Home Blog Page 80

Richard Naidu: Rule of law – maybe a time for Aiyaz to reflect on Fiji

0
Former Fiji attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
Former Fiji attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum . . . "He has a total of nearly 16 years to reflect on -- and not all of us have forgotten." Image: The Fiji Times

COMMENTARY: By Richard Naidu in Suva

Breakfast they say, is the most important meal of the day.

But last Wednesday it was possibly also the most dangerous. Because that’s when many people were likely to be reading The Fiji Times and choking over their corn flakes.

They could have been reading more pontification from the former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum about “constitutionalism” and “rule of law” and “the embodiment of the values and principles surrounding constitutions” . . . etc.

I am not often at a loss for words. But the sheer brazenness of someone who, in the course of nearly 16 years in government, paid little regard to any of these things, brought me pretty close.

Last weekend Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum gave a rambling press conference complaining about all manner of things the new coalition government was doing. I was so irritated I put out a long statement debunking the so-called “breaches of the Constitution” he was alleging.

But the man doesn’t give up.

He is clearly unmoved by any embarrassment he may feel about having first accepted a Constitutional Offices Commission appointment that got him kicked out of Parliament under the Constitution he drafted; and then resigning the COC position when he realised he could not do that job and also be the FijiFirst party general secretary.

All in the space of three days. That’s the legal equivalent of shooting yourself in both feet.

So let’s begin by talking about “rule of law”, because I am beginning to wonder if anyone in the FijiFirst party even understands what it means.

Rule of law
Let’s begin with what it does not mean. Rule of law does not mean “I made the laws, so I rule”. Rule of law is a much more complicated idea than that. Many people have tried to define it, in many different ways.

For those of us who are interested in it, it’s one of those things you sort of know when you see. But a central point of it, I think, is the idea that the law is more important than the people who make it or exercise power under it.

So that means that our rulers — like the people they make the rules for — must respect it in the same way that we have to. Lord Denning, a famous British judge (millennials — look up his role in Fiji’s history) repeated (and made famous) the words of the 18th century scholar, Thomas Fuller: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”

For more than a decade, the government of which Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was part of, paid little heed to this idea. It followed the law when it suited them, but ignored it when it didn’t suit them.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that he believed that the 2006 military coup (which the grovelling Fiji Sun once memorably described as “a change in direction of the government”) was lawful, together with the military government which followed.

That government continued to tell us it would follow the 1997 Constitution. But in April 2009 Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum could no longer believe that the military government was lawful. Because, in a case brought by deposed by deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, the Fiji Court of Appeal clearly told him that it wasn’t.

If you believed in rule of law, you would accept what the court had told you, quit your post and allow the lawful government to return, as the court required. He did not. Instead, he and his government decided that the 1997 Constitution had become inconvenient.

So they just trashed it. This was not rule of law. Aiyaz and the then government had instead decided that they were above the law.

The new constitution
Fast forward to 2012 and the process of a new constitution. We were told (in a pompous government media statement on 12 March 2012) that the then government was “looking to the future of Fiji and all Fijians”.

“During the process of formulating a genuine Fijian constitution,” we were told, “every Fijian will have the right to put their ideas before the constitutional commission and have the draft constitution debated and discussed by the Constituent Assembl . . .

“As the process continues with the Constitution Commission and the Constituent Assembly all Fijians will have a voice.”

What actually happened?

The well-known constitutional scholar Professor Yash Ghai was flown in to chair a new constitutional commission. His commission travelled around the country, gathering the views of the people on what a new constitution should say.

Hardly a perfectly democratic process, but better than nothing. The Ghai Commission drafted a new constitution. But the government didn’t like it. So much for the “voices” of Fijians. Out it went — constitution, commission and all. Six hundred printed copies of the draft constitution were dumped into a fire.

Professor Ghai was sent packing. Instead we were handed the 2013 Constitution, pretty much from nowhere. No “Constituent Assembly”. Nobody “had a voice”. So, was that all a process Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum might call (his word) “constitutionalism”?

Did things get any better?

So, at least the new Constitution, and the elections of 2014, were a new start. Maybe we could expect the new elected government, of which Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was chief legal adviser, to begin thinking about “rule of law” and “constitutionalism” and “embodying values and principles surrounding constitutions”?

Here’s one more important point about rule of law. It’s not just about the laws which tell you what to do and what not to do. It’s also about the law protecting your rights and freedoms — and protecting what you are allowed to do.

Your rights and freedoms under the 2013 Constitution include your rights of free expression, your rights to assemble and protest, your right to personal liberty — yes, the right not to be locked up at whim — among many others.

They even include the right to “executive and administrative justice” — that is, to be treated fairly by the government and its institutions. So a government that is applying the laws of the land ought to, while applying them (in the words of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum) “embody the values and principles” of that Constitution.

How, then, were the “values and principles” of our Constitution being embodied when unions were repeatedly being denied the right to assemble and protest? How were they being embodied when under our media laws, journalists were threatened with jail for writing stories which were “against the national interest” (whatever that meant)?

How were the “values and principles” of our Constitution being embodied when public servants lived in permanent fear of arbitrary dismissal?

How were the “values and principles” of our democratic Constitution being embodied when the government passed important laws in Parliament, affecting things like our voting rights, citizenship, our rights to a fair trial and the regulation of political parties, all by surprise, on two days’ notice?

No cell time
There was an outcry earlier this week when police, over two days of questioning our former attorney-general, did not put him in a cell overnight. After all, former opposition politicians such as Sitiveni Rabuka, Biman Prasad and Pio Tikoduadua, when taken in for questioning for objecting to bad laws, were not so fortunate.

They got to spend a night in police custody. Why, people asked, was Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum getting special treatment? The answer? He was not getting special treatment. What was actually happening was that — for the first time in many years — the police were applying the law correctly.

If the person you are questioning is not a flight risk, there’s no need to lock him up. He is innocent until proven guilty. His personal freedom is more important than the convenience of the police.

He can sleep in his own bed and come back for more questioning tomorrow.

That would be, in Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s words, “embodying the values and principles of the Constitution”. But that is not something his government appeared to extend to its opponents when the police came calling. So I think we all deserve to be spared his lectures on “constitutionalism” for a little while.

Perhaps instead our former attorney-general might find it more valuable to take some time to quietly reflect on how well the governments of which he was part “embodied constitutional values and principles”. He has a total of nearly 16 years to reflect on — and not all of us have forgotten.

That ought to take a little while. And a few of us might then be able to enjoy more peaceful breakfasts.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer and former journalist (although, to be honest, not a big breakfaster). The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Why NZ voters should beware of reading too much into political polls

0
A word of caution on opinion polls
A word of caution: don’t treat opinion polls as gospel, and try not to let them become self-fulfilling prophecies. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

ANALYSIS: By Grant Duncan, Massey University

With a new prime minister sworn in and a cabinet reshuffle imminent, it is no exaggeration to say the election year in Aotearoa New Zealand has begun with a bang. Already the punditry and speculation are ramping up, with anticipation building for the first opinion polls.

There will be more polls to come, of course, but a word of caution is in order: don’t treat them as gospel, and try not to let them become self-fulfilling prophecies.

At this point, we cannot predict who will form New Zealand’s next government, and it could yet be a tight race.

Furthermore, political polling has not had a stellar record in recent times. Former prime minister Jim Bolger’s famous remark from 1993, after he didn’t get the election majority he expected, still resonates: “Bugger the polls.”

It’s not just a local phenomenon, either. The results of the Brexit referendum and the Trump–Clinton presidential contest in 2016, and the 2019 Australian election, were all out of line with preceding opinion polls.

In 2020, the US presidential polls were off by about four percentage points. And the 2022 US midterm elections didn’t produce the landslide (or “red tsunami”) many Republicans had predicted.

Election night 2020
Election night 2020 . . . polls consistently underestimated the Labour Party’s eventual majority. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

The 2020 election miss
It is a similar story in Aotearoa New Zealand. In 2020, the polls immediately prior to the election overestimated the National vote and underestimated Labour’s.

Taking the averages of the results of all six polls published during the month before election day, National emerged on 30.9 percent and Labour on 47.2 percent. In the final three polls during the two weeks when advance voting was open, the averages were National 31.4 percent and Labour 46.3 percent.

The gap was closing and Labour would land on about 46 percent, or so it seemed. As Labour’s trend in the polls since mid-2020 was already downward, 45 percent looked plausible. But predictions based on the opinion polls were significantly wrong.

Labour’s election result was 50 pecent, National’s only 25.6 percent.

The polls in the final fortnight were overestimating National by an average of 5.8 percentage points. They were underestimating Labour by 3.7 points. The Green and Māori parties were also underestimated (1.1 and 0.7 points, respectively).

There were even bigger failures in polls showing Green candidate Chlöe Swarbrick running third in Auckland Central with about 25 percent of the vote. Instead, she got 35 percent and won the seat.

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick
Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick on election night 2020 . . . polls had placed her third but she won the Auckland Central seat. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

Statistics 101
The opinion polls and the election — the only poll that counts, as the saying goes — use different methods with different samples. They are intended for different purposes, and hence their results will differ, too.

An opinion poll is a snapshot of a sample of potential voters. By the time it’s published, it’s already in the past. Surveys normally ask which party you would vote for if the election were held tomorrow.

But you may change your mind by the time you actually vote, if you vote at all.

Furthermore, surveys are prone to random error. So, no matter how scientifically rigorous, they only estimate — and cannot replicate — the relevant population. It is in the interests of the polling companies to be accurate, of course, especially when close to an election.

But we need to read their results critically.

Samples are normally about 1000 people, and pollsters try to ensure they closely resemble the demographic makeup (ideally by age, gender, ethnicity, education and location) of the eligible population, giving voters of all kinds an equal voice.

Post-survey weighting boosts results from social groups with low response rates.
The proportion of the population that holds a specified preference is estimated, and all estimates are subject to variance.

This is expressed as a margin of error, which is normally plus or minus three percentage points.

The margin of error is the range in which the pollster bets the “true” results should probably fall, with the true figures being outside that range only 5 percent of the time. In other words, pollsters are 95 percent confident the actual results will fall within that range. It is only a statistical estimate.

But the quoted margin of error doesn’t apply evenly. If a given party is polling at 50 percent, then the quoted margin of error applies. If a party is polling higher or lower, then the margin of error narrows percent the further you get from 50 percent, the narrower the margin of error.

New NZ Prime Minister Chris Hipkins
How new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins fares in the first opinion polls of 2023 will be closely watched. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

Beyond the margin of error
Another concern is whether respondents will give honest answers. Some may be unwilling to reveal their voting intentions or they will wilfully mislead the poll.

And often a large proportion of a sample doesn’t know yet whether they’ll actually vote, or for whom they’ll vote. Responsible pollsters will report the percentage of “don’t know” responses.

But the conservative bias in the pre-election 2020 opinion polls was systematically outside of the margins of error, and hence not due only to random variation.

Apparently, pollsters did not obtain samples that resembled the population that actually voted. It looks like younger leftwing voters were especially hard to reach or unwilling to participate.

Or their election turnout may have been underestimated.

Polling companies are now using online panels to help correct such biases. We’ll have to wait for the next election’s results to judge how it’s working.

Reading the tea leaves
A series of opinion polls can reveal trends and thus serve a purpose as public information. But they’re not suited for forecasting. One result taken out of context may be misleading, so it is disappointing when major news organisations over-hype polls.

When party-vote percentages get converted into numbers of seats, journalists are reading tea leaves and not reporting news. Meanwhile, the market research firms are getting massive publicity.

Accurate or not, opinion poll results can have self-fulfilling or “bandwagon” effects on people’s voting behaviour. People might want to back a winner, or not waste their vote on a party that’s polling below 5 percent. Or some might vote for a party other than their favourite, with an eye to post-electoral negotiations.

Perhaps the best advice for voters is this: when deciding which party to vote for, try not to think about the polls. And poll-watchers should prepare for surprises on election night.The Conversation

Dr Grant Duncan, associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Aotearoa’s inspirational prime minister Jacinda Ardern steps down amid misogyny row

0
Outgoing NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
Revelations about the degree with which outgoing New Zealand Prime Ministet Jacinda Ardern has faced unprecedented vitriolic abuse and threats of violence against her four-year-old daughter, Neve, and her partner Clarke Gayford as well as herself have shocked the nation. Image: RNZ News

By David Robie

Aotearoa New Zealand has been shaken to the core by the sudden resignation of one of its most iconic and revered prime ministers amid a fierce controversy over misogyny and death threats stirred by the global coronavirus pandemic.

Jacinda Ardern, the world’s youngest female prime minister at 37 when she was elected in 2017 on a stardust wave of “Jacinda-mania”, stepped down this week after emotional scenes at her last official function wrapped in a traditional Māori feathered cloak at the historic Rātana church.

This was barely a week after her resignation had caught the nation by surprise and has thrown this year’s general election due on October 14 wide open.

Ardern told New Zealanders that after five and a half years as leader of the left of centre Labour Party and with the biggest mandate in modern times she “no longer had enough in the tank to do the job justice”.

Jacinda Ardern
Outgoing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern . . . “love, empathy and kindness – that is what the majority of New Zealand has shown to me.” Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

Her party had been trailing in opinion polls in the face of a revived conservative National Party led by former airline executive Christopher Luxon and the rightwing ACT party but she was still the most preferred prime minister in spite of her eroding popularity.

Ironically, her resignation has opened the door to some changes in her party that may bolster support in the remaining nine months to the election with the unanimous election of “blokey” and boyish faced Chris Hipkins as leader and thus Prime Minister, and the country’s “historic” first deputy prime minister of Pacific heritage, Carmel Sepuloni.

“Ardern led during an incredibly divided time in New Zealand and abroad. She and her government have had some strong supporters – but also many detractors,” noted the country’s leading daily newspaper, The New Zealand Herald.

‘Enthral or aggravate’
“Through her prime ministership, Ardern had the capacity to enthral or aggravate with a degree of passion more than any [New Zealand] prime minister in living memory.”

The newspaper said this was a world destabilised by the impacts of a pandemic, and given voice as never before by unfettered social media amplification.

“We are now entering into the post-war period for this generation. New Zealand is not immune to stress from enforced lockdowns and rampant residual inflation due to emergency economic measures.”

New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins
New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins . . . pledged to give priority to “bread and butter” economic issues in the face of record inflation. Image: Angus Dreaver/RNZ News

The new Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, 44, is a pragmatic politician with a reputation of getting things done — “Mr Fixit” — and was one of Ardern’s most dedicated lieutenants. He was elected to Parliament, as the member for Remutaka, the same year as Ardern in 2008.

A staunch defender of the public education system and the right for every child to have a free education, he has held the portfolios of education, police, public service and as Leader of the House in the Ardern government before becoming prime minister.

However, his most important role was as Covid-19 Response Minister for 20 months from late 2020 when he played a key part in New Zealand’s impressive performance in keeping the virus out of the country until it had reached more than 85 percent vaccination of the eligible population.

He has declared that his priority would be the “bread and butter” economic issues of dealing with inflation and the cost of living in the country, although New Zealand’s 7.2 percent level appears to have peaked and is below comparable countries, such as Australia (7.8 percent), United Kingdom (10.5 percent), United States (8.5 percent) and the European Union (11.1 percent).

Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni
Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni . . . historic appointment as New Zealand’s first deputy prime minister of Pacific heritage. Image: TVNZ screenshot APR

A formidable team
Many pundits believe Hipkins and deputy Carmel Sepuloni, the Minister of Social Development who will continue in that role, make a formidable team for a Labour reset.

New Zealand’s Pacific community leaders say the appointment of Sepuloni, daughter of a migrant and of Samoan and Tongan descent, will bring positive change.

She also made history 15 years ago when she became New Zealand’s first Tongan MP.

Speaking on the public broadcaster RNZ Morning Report programme, a Methodist Church minister said Sepuloni’s promotion would serve as an inspiration for younger Pacific Islanders, particularly girls.

“Carmel being a Tongan, Samoan woman as deputy prime minister is a profound contribution . . . to eliminating negative stereotypes and reducing unconscious bias against us,” said Reverend Setaita Veikune.

“This alone does more for our communities than many realise, such as reducing advancement barriers, which are biased against us in different spaces.”

Another Pacific community leader, Sir Collin Tukuitonga, a former director-general of the Noumea-based Secretariat of the Pacific Community and currently the inaugural Dean Pacific at the University of Auckland’s Medical School, said it was a historic moment not only for Pasifika people, but for the whole country.

“I think it’s a statement of ourselves as a nation that perhaps we’re maturing and being serious about inclusivity.”

Auckland is the city with the largest Pacific Islander population globally, with almost 390,000, earning the city the epithet “the Polynesian capital of the world”. The city has a total population of 1.7 million in a country of 5 million.

Communicator ‘without peer’
Meanwhile, a national debate about Ardern’s contribution as prime minister continues. In its editorial, The New Zealand Herald said that as a communicator she was “without peer but in government, [her] performance was mixed”.

“The record shows that she led the nation through some of the most difficult times in its history. She rallied with distinction in unprecedented adversity — a tragic volcanic eruption, a vicious act of terrorism, and a global pandemic.”

Revelations about the degree with which she has faced unprecedented vitriolic abuse and threats of violence against her four-year-old daughter Neve and her partner Clarke Gayford as well as herself have shocked the nation.


Jacinda Ardern bids farewell as New Zealand PM at last event at Rātana.  Video: A Jazeera

Threats against the former prime minister almost tripled over three years against a background of growing conspiracy theories and strident opposition to vaccination, although she has played this down. Among her final messages was a tribute to the “love, empathy and kindness” shown by most New Zealanders.

According to data released under the Official Information Act and reported by the television channel Newshub, while police recorded just 18 threats against Ardern in 2019, this increased to 32 in the first year of Covid-19, and then 50 in 2021.

Anti-mandate and far-right protesters during a three week occupation of Parliament in early 2022 — which ended in a riot — called for a public trial and execution of Ardern (along with threats to other politicians, public servants and journalists). They claimed that promoting vaccination was a “crime against humanity”.

In July 2022, a founder of a white supremacist party who claimed he “had the right to shoot the prime minister”, was sentenced on a charge of threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm.

The 45-year-old Christchurch man, who founded the so-called “Pākehā Party”, was one of eight such cases involving threats of violence currently going through the lawcourts.

In spite of Ardern’s waning popularity, The Herald said she “should be remembered as an inspirational prime minister who ignited passions and showed us who we could be, both great and not”.

Dr David Robie is a New Zealand author, journalist and media academic. He founded the Pacific Media Centre and currently edits Asia Pacific Report.

Speaking to the world, but mirroring Australia’s off-again, on-again Pacific engagement

0
Author Phil Kafcaloudes (centre) with Australia Calling colleagues
Author Phil Kafcaloudes (centre) with Australia Calling editor Kellie Mayo (from left), ABC Radio Australia's Hilda Wayne, journalist Caroline Tiriman, and producer Vaimo'oi'a Ripley at the launch of the book. Image: ABC

REVIEW: By Rowan Callick

Radio Australia was conceived at the beginning of the Second World War out of Canberra’s desire to counter Japanese propaganda in the Pacific. More than 70 years later its rebirth is being driven by a similarly urgent need to counter propaganda, this time from China.

Set up within the towering framework of the ABC, Radio Australia was, and remains, an institution with a lively multilingual culture of its own. Sometimes it has thrived and sometimes, especially in recent decades, it has struggled as political priorities and media fashions waxed and waned within the ABC and the wider world.

Phil Kafcaloudes, an accomplished journalist, author and media educator who hosted Radio Australia’s popular breakfast show for nine years, was commissioned by the ABC to write the service’s story for the corporation’s 90th-anniversary celebrations. The result is a nicely illustrated and comprehensively footnoted new book, Australia Calling: The ABC Radio Australia Story, which uses the original name of the service for its title. (With appropriate good manners, Kafcaloudes acknowledges previous accounts of the Radio Australia story, by Peter Lucas in 1964 and Errol Hodge in 1995.)

The overseas service’s nadir came in 2014 after the election of the Abbott government. At the time, Inside Story’s Pacific correspondent Nic Maclellan described in devastating detail the impact in the region of the eighty redundancies brought on by the government’s decision to remove the Australia Network, a kind of TV counterpart to Radio Australia, from the ABC. The network had controversially been merged with key elements of Radio Australia to create ABC International.

Among the casualties was the legendary ABC broadcaster Sean Dorney, known and loved throughout the Pacific. Programmes for Asia were axed, as was much specialist Pacific reporting, with English-language coverage to be sourced from the ABC’s general news department.

The ABC’s full-time team in the Pacific was reduced to a journalist in Port Moresby and another (if it counts) in New Zealand. Australia’s newspapers had already withdrawn their correspondents from the region, and online-only media hadn’t filled the gap. Where once, in 1948, Radio Australia had helped beam a signal to the moon, the countries of our own region now seemed even more remote.

Australia Calling
Australia Calling: The ABC Radio Australia Story

Despite the steady erosion of the service over decades, though, Kafcaloudes’s book has a happy ending of sorts. Its final chapter, titled “Rebirth: Pivoting to the Pacific,” tells how Radio Australia benefited from the Morrison government’s “Pacific Step-Up,” launched in response to China’s campaign to build regional connections. Steps to rebuild Radio Australia’s capacities have since been enhanced by substantial new funding from the Albanese government.

Placing listeners at scene
When current affairs radio is at its most effective, it places listeners at the scene. Kafcaloudes tells of being on air when a listener in Timor-Leste called to tell of an assassination attempt on José Ramos-Horta and Xanana Gusmão.

“Radio Australia instantly changed its scheduling to broadcast live for three hours so locals would know whether their leaders were still alive.”

But, as Kafcaloudes explains, “for all the good work, global connections and breaking news stories, the truth is, for many Australian politicians there was little electoral capacity in a service that a domestic audience did not hear.” Thus the abrupt funding reverses and the constant tinkering.

Former ABC journalist and manager Geoff Heriot describes how, during a challenging phase for the ABC about 25 years ago, managing director Brian Johns’s desire to defend the ABC meant that, “if necessary, you could cut off limbs.” And Radio Australia was the limb that often seemed most remote from the core.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Kafcaloudes says, the service “was often at or near the top of the polls as the world’s best.” Many listeners, especially in China and elsewhere in East Asia, testified to having learned English from listening to Radio Australia.

Its popularity in Asia and the Pacific was boosted by the fact that it broadcast from a similar time zone, which meant its morning shows, for instance, were heard during listeners’ mornings. In 1968 alone, the station received 250,000 letters from people tuning in around the region.

For decades, broadcasts were via shortwave, the only way of covering vast distances at the time. But the ABC turned off that medium for good in 2017, so Radio Australia now communicates via 24-hour FM stations across the Pacific and via satellite, live stream, on-demand audio, podcasts, the ABC Listen app, and Facebook and Twitter.

New audiences emerging
With new audiences emerging in different places, the geography of Radio Australia’s languages have changed too. As the use of French in the former colonies in Indochina declined, for instance, new French-speaking audiences developed in the Pacific colonies of New Caledonia and French Polynesia.

One of the continuities of Radio Australia is the quality and connectedness of its broadcasters. Most of them come from the countries to which they broadcast, and together they have evolved into a remarkable cadre who could and should be invited by policymakers and diplomats to help Australia steer and deepen its relations with our neighbours.

Kafcaloudes rightly stresses the importance of that first prewar step, when Robert Menzies, “a man who believed he was British to the bootstraps, despite being born and bred in country Victoria,” decided “Australians needed to speak to the world with their own voice.”

How best to do this has frequently been disputed. In a 1962 ministerial briefing, the Department of External Affairs argued that Radio Australia’s broadcasts “should not be noticeably at variance with the broad objectives of Australian foreign policy” — an instruction that John Gorton, the relevant minister, declined to issue publicly.

Tensions have inevitably resulted from the desire of the service’s funder, the federal government, to see its own policies and perceptions prioritised. Resisting such pressure has required greater stamina and skill at Radio Australia than at the ABC’s domestic services, which can count more readily on influential defenders.

Kafcaloudes says it was Mark Scott, who headed the ABC a dozen years ago, who linked Radio Australia with American academic/diplomat Joseph Nye’s idea of “soft power.” Then and now, this was a seductive phrase for politicians. It also became a familiar part of the case for restoring, consolidating or increasing funding, while underlining the familiar, nagging challenge for the station’s “content providers” of choosing between projecting that kind of power on Canberra’s behalf and dealing with stories that might well be perceived as “negative” for the Australian government.

Of course, the conventional public-interest answer to that dilemma is that fearless journalism is itself the ultimate expression of soft power by an open, democratic polity. But not everyone sees it that way.

Public broadcasting ethos
The public broadcasting ethos of the station’s internationally sourced staff has meanwhile stayed impressively intact. Kafcaloudes introduces one of them at the end of each chapter, letting them speak directly of how they came to arrive at Radio Australia and their experiences working there.

Running Radio Australia has been complicated for decades by its being bundled, unbundled and bundled again with television services that have sometimes been run by the ABC and sometimes by commercial stations. Technologies have of course become fluid in recent years, freeing content from former constraints. So too has the badging — the service is now “ABC Radio Australia,” which morphs online into “ABC Pacific.”

Radio Australia continues to broadcast in Mandarin, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Khmer, French, Burmese and Tok Pisin (the Melanesian pidgin language spoken widely in PNG and readily understood in Vanuatu and, slightly less so, in Solomon Islands), as well as in English.

Dedicated, high-quality journalism remains the core constant of an institution whose story, chronicled so well by Kafcaloudes, parallels in many ways Australia’s on-again, off-again, on-again engagement with our region.

Activists hail life jail sentence for army major over brutal Papuan killings

0
The coffins of three of the four Papuan civilian victims of the brutal killing by Indonesian soldiers in August 2022
The coffins of three of the four Papuan civilian victims of the brutal killing by Indonesian soldiers in August 2022. Image: RNZ Pacific

RNZ Pacific

The Indonesian military says a tribunal has sentenced an army major to life in prison for his involvement in the brutal murder of four Papuan civilians in the Mimika district.

Their mutilated bodies were found in August 2022.

Benar News reports that human rights activists and victims’ relatives welcomed the conviction of Major Helmanto Fransiskus Dakhi as progress in holding members of security forces accountable for abuses in West Papua.

“The defendant … was found guilty of premeditated murder,” Herman Taryaman, a spokesman for the Indonesian military command in Papua, told journalists.

The tribunal also dismissed Dakhi from the military.

Taryaman said four other soldiers charged in connection with the killings were being tried by a tribunal in the provincial capital of Jayapura.

A sixth military suspect died in December after falling ill, while police say four civilians were also facing trial in a civilian court.

Headless bodies
Asia Pacific Report reported on 31 August 2021 that residents of Iwaka village in Mimika district had been shocked by the discovery of four sacks, each containing a headless and legless torso, in the village river.

Two other sacks were found separately, one containing four heads and the other eight legs. The sacks were weighted with stones.

A spokesman for the victims’ families, Aptoro Lokbere, said he was “satisfied” with the conviction and sentence.

Gustaf Kawer, an attorney for the victims’ families, said the life sentence for the major was a “brave” decision that should be emulated by military and civilian courts in similar cases.

Activists had said the violence degraded the dignity of indigenous Papuans amid allegations of ongoing rights abuses by government security forces in West Papua.

Dakhi is the third Indonesian Armed Forces member to be sentenced to life by a military court in a murder case since June.

Anger as MSG recruits Indonesians
Meanwhile, the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s secretariat in Vanuatu has confirmed it has recruited two Indonesians.

The statement from the group came during a protest against the move in front of the secretariat by the Vanuatu Free West Papua Association.

The group’s director-general, Leonard Louma, said the agency was aiming to strengthen its capacity and this would include the recruitment of two Indonesian nationals, filling the roles of the private sector development officer and the manager of arts, culture and youth programme.

Louma said the secretariat had been directed to “re-prioritise” its activities and was now positioning itself to meet the demands and expectations of the leaders.

The Free West Papua Association said hiring the Indonesians made a mockery of the support Vanuatu had given West Papua for many years.

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

Fiji’s coalition trinity means ‘more cooks’ but Rabuka confident on future

0

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.

By John Pulu of Tagata Pasifika

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.

Public Interest Journalism Fund
PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM FUND

“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
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.

Ian Powell: Sociopaths, psychopaths, the far-right and Jacinda Ardern

0
Counterspin Media visits Peka Peka
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 with 25 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
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…”

The Reichstag
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
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
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.

Myles Thomas: Debate over public media merger is the proof we need it

0
The planned RNZ/TVNZ merger
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.

‘Terror’ bomb explodes near Papua journalist Victor Mambor’s home

0
Police gather evidence near the site of a bomb explosion that took place outside the house of Jubi editor Victor Mambor
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.

“Yes, someone threw a bomb,” Papua Police spokesperson Ignatius Benny told Benar News. “The motive and perpetrators are unknown.”

The Jayapura branch of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) condemned the explosion as a “terrorist bombing”.

In Sydney, the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) and Pacific Media Watch in New Zealand protested over the incident and called for a full investigation.

Mambor said he heard the sound of a motorcycle at about 4 am and then an explosion about a minute later.

‘Shook like earthquake’
“It was so loud that my house shook like there was an earthquake,” he told Benar News as reported by Radio Free Asia.

“I also checked the source of the explosion and smelt sulfur coming from the side of the house.”

The explosion left a hole in the road, he said.

The incident was not the first to occur outside Mambor’s home. In April 2021, windows were smashed and paint sprayed on his car in the middle of the night.

Tabloid Jubi editor Victor Mambor
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
Victor Mambor as an advocate for media freedom in West Papua. Image: AWPA

‘Claims a serious matter’ – Fiji lawyer Richard Naidu responds to Sayed-Khaiyum’s attack

0
The Suva-based lawyer Richard Naidu at home
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.

Former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format.

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 23012023
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
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.

If you’ve got a problem, go to court

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.