes we will step on some people’s toes, be blamed for provoking disquiet and seem unpopular among powerful politicians.
That is to be expected and embraced.
Safeguarding press freedom
But we will continue to play a prominent role in safeguarding the freedom of the press so that all Fijians can enjoy their own rights and freedoms.
With the best intentions, our journalists will continue to forge forward with their pursuit of truth and human dignity, regardless of the political party in power.
As we rebuild Fiji and regain what many people think we’ve lost in 16 years, this newspaper will play a pivotal role in allowing government to reach the people so that they make informed choices about their lives.
We must face it — Fiji is heavily in debt, many families are struggling, the health system is in a poor state, thousands are trapped in poverty and the most vulnerable members of society are hanging in the balance, taking one day at a time.
It is in this environment of uncertainty that the media and politicians must operate in for the common good.
And as a responsible newspaper, we will listen to all Fijians and provide a safe space to express their voices.
That is our mandate and our promise.
John Mitchellis a senior Fiji Times feature writer who writes a weekly column, “Behind The News”. Republished with permission.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . “Members of our coalition have a message for Bainimarama." Image: Fijivillage
By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva
Fiji’s opposition leader Voreqe Bainimarama has been warned to provide evidence of allegations he has made against the coalition government or face the full brunt of the law.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka issued the warning in a national address yesterday in response to Bainimarama’s claims that the situation in Fiji had deteriorated since Rabuka came into office.
Rabuka said he offered a hand of co-operation and wished to develop a positive relationship with the FijiFirst party, but Bainimarama has made it clear that he rejects the idea of both sides of Parliament working together.
“In recent days, Mr Bainimarama has been bombarding the country with lies and misinformation,” Rabuka said.
“He alleges that Fiji is in some sort of crisis, that our new coalition government is engaged in repressive, oppressive conduct.”
He said Bainimarama went on to claim that Fiji was reliving the “dark ages” and that families were living in fear of job losses.
He said the former prime minister had also attempted to terrify the public by trying to create racial disharmony along with former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
‘Message for Bainimarama’
“Members of our coalition have a message for Bainimarama,” Rabuka said.
“On behalf of the people, we demand specific details of reports that you have received that we have acted unconstitutionally, contrary to the rule of law and in violation of good governance, and committed other transgressions.
“If he fails to provide the details of what he has published in his attempt to smear the image of our coalition, then he and those who are working with him are going to face consequences within the law.”
In a statement this week, Bainimarama claimed they had received “further reports of certain matters” that were taking place in government and that were detrimental to the Constitution, rule of law and governance.
Meanwhile, police public relations officer Ana Naisoro yesterday confirmed receiving complaints against the former prime minister, alleging his statements were inciteful.
Arieta Vakasukawaqais a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka confirms termination of the Corvis contract. Video: The Fiji Times
By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva
Qorvis Communications and Vatis — the two controversial public relation companies employed by the FijiFirst government to manage its public relations work — have been terminated.
This was confirmed by Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka outside Suvavou House yesterday during an interview with journalists.
Rabuka said the two companies would be investigated without disclosing more details.
FBC News reports that Rabuka said: “I gave instructions earlier for their termination, the cessation of any appointment with them, and investigations on how the funds have been used and how much.”
He said the Ministry of Information would carry out work for the government.
Corvis has been highly controversial over its handling of Fiji public relations.
A budget of $1 million had been allocated for services from Qorvis Communications which was described as an “international public relations, advertising, media relations and crisis communications firm”.
National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad, then in opposition but now co-Deputy Prime Minister said the government did not need Qorvis Communications.
However, then Economy Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum interjected and told the NFP leader to “stick to the motion” and not “make speculation”.
Arieta Vakasukawaqais a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
Former Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum . . . under fire over the Constitutional Offices Commission. Image: The Fiji Times
By Felix Chaudhary in Suva
The opposition FijiFirst party still “seems to be confused” about the role of its general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.
“Mr Sayed-Khaiyum appears to have triggered his exit from Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission,” he said.
“That means he is a ‘public officer’ as defined in the Constitution.
“An MP who accepts appointment as a ‘public officer’ loses his seat in Parliament. That has already happened.
“Mr Bainimarama is now suggesting that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum will continue as general secretary of FijiFirst.
“But Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is still a ‘public officer’.
“Under section 14(1)(b) of the Political Parties (Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures Act 2013) a ‘public officer’ is not eligible to be a political party official.
“In fact, under section 14(1)(a), while he holds office in the Constitutional Offices Commission, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is not allowed even to be a member of the FijiFirst party.
“So FFP’s plans for Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, now that he is out of Parliament, still seem confused.
‘Other parties will be writing’
“No doubt other political parties will be writing to the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, asking him to ensure that the FijiFirst party is complying with the law.”
Naidu was referring to a video statement on the FijiFirst party Facebook page on Tuesday night where FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama said Sayed-Khaiyum’s exit from Parliament would mean that “he will be able to fully concentrate on FijiFirst matters outside Parliament”.
“I will be leading the charge inside Parliament and he will be leading the charge outside Parliament,” Bainimarama said.
“So to ensure that we are constantly in touch with our supporters and all Fijians on a daily basis, I have tasked our general secretary to be our voice outside Parliament.
“He will be in our parliamentary office, he will give us advice and also issue statements on behalf of FijiFirst when Parliament is not sitting.”
Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem confirmed that any person taking up public office must ensure that they comply with section 14(1) of the of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
In a media statement issued after questions from The Fiji Times, he said public office holders according to section 14(1) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 (Act) were not eligible to be an applicant or a member of a registered political party, not eligible to hold office in a registered political party, are not to engage in political activity that may compromise or be seen to compromise the political neutrality of that person’s office in an election; or publicly indicate support for or opposition to any proposed political party or a registered political party or candidate in an election.
Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
