*RUNNING TO THE MEDIA: Our sources in the local media claim that it was Kuruleca who ran to Fijivillage, FBC, and the Fiji Sun crying 'wolf'. Fijileaks: The requirement to have the Prime Minister's endorsement implies that the Prime Minister will have to take into account the views of his concerned Ministers before he gives his formal endorsement to the PSC's recommendations. *The PSC interviewed more than ten shortlisted candidates for the position of PS Education. The usual number of shortlisted candidates for the interview positions ranged from 4-8, depending on the number of well qualified candidates.
UNLIKE Agni Deo who VETOED two Indo-Fijian candidates, Radrodro's preferred choice was NAVIN RAJ but the PSC kept Radrodro in the darkMinister for Education, Aseri Radrodro has rejected the Public Service Commission’s decision to appoint Selina Kuruleca as his Permanent Secretary. The Commission had appointed Kuruleca as the PS in May. Today Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka held a meeting with Kuruleca in relation to the matter. Rabuka told FBC News that the meeting was fruitful. “She will not go to Education. She will probably come to one of the Ministries that doesn’t have a Permanent Secretary at the moment. And I have the Environment under the Prime Minister portfolio that she can go to.” Rabuka adds that the government will announce Kuruleca’s new post soon. Kuruleca confirmed to FBC News that she has a valid contract and an appointment letter but will await the commission’s advice before she can comment further. The teacher unions rejected Selina Kuruleca’s appointment as the Permanent Secretary for Education. Minister for Education Aseri Radrodro confirmed this to FBC News this afternoon. Kuruleca was appointed by the Public Service Commission in late May. Radrodro says the Union argued that there were other qualified candidates for the PS Position. He says that he was also not consulted prior to her appointment. The Minister adds that he would have aired his concerns to avoid what he calls an unfortunate scenario. Meanwhile, the PSC is not required to consult ministers when it comes to the appointment of the Permanent Secretaries. According to Section 126(1) of the 2013 Constitution, the Public Service Commission appoints Permanent Secretaries with the agreement of the Prime Minister. PSC Chair Luke Rokovada confirms that there will not be any further discussion on the matter. NAVIN RAJ, the former Principal of Indian College (formerly JAI NARAYAN COLLEGE) in Suva was let down by the NFP in the three-legged Coalition government. |
Qeleni Holdings Ltd owed $716,748 to collapsed National Bank of FijiNBF DEBTORS LIST: It was only when I researched into the background of companies listed as debtors that I was shocked to find out that many of the companies were owned by some prominent chiefs and their families. | *Rabuka is yet to explain why the Ganilau family's Qeleni Holdings was paid $F650,000 to buy off from the family the Prime Minister's (Rabuka's) new residence in 1993 when the Government valuer had estimated its value at $F465,000? |
* Who borrowed over $100,000 on behalf of the Cakaudrove Provincial Council from the NBF and for what, and whether the loan was paid back?
* We may recall that Ratu Epeli Ganilau owed NBF $631,594 and Ratu Inoke Kubuabola owed the bank over $198,000.
In 1995 the two were listed as Directors of the Cakaudrove Provincial Holdings Limited. One gave his occupation as FMF Commander; the other as Cabinet Minister:
Fijileaks: Come on, Biman Prasad. You are calling on the SPEAKER to reprimand BALA for allegedly inciting racial hatred. Where were you when PAP appointed a failed candidate with 300 votes, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, as Speaker, a paramount high chief who was jailed for joining GEORGE SPEIGHT in the worst racial violence against Indo-Fijians, especially women and girls who were beaten and raped in their own homes. Lalabalavu was controversially released from prison regarding his involvement at Sukunaivalu military barracks in Labasa.
*Bala also accused you of doling out over $1million to Ganesh Chand's shady Pacific Polytechnic which has close links to your WIFE, and another FFP MP questioned you over $200,000 to Global Girmit Institute
The Parliament Secretary has taken note of a Standing Order against Opposition MP Praveen Bala. This after Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad moved that Bala is using parliament to incite racial hatred. Bala, in his response to the national budget, says the new scholarship system that replaces the Tertiary Education Loans Scheme is a badly thought-out election promise. |
The Opposition MP says the Finance Minister is simply keeping his job by keeping his promise.
“In fact, he knows very well that a scheme such as TELS is the only way to have a system that has the most accessible means to higher education for all the people of Fiji. Its replacement is a system that many suffered under, and he would know of the discrimination faced on racial grounds, as he was a student in the 1980s and 1990s.”
Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad immediately raised a point of order, claiming that Bala is inciting racial hatred.
“The honorable member is fanning racial hatred by lying, because this is what they did before the election; they said there would be a race-based scholarship under Standing Order 62. This man, who has just lied before, is now using Parliament to incite racial hatred. That’s what he’s done.”
Prasad says nowhere in the budget does it say any of those programs will be based on race.
The Finance Minister says this needs to be dealt with. Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu then asked the Parliament Secretary to take note of the point of order, saying this was the second time.
“In fact, he knows very well that a scheme such as TELS is the only way to have a system that has the most accessible means to higher education for all the people of Fiji. Its replacement is a system that many suffered under, and he would know of the discrimination faced on racial grounds, as he was a student in the 1980s and 1990s.”
Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad immediately raised a point of order, claiming that Bala is inciting racial hatred.
“The honorable member is fanning racial hatred by lying, because this is what they did before the election; they said there would be a race-based scholarship under Standing Order 62. This man, who has just lied before, is now using Parliament to incite racial hatred. That’s what he’s done.”
Prasad says nowhere in the budget does it say any of those programs will be based on race.
The Finance Minister says this needs to be dealt with. Speaker Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu then asked the Parliament Secretary to take note of the point of order, saying this was the second time.
"One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation."
Justice Jiten Singh, 8 April 2005
Mr. K. Vuataki for the Applicant
Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application before me is made pursuant to Section 41 of the 1997 Constitution and the High Court (Constitutional Redress) Rules 1998. The motion seeks a declaration that the applicant’s Constitutional right to a trial within reasonable time and right to fair trial under Section 29 of the Constitution was breached. He is seeking an order permanently staying further proceedings by the Magistrate’s Court of Criminal Case in State v. Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu - Criminal Action 172 of 2004 at Labasa Magistrate’s Court.
The applicant filed three affidavits:
(a) first sworn on 30th November 2004
(b) supplementary affidavit sworn on 24th January 2005
(c) supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th February 2005.
The applicant was initially charged with two others for the offence of unlawful assembly. The events are alleged to have occurred between 4th July 2000 and 3rd August 2000at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa. The charges were filed on 8th November 2000.
The chronology of events since filing of charge is as follows:
I have had both written and oral submissions from counsels. If I may say part of respondent’s written submissions dealt with stay on grounds of abuse of process. That is not the ground on which the applicant is proceeding. Abuse of process is not alleged.
Mr. Vuataki relied heavily on the case of Apaitia Seru & Anthony Frederick Stevens v. the State – Criminal Appeals AAU0041 and 42 of 1991, where the Court of Appeal considered what is the applicable law in Fiji in case of delay. It adopted the principles on delay as considered in Martin v. Tauranga District Court – [1995] 2 NZLR 419.
At page 9 of the judgment the Court of Appeal laid out what ought to be the approach of courts and what factors to consider in applications for stay on grounds of delay.
“The general approach to a determination as to whether the right has been denied is not by the application of a mathematical or administrative formula but rather by a judicial determination balancing the interests which the section is designed to protect against factors which either inevitably lead to delay or are otherwise the cause of delay. As I noted in Smith [ R v Smith (1989) 52 CCC (3d) 97], ‘(i)t is axiomatic that some delay is inevitable. The question is, at what point does the delay become unreasonable?’ .... While the court has at times indicated otherwise, it is now accepted that the factors to be considered in analyzing how long is too long may be listed as follows:
1. the length of the delay;
2. waiver of time periods;
3. the reasons for the delay, including
(a) inherent time requirements of the case;
(b) actions of the accused;
(c) actions of the Crown;
(d) limits on institutional resources, and
(e) other reasons for delay, and
4. prejudice to the accused. (12-13)”
In Attorney-General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 [1992] 3 ALL ER 169 Lord Lane at page 176 cautioned against permanent stays being granted too readily. He stated that:
“Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would only be a short time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of Brennan J in Jago v. District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23.
In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be the foundation for a stay.”
With those above remarks I shall now consider various relevant factors:
The applicant deposes that he was called to Sukanaivalu Barracks by Tui Labasa who died on 11th February 2002. He also deposed that one Ratu Orisi Vuki had been sent by Tui Labasa to call the applicant to the barracks and Ratu Orisi Vuki died on 23rd June 2003.
When questioned if the defence had statements from these various deceased witnesses, Mr. Vuataki admitted they had not taken statements from them. Without the statements, the court is left to speculate as to the nature of the evidence and its relevance to the defence. In paragraph 9 of his supplementary affidavit, sworn on 11th February 2005 the applicant deposes that a number of Army officers had also visited him. The applicant could have subpoenaed any of these officers if he considered their evidence relevant. The applicant must show that the evidence of the alleged deceased witnesses would be relevant as to disputed material facts in issue.
The applicant also deposed that he was prejudiced in that the original statements of all witnesses were not disclosed but only typed statements of witnesses were provided. The normal practice in Fiji is for police to hand-write the statements of witnesses. Often the handwriting is impossible to read so typed statements are given. If the counsel had difficulty getting a witness to admit a statement was his, the counsel could easily have made an application to the learned magistrate to ask prosecution to show the original statement to the witness. The original hand-written statements are not released to the defence but only photocopies or typed version. If the counsel failed in presentation of the case, that cannot be made a ground for stay.
Mr. Vuataki also submitted that his client was a public figure. He is the Minister for Lands, Leader of political party and a traditional leader and therefore occupied prominent position. He submitted that this was a high profile case with lot of media attention. He relied on authority of Apaitia Seru where at page 13 the Court of Appeal stated “to have serious, high profile charges handing over ones head for more than four years, with the ultimate spectre of a possible prison sentence, is in itself prejudicial”. He said in such a case there was no need to show prejudice.
The activities of those who occupy prominent position in society generally attract attention of the media. That is inevitable part of such occupations. I also do not lose sight of the fact that the maximum penalty for the offence is one year.
In Apaitia Seru the delay was institutional delay principally in the courts – both by the Magistrates Court during committal proceedings and later in the High Court.
One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation.
At the time of the hearing of this application, the trial was well and truly over with only the judgment of the court left to be delivered on 4th April 2005. One would expect such applications to be made well ahead of the commencement of the hearing proper of the criminal trial so the outcome is known before the hearing date.
The delay in this case has to be seen in its proper context. There are lengthy delays as a result of applicant wishing to make representations to the DPP, lengthy delays due to absence of one or other accused. This is not a proper case where a permanent stay is warranted. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs which I summarily fix in the sum of $300.00.
[ Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE
At Suva
8th April 2005
Mr. W. Kuruisaqila for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
The application before me is made pursuant to Section 41 of the 1997 Constitution and the High Court (Constitutional Redress) Rules 1998. The motion seeks a declaration that the applicant’s Constitutional right to a trial within reasonable time and right to fair trial under Section 29 of the Constitution was breached. He is seeking an order permanently staying further proceedings by the Magistrate’s Court of Criminal Case in State v. Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu - Criminal Action 172 of 2004 at Labasa Magistrate’s Court.
The applicant filed three affidavits:
(a) first sworn on 30th November 2004
(b) supplementary affidavit sworn on 24th January 2005
(c) supplementary affidavit sworn on 11th February 2005.
The applicant was initially charged with two others for the offence of unlawful assembly. The events are alleged to have occurred between 4th July 2000 and 3rd August 2000at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa. The charges were filed on 8th November 2000.
The chronology of events since filing of charge is as follows:
- 8th November 2000 - charges filed.
- 13th November 2000 - plea deferred at request of defence counsel.
- 14th December 2000 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
- 14th February 2001 - proceedings adjourned for defence to make representations to the DPP.
- 5th March 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence to make representations to the DPP
- 25th April 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow defence time to have further discussions with DPP.
- 12th June 2001 - proceedings adjourned to allow DPP to consider the submissions.
- 6th August 2001 - proceedings adjourned to give DPP more time to consider submissions.
- 24th August 2001 - no presence of accused as presence was excused.
- 21st September 2001 - no presence of accused as presence excused.
- 2nd November 2001 - prosecution seeks to obtain statements from people. Also disclosures not served.
- 11th February 2002 - Second accused absent as sick.
- 12th February 2002 - proceedings adjourned. Second accused deceased. Charges against 2nd accused withdrawn.
- 12th July 2002 - hearing adjourned. Magistrate in Conference in Suva.
- 5th August 2002 - adjourned. 1st accused not present. Magistrate in Suva.
- 15th August 2002 - 1st accused absent.
- 30th September 2002 - 1st accused absent. Bench warrant ordered.
- 10th October 2002 - Special call as 1st accused arrested. Bench warrant cancelled.
- 2nd December 2002
- 17th March 2003 - 3rd accused not present.
- 14th August 2003 - accused absent. Hearing aborted.
- 22nd August 2003 - accused absent.
- 8th September 2003 - 1st accused – not present. Presence was excused.
- 13th October 2003 - DPP’s file sent to Suva for DPP to decide whether to proceed with prosecution or not.
- 1st December 2003 - accuseds not present. Charges withdrawn. Bench warrant ordered against the two accused.
- 5th January 2004 - accuseds arrested and brought to court. Bench warrants cancelled.
- 2nd February 2004 - hearing fixed for24th to 28th May 2004.
- 5th April 2004 - case called in absence of accused, adjourned to 10th May 2004.
- 10th May 2004 - All coup related cases withdrawn under Section 201(2)(b)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code Amalgamated Charge for Unlawful Assembly filed. No objection from defence.
- 24th May 2004 - Motion similar to present motion filed in Magistrate’s Court. Motion filed on the very day of trial.
I have had both written and oral submissions from counsels. If I may say part of respondent’s written submissions dealt with stay on grounds of abuse of process. That is not the ground on which the applicant is proceeding. Abuse of process is not alleged.
Mr. Vuataki relied heavily on the case of Apaitia Seru & Anthony Frederick Stevens v. the State – Criminal Appeals AAU0041 and 42 of 1991, where the Court of Appeal considered what is the applicable law in Fiji in case of delay. It adopted the principles on delay as considered in Martin v. Tauranga District Court – [1995] 2 NZLR 419.
At page 9 of the judgment the Court of Appeal laid out what ought to be the approach of courts and what factors to consider in applications for stay on grounds of delay.
“The general approach to a determination as to whether the right has been denied is not by the application of a mathematical or administrative formula but rather by a judicial determination balancing the interests which the section is designed to protect against factors which either inevitably lead to delay or are otherwise the cause of delay. As I noted in Smith [ R v Smith (1989) 52 CCC (3d) 97], ‘(i)t is axiomatic that some delay is inevitable. The question is, at what point does the delay become unreasonable?’ .... While the court has at times indicated otherwise, it is now accepted that the factors to be considered in analyzing how long is too long may be listed as follows:
1. the length of the delay;
2. waiver of time periods;
3. the reasons for the delay, including
(a) inherent time requirements of the case;
(b) actions of the accused;
(c) actions of the Crown;
(d) limits on institutional resources, and
(e) other reasons for delay, and
4. prejudice to the accused. (12-13)”
In Attorney-General’s Reference No. 1 of 1990 [1992] 3 ALL ER 169 Lord Lane at page 176 cautioned against permanent stays being granted too readily. He stated that:
“Stays imposed on the grounds of delay or for any other reason should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. If they were to become a matter of routine, it would only be a short time before the public, understandably, viewed the process with suspicion and mistrust. We respectfully adopt the reasoning of Brennan J in Jago v. District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23.
In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be the foundation for a stay.”
With those above remarks I shall now consider various relevant factors:
- Length of Delay:
- Waiver of time periods
- Reasons for the Delay
- Limits on Resources
- Prejudice to the Accused
The applicant deposes that he was called to Sukanaivalu Barracks by Tui Labasa who died on 11th February 2002. He also deposed that one Ratu Orisi Vuki had been sent by Tui Labasa to call the applicant to the barracks and Ratu Orisi Vuki died on 23rd June 2003.
When questioned if the defence had statements from these various deceased witnesses, Mr. Vuataki admitted they had not taken statements from them. Without the statements, the court is left to speculate as to the nature of the evidence and its relevance to the defence. In paragraph 9 of his supplementary affidavit, sworn on 11th February 2005 the applicant deposes that a number of Army officers had also visited him. The applicant could have subpoenaed any of these officers if he considered their evidence relevant. The applicant must show that the evidence of the alleged deceased witnesses would be relevant as to disputed material facts in issue.
The applicant also deposed that he was prejudiced in that the original statements of all witnesses were not disclosed but only typed statements of witnesses were provided. The normal practice in Fiji is for police to hand-write the statements of witnesses. Often the handwriting is impossible to read so typed statements are given. If the counsel had difficulty getting a witness to admit a statement was his, the counsel could easily have made an application to the learned magistrate to ask prosecution to show the original statement to the witness. The original hand-written statements are not released to the defence but only photocopies or typed version. If the counsel failed in presentation of the case, that cannot be made a ground for stay.
Mr. Vuataki also submitted that his client was a public figure. He is the Minister for Lands, Leader of political party and a traditional leader and therefore occupied prominent position. He submitted that this was a high profile case with lot of media attention. He relied on authority of Apaitia Seru where at page 13 the Court of Appeal stated “to have serious, high profile charges handing over ones head for more than four years, with the ultimate spectre of a possible prison sentence, is in itself prejudicial”. He said in such a case there was no need to show prejudice.
The activities of those who occupy prominent position in society generally attract attention of the media. That is inevitable part of such occupations. I also do not lose sight of the fact that the maximum penalty for the offence is one year.
In Apaitia Seru the delay was institutional delay principally in the courts – both by the Magistrates Court during committal proceedings and later in the High Court.
One aspect of this case which is cause for disquiet is the way this application came to be made. First, as I have said a similar application was made in the Magistrate courts on the day trial was to commence. Obviously the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear a constitutional redress issue. The applicant again went to rest and six days before the defence was to open its case, in the Magistrates Court he filed this application. He had all the time after 31st August 2004 to file this application but filed it during the legal vacation.
At the time of the hearing of this application, the trial was well and truly over with only the judgment of the court left to be delivered on 4th April 2005. One would expect such applications to be made well ahead of the commencement of the hearing proper of the criminal trial so the outcome is known before the hearing date.
The delay in this case has to be seen in its proper context. There are lengthy delays as a result of applicant wishing to make representations to the DPP, lengthy delays due to absence of one or other accused. This is not a proper case where a permanent stay is warranted. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs which I summarily fix in the sum of $300.00.
[ Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE
At Suva
8th April 2005
www.fijileaks.com/home/girmit-with-coalition-government-biman-prasads-wife-rajni-and-girmit-conference-organiser-ganesh-chand-founded-global-girmit-institute-duo-re-registered-ggi-in-february-after-it-was-de-registered
www.fijileaks.com/home/get-lost-from-our-lautoka-and-nabua-premises-satan-dharm-pratinidhi-sabha-fiji-informs-prime-minister-rabuka-that-it-has-kicked-out-the-pacific-polytechnic-for-failing-to-pay-rent-arrears-of-160000
www.fijileaks.com/home/pacific-polytechnic-recruits-failed-nfp-candidate-satya-nand-shandil-as-deputy-director-with-ganesh-chand-n
More than 400 military personnel gathered at Sukanaivalu Barracks in Labasa to remember the fallen heroes who died during the attempted mutiny in 2000.
The memorial service was led by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces chief of staff Brigadier-General Jone Kalouniwai.
Wreaths were placed at the Sukanaivalu Barracks memorial plaque to remember the fallen.
For some of the ex-servicemen that were present at the dawn service, the event brought back memories of those who had given their lives for peace and freedom.
The soldiers who died were Private Temo Veilewai, Private Osea Rokosirinavosa and Private Simione Rawaileba.
Officer in charge Sukanaivalu Barracks captain Samuela Cikaitoga described the event as a celebration to remember the fallen heroes who sacrificed a lot for the nation.
“Every year since November 2, 2000, we come together and remember our fallen comrades, our loyal soldiers, who fell as the result of greedy people.
The memorial service was led by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces chief of staff Brigadier-General Jone Kalouniwai.
Wreaths were placed at the Sukanaivalu Barracks memorial plaque to remember the fallen.
For some of the ex-servicemen that were present at the dawn service, the event brought back memories of those who had given their lives for peace and freedom.
The soldiers who died were Private Temo Veilewai, Private Osea Rokosirinavosa and Private Simione Rawaileba.
Officer in charge Sukanaivalu Barracks captain Samuela Cikaitoga described the event as a celebration to remember the fallen heroes who sacrificed a lot for the nation.
“Every year since November 2, 2000, we come together and remember our fallen comrades, our loyal soldiers, who fell as the result of greedy people.
*Arya Samaj, Agni and ASERI: We were shocked to learn that Education Minister ASERI RADRODRO was not invited to open UniFiji Ba CAMPUS
*Coalition government Employment Minister Agni Deo is singing from a different course work book. In January 2023, he claimed:
*But in 2007, Agni Deo was accused of selling out his Fiji Teachers Union members, many of those who were unfairly turfed out at 55 years of age were members of his own union, and were paying for his 'duck and puri' each weekend.
*The Interim Military regime issued a decision dated 9 March 2007 purporting to lower the compulsory retirement age of civil servants from 60 to 55 years. The Fijian Teachers Association and the Fiji Public Service Association (The Applicants) challenged the regime's decision in the Fiji High Court. The two unions claimed that the regime did not have the lawful authority to lower the compulsory retirement age to 55 since the Cabinet was not constituted in accordance with the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997.
*In response, the regime submitted the affidavits of the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, Ms Taina Tagicakibau, and Agni Deo Singh, the General Secretary of the Fiji Teachers Union ("FTC") to support its policy considerations.
*The then Fiji High Court judge Filimoni Jitoko, while ruling against the interim military regime, had disclosed Agni Deo Singh's affidavit:
"Agni Leo Singh on behalf of FTLI, lay great emphasis on employment of undergraduates, and the need to implement the new 55 compulsory retirement age, as a way of reducing the unemployed. Mr Singh estimates the number of undergraduates as over 2000 with 800 qualified teachers amongst them. In Mr Singh's submission, many of the government employees that will be affected would have served for at least 34 years and at 55 they are eligible for their FNPF contributions which he suggested, that “they may take this as a lump sum and start a business of their own or receive it by way of fortnightly pensions”. This argument I must say, lacks any merit whatsoever. First, as the Applicants make clear; not all employees would have served at least 30 years in the service. Not all employees would have accumulated enough FNPF funds at 55 to retire or start their own business or come under a suitable pensionable scheme. In any case, the fact that not everyone will be in the same position, is discriminatory of itself...There is also a grave danger of the policy falling foul of the provisions of section 140 of the Constitution that deals with the recruitment and promotion policy in all the State services.'
Conclusion
In the end, it is the findings of this Court:
1. that the Appellants possess the legal capacity and persona to represent their individual members, in bringing actions under Chapter 4 of the Constitution;
2. the Respondents, by lowering the mandatory retirement age of civil servants to 55, without the agreement of the affected party, had acted in breach of section 38 of the Constitution which protects an individual from discrimination on the basis of age;
3. that the Respondents have failed to satisfy the threshold requirements of what is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society that would have provided the exception to section 38 as permissible under sub-section (7);
4. that the Respondents had, by not consulting and reaching an agreement with the Applicants, on amendments to the Master Collective Agreement, failed to observe the basic rules of natural justice;
5. that the Respondents by not preferring to refer the matter as a trade dispute under the Act, had acted contrary to the legitimate expectations of the Applicants.
In the result a Declaration is made that the decision of 9 March 2007 is in breach of section 38 of the Constitution. It is unlawful and therefore null and void.
An Order of Certiorari is made removing the said decision into this Court, and the decision be and is hereby quashed.
Costs is summarily assessed at $850 to each of the Applicants to be paid within l4 days.
F. Jitoko
JUDGE
At Suva
Thursday 20th December 2007
In the end, it is the findings of this Court:
1. that the Appellants possess the legal capacity and persona to represent their individual members, in bringing actions under Chapter 4 of the Constitution;
2. the Respondents, by lowering the mandatory retirement age of civil servants to 55, without the agreement of the affected party, had acted in breach of section 38 of the Constitution which protects an individual from discrimination on the basis of age;
3. that the Respondents have failed to satisfy the threshold requirements of what is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society that would have provided the exception to section 38 as permissible under sub-section (7);
4. that the Respondents had, by not consulting and reaching an agreement with the Applicants, on amendments to the Master Collective Agreement, failed to observe the basic rules of natural justice;
5. that the Respondents by not preferring to refer the matter as a trade dispute under the Act, had acted contrary to the legitimate expectations of the Applicants.
In the result a Declaration is made that the decision of 9 March 2007 is in breach of section 38 of the Constitution. It is unlawful and therefore null and void.
An Order of Certiorari is made removing the said decision into this Court, and the decision be and is hereby quashed.
Costs is summarily assessed at $850 to each of the Applicants to be paid within l4 days.
F. Jitoko
JUDGE
At Suva
Thursday 20th December 2007
Fiji Court of Appeal overturned Justice Jitoko's judgment: RETIRE AT 55
In March 2009, the three Court of Appeal judges – Justice John Byrnes, Justice Andrew Bruce and Justice Izaz Khan allowed the interim regime's appeal and quashed Justice Jitoko’s earlier decision.
In his decision, Justice Bruce said: “The rejection of the PSC’s argument by the trial judge (Jitoko) was without foundation because he had no evidence upon which he could decide the extent to which the public servants would have served 30 years”.
“Secondly, there was no evidence to determine the extent to which the public servants would have accumulated enough FNPF funds at 55 to retire and start their own businesses”.
The three judges said Justice Jitoko did not give sufficient weight to the evidence of PSC Permanent Secretary Taina Tagicakibau and Fiji Teacher’s Union General Secretary Agni Deo Singh in relation to the advantages which would be gained by the reduction in the retirement age from 60 to 55.
Tagicakibau in her affidavit of September 26, 2007 said the Government would save $79,519,530 when the reduction in retirement age policy came into effect from January 1 this year. She added: “If posts were filled selectively according to areas of need, the government would save up to $10,455,610 when this policy is put into effect”.
In his affidavit of September 21, 2007, Singh said by the age of 55 years, civil servants would have worked for at least 30 years and would have met all obligations in relation to their children's education.
He said: “There are over 2000 graduates who are unemployed. 800 of these are qualified teachers. A large number of these 800 qualified teachers would have been trained by government at Advance College of Education and Lautoka Teachers College or at the USP on a scholarship”.
“A large number of these unemployed graduates are sons and daughters of poor people who would have taken loans for education of their children Government employment becomes the last and sometimes the only venue for employment because of the limited opportunity for employment in the private sector.”
The three judges said Tagicakibau and Singh were not cross-examined on their affidavits and in their view, the duo’s evidence should have been accepted by Justice Jitoko.
“If he had done so, it would not have been possible for him to conclude as he did.”
The Court also ordered that the two unions, FTA and FPSA, to pay court costs of $3,500.
FAST FORWARD TO JANUARY 2023
Minister for Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations, Agni Deo Singh, says the extension of the retirement age to 60 does not necessarily mean younger people will not find employment.
He referenced the teaching sector, saying there had been a lot of issues with school leadership in the past.
“At 55, teachers are in very good health and they’ve been in leadership positions for a few years only and they have five more years of good leadership services to provide,” he said.
“We have been losing all that very badly. So with that back at the end of the day, it is the schools and the children, it is the quality of education that will benefit because you cannot take experience away and compensate with an academic qualification.
“It doesn’t mean somebody who has come with a PhD with six, seven years of service or 10 years of service is equal to someone who has 25 or 30 years of service in leadership, through the system into the leadership, can never be equated. It’s quite different.
“Particularly with the ground you need to work through the mill to understand the ropes, understand the system, to acquire those knowledge and skills and experience that you only get when you get that on the job, hands-on experience. We have all learned that way.”
He said there was still a need to employ more teachers in schools around the country, and there were instances whereby teachers holding secondary school teaching qualifications were recruited to teach primary school students.
“I think in teaching itself, we require a lot more teachers in primary school, there is a dire shortage. We have got secondary school teachers with secondary school qualifications teaching in primary schools.
“Now we will have to retrain those teachers. We can’t lay them off. You know, we have to retrain them and they’re secondary school teachers, but we are still faced with a lot of shortage of teachers.
“A lot of brain drain has taken place. Yes. And then we put these large class sizes in the primary schools to actually address which has never been attended to despite all those calls being made.”
Mr Singh said in cases where a teacher had to take on larger volumes of students in a single class, a portion of students would be left behind, resulting in a serious issue.
“Non-readers is a serious issue for us. We need to address this. So yes, while we will have mature people in leadership, we still need a lot of establishments, a lot more teachers at the lower level assisting.
“So it’s all about getting the resources together and just employing more teachers. It will be a challenge in terms of funding, knowing what we have been burdened with, we have inherited in terms of debts, but we have to make sure that we improve the delivery of education.”
He referenced the teaching sector, saying there had been a lot of issues with school leadership in the past.
“At 55, teachers are in very good health and they’ve been in leadership positions for a few years only and they have five more years of good leadership services to provide,” he said.
“We have been losing all that very badly. So with that back at the end of the day, it is the schools and the children, it is the quality of education that will benefit because you cannot take experience away and compensate with an academic qualification.
“It doesn’t mean somebody who has come with a PhD with six, seven years of service or 10 years of service is equal to someone who has 25 or 30 years of service in leadership, through the system into the leadership, can never be equated. It’s quite different.
“Particularly with the ground you need to work through the mill to understand the ropes, understand the system, to acquire those knowledge and skills and experience that you only get when you get that on the job, hands-on experience. We have all learned that way.”
He said there was still a need to employ more teachers in schools around the country, and there were instances whereby teachers holding secondary school teaching qualifications were recruited to teach primary school students.
“I think in teaching itself, we require a lot more teachers in primary school, there is a dire shortage. We have got secondary school teachers with secondary school qualifications teaching in primary schools.
“Now we will have to retrain those teachers. We can’t lay them off. You know, we have to retrain them and they’re secondary school teachers, but we are still faced with a lot of shortage of teachers.
“A lot of brain drain has taken place. Yes. And then we put these large class sizes in the primary schools to actually address which has never been attended to despite all those calls being made.”
Mr Singh said in cases where a teacher had to take on larger volumes of students in a single class, a portion of students would be left behind, resulting in a serious issue.
“Non-readers is a serious issue for us. We need to address this. So yes, while we will have mature people in leadership, we still need a lot of establishments, a lot more teachers at the lower level assisting.
“So it’s all about getting the resources together and just employing more teachers. It will be a challenge in terms of funding, knowing what we have been burdened with, we have inherited in terms of debts, but we have to make sure that we improve the delivery of education.”
TEXT BOOK FROM AIYAZ KHAIYUM: Biman Prasad at UniFiji Ba Campus
*An inspection of the Reserve Bank of Fiji and Economic Ministry data showed the debt level by end of March ratio was 73.5% |
'It will be interesting to check the figure when the RBF releases its 2nd quarter report. The cause for this reduction is the economy, the denominator, has been growing as the numerator (debt) remains static with the growth coming, both, from tourism and from return to post-Covid normalcy from a lower base,' an economist explained to Fijileaks.
The forgiveness of TELS debts: Narsey
'Surely the more rational policy would have been to require those who have got jobs after their graduation to pay their debts, while for those who cannot get jobs, the debts are simply postponed until they do get their jobs and earn incomes.'
"Of course, students who no longer have to pay back their TELS debts will be so happy at the Government’s generosity at letting go of more than $650 millions owed to taxpayers. But a few members of the public (like my old MBHS classmate Vijay Madhavan) have pointed out this is unfair to all those who have been faithfully paying their TELS debt (FT Letters to the Editor, July 3, 2023). Surely the more rational policy would have been to require those who have got jobs after their graduation to pay their debts, while for those who cannot get jobs, the debts are simply postponed until they do get their jobs and earn incomes. Can Government fine tune this policy before the budget is finally passed by Parliament, with the possibility of raising perhaps another $200 million at least which can reduce the net deficit and public debt for taxpayers who have already paid for the education of all these students."
Extract, Wadan Narsey, 8 July 2023, Fiji Times, 'Opinion, 2023-24 Budget: Not tough enough'.
*And the long wait, while he used to stop for a P**S and PRAYER on his way to deliver his BUDGET to PARLIAMENT.
*The narcissist megalomaniac was able to rule with iron-fist because Fijians of all races simply refused to rise up and overthrow him, even if it required the spilling of blood.
*Never again must he be allowed to control levers of Power.
*A thoroughly despicable creature who 'lost his marbles'.
*Who in their right mind, on the eve of a general election, would demand that if grandmas want to vote, they must change their marriage names? A Bloody TWAT!
After promising to exercise "fiscal prudence", "fiscal conservatism" or "fiscal consolidation", supposedly because of mismanagement by FijiFirst, the Rabuka sanctioned budget delivered by Biman has handed down the largest spending budget in Fijian history, outside of the pandemic years.
That means debt, which was supposedly a very bad thing for the country, is now going to be above $10bn. It never reached that level when FijiFirst was in government notwithstanding COVID.
This budget does not provide any concrete or real plans to grow the economy on a sustained basis. Therefore, with already such a large deficit weighted fundamentally on operational expenditure, we can see that such deficits will be there for the long-term. Meaning more and more debt.
The Rabuka government through Biman is misleading ordinary Fijians about paying debt. In paragraph 27 of his budget speech Biman rather disingenuously claims that this budget pays off approximately 500 million in principal payments. This is simply not true. The budget is refinancing debt. Refinancing debt is not paying of debt or the principle. Conversely, if maturing debt was paid, the stock of debt won’t grow as fast as it is under this budget.
The type of fiscal policy we are seeing now is what an economist has said is like a pandemic fiscal policy on steroids.
This is the wrong thing to do when the private sector and economy were doing so well prior to 24 December 2022 and the new found energy and confidence post pandemic should have been capitalised on. In other words, simply carry on with what was being done. Provide continuity. Provide stability. Provide a vision. Difficult as it maybe with the current talent in the Rabuka led government.
There is nothing about fiscal prudence in this budget. Polar opposite to what was promised prior to the budget announcement. The ANZ report which talks about the government fulfilling its election promises, which essentially were about operating expenditure, is a nice way of saying that Biman wagged the tail when it came to political imperatives, economically irresponsible as they were.
Vat hike and meddling with departure tax will make tourism industry less competitive. Tourists will go elsewhere because Fiji will become unaffordable to the budget traveller. A win for our competitors in that segment of the market.
How is the budget fair and just or balanced as they like to call it? - especially when you ask the low income and middle class to pay or do all of the heavy lifting of government’s extravagance? High income earners get off scot-free.
High income earners will pay less tax now, because of the meddling with the social responsibility levy. So those lawyers and accountants and other wealthy people who served apparently at no charge on the so-called fiscal review committee will now pay less personal income tax. The wealthy will continue to benefit from the 21 non-VAT items and another new one now, which is prescribed medicine. This new addition won't make any difference to low-income families because they were already getting most prescribed medicine for free under the free medicine scheme. Again, the wealthy benefit.
Another blow to low-income earners, amongst others, is that under this budget, the free GP scheme which the FijiFirst government initiated will now be means tested. Under this budget a family that earns more than 30,000 a year won't be eligible to get free doctor services under the GP scheme. Say a working husband and wife earn $16,000 each totalling a combined annual household income of $32,000, will no longer including their children be eligible for this service. However, a single person earning $29,000 a year will be eligible for the free GP scheme. Where is the equity? Where is the fairness? A family with 5 children won't be able to access the free GP scheme because their combined household income has just sneaked above $30,000 a year. Of course now on top of that they have to pay school levies. Less disposal income. Don't forget, everything, apart from the 22 items they buy, will have a 15% VAT on it. School uniform, blankets, pens, clothes, you name it.
Operating expenditure is way up in this budget. Operating expenditure does not build assets. Capital expenditure is down as a proportion of total spend and whatever has been allocated as capital expenditure is essentially allocated to pay for the ongoing capital projects that the FijiFirst Government initiated and are currently being completed. So, all the major road, bridge and building works that you currently see being constructed were initiated by the FijiFirst government and allocations for the completion is allocated in this budget. There is no new major project funding in this budget. No new capital expenditure.
Every company that is currently paying the corporate tax rate of 20% will now have to pay 25%, except all water extraction and bottling companies. Biman did not mention this major policy change in his budget address. He is either very forgetful or was overwhelmed by the moment or deliberately left it out, hoping that no one will pay heed.
So, here we have Fijian owned businesses, small and medium enterprises, struggling in this already dampened market because of:
- the uncertainty of economic policies over the past few months,
- the massive skills and brain drain,
- lack of general consumer confidence,
- impending increased FNPF contributions,
- increased negative impact on cash flow because of VAT increase and general cost of doing business, and,
- pressure from employees to raise wages because of increased day to day costs for them,
now having to pay 5% more corporate taxes (an increase of 25%) when Fiji Water and other water extraction and bottling companies will now not pay any corporate tax for the next 7 years.
The rationale that was given to us by FRCS was that it will help Fiji Water with its tax obligations in USA and that in any case the water resource tax has been increased.
This justification does not hold water. We simply cannot exempt an entire sector from paying corporate tax just because one very wealthy company, that by the way has trademarked the name Fiji and therefore owns it, wants favourable tax arrangements. Where is the interest of Fiji and Fijians? Why exempt them from corporate tax when all this time they have been paying corporate tax and water resource tax?
The justification that by increasing water resource tax we will overall be collecting more on balance also does not hold water. They can pay corporate tax and water resource tax. Other water companies also now have a free ride because of the kowtowing by Rabuka's government to Fiji Water.
All companies and in particular Fijian companies and even foreign owned who have been in Fiji for a number of years must be at the very least scratching their heads. They must be saying this is not a new industry. This is an industry that does not need protection. It is an established brand. These people have been paying taxes. Why the change? Why not us? Why them? What is the policy rationale? What message does it send to everybody else about a level playing field? Why such blatant discrimination?
The irony of course is that on one hand Rabuka and Biman say we need to raise revenue but are willing to forgo it when it comes to certain companies and individuals but not do so when it comes to low- and middle-income Fijian families and Fijian or Fijian-based companies, big, medium or small.
From a global economy perspective, this is a classic case of a weak government from a developing country being subservient to the interests of a large foreign owned company. It is even more marked when a finite resource from that developed country is being extracted for offshore wealth creation without commensurate onshore wealth generation.
Did the projected growth factor in the higher VAT rate and corporate tax? You would think not as forecasts were prepared prior to the announcement of the higher taxes. The higher tax rates will negatively impact demand and spending in the economy.
Let’s not get distracted with debt to GDP ratios coming down. Biman likes to compare current debt to GDP ratio with the debt to GDP ratio during the pandemic. This is comparing a normal time period to a one in a 100-year event. Smacks of disingenuity. Interesting how the Rabuka government talks about the debt to GDP ratios and does not focus on the nominal value of the debt but when in opposition it was the reverse.
Overall as said before there is nothing wrong with debt as long as you are able to service it, the cost of debt is attractive, you borrow to build assets and productive capacity and which will lead to economic growth and expansion and result in improving the quality of life of all Fijians in particular the marginalised.
This budget is the outcome of a government that is now the victim of its own and misplaced narrative, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of managing a modern day economy and working to harness the country's potential. It demonstrates gross incompetence and also shows that the national budget is tailored to the serve the interests of a few companies and individuals.
The policies reflected in the budget provides no real prospects to have real and sustained growth to service the burgeoning debt.
There is very little fiscal space left to cater for any unexpected events or shocks such as a rebuild after a climatic event.
The budget is anti low-income and middle-income families. It has accepted and allowed for wasteful operational expenditure and seeks to make it the norm. It has augmented the size of ministries and curtailed efficiencies by assigning delivery of services to non-specialised ministries or departments. It has dampened the prospects for real growth. It will in a tangible manner adversely affect the lives of ordinary Fijians.
The reduction of opportunities for businesses and low-income and middle-income earners to own their own homes and how our young have been duped are some of the many matters arising out of this budget, which I’m sure many will comment on. This is the tip of the iceberg.
That means debt, which was supposedly a very bad thing for the country, is now going to be above $10bn. It never reached that level when FijiFirst was in government notwithstanding COVID.
This budget does not provide any concrete or real plans to grow the economy on a sustained basis. Therefore, with already such a large deficit weighted fundamentally on operational expenditure, we can see that such deficits will be there for the long-term. Meaning more and more debt.
The Rabuka government through Biman is misleading ordinary Fijians about paying debt. In paragraph 27 of his budget speech Biman rather disingenuously claims that this budget pays off approximately 500 million in principal payments. This is simply not true. The budget is refinancing debt. Refinancing debt is not paying of debt or the principle. Conversely, if maturing debt was paid, the stock of debt won’t grow as fast as it is under this budget.
The type of fiscal policy we are seeing now is what an economist has said is like a pandemic fiscal policy on steroids.
This is the wrong thing to do when the private sector and economy were doing so well prior to 24 December 2022 and the new found energy and confidence post pandemic should have been capitalised on. In other words, simply carry on with what was being done. Provide continuity. Provide stability. Provide a vision. Difficult as it maybe with the current talent in the Rabuka led government.
There is nothing about fiscal prudence in this budget. Polar opposite to what was promised prior to the budget announcement. The ANZ report which talks about the government fulfilling its election promises, which essentially were about operating expenditure, is a nice way of saying that Biman wagged the tail when it came to political imperatives, economically irresponsible as they were.
Vat hike and meddling with departure tax will make tourism industry less competitive. Tourists will go elsewhere because Fiji will become unaffordable to the budget traveller. A win for our competitors in that segment of the market.
How is the budget fair and just or balanced as they like to call it? - especially when you ask the low income and middle class to pay or do all of the heavy lifting of government’s extravagance? High income earners get off scot-free.
High income earners will pay less tax now, because of the meddling with the social responsibility levy. So those lawyers and accountants and other wealthy people who served apparently at no charge on the so-called fiscal review committee will now pay less personal income tax. The wealthy will continue to benefit from the 21 non-VAT items and another new one now, which is prescribed medicine. This new addition won't make any difference to low-income families because they were already getting most prescribed medicine for free under the free medicine scheme. Again, the wealthy benefit.
Another blow to low-income earners, amongst others, is that under this budget, the free GP scheme which the FijiFirst government initiated will now be means tested. Under this budget a family that earns more than 30,000 a year won't be eligible to get free doctor services under the GP scheme. Say a working husband and wife earn $16,000 each totalling a combined annual household income of $32,000, will no longer including their children be eligible for this service. However, a single person earning $29,000 a year will be eligible for the free GP scheme. Where is the equity? Where is the fairness? A family with 5 children won't be able to access the free GP scheme because their combined household income has just sneaked above $30,000 a year. Of course now on top of that they have to pay school levies. Less disposal income. Don't forget, everything, apart from the 22 items they buy, will have a 15% VAT on it. School uniform, blankets, pens, clothes, you name it.
Operating expenditure is way up in this budget. Operating expenditure does not build assets. Capital expenditure is down as a proportion of total spend and whatever has been allocated as capital expenditure is essentially allocated to pay for the ongoing capital projects that the FijiFirst Government initiated and are currently being completed. So, all the major road, bridge and building works that you currently see being constructed were initiated by the FijiFirst government and allocations for the completion is allocated in this budget. There is no new major project funding in this budget. No new capital expenditure.
Every company that is currently paying the corporate tax rate of 20% will now have to pay 25%, except all water extraction and bottling companies. Biman did not mention this major policy change in his budget address. He is either very forgetful or was overwhelmed by the moment or deliberately left it out, hoping that no one will pay heed.
So, here we have Fijian owned businesses, small and medium enterprises, struggling in this already dampened market because of:
- the uncertainty of economic policies over the past few months,
- the massive skills and brain drain,
- lack of general consumer confidence,
- impending increased FNPF contributions,
- increased negative impact on cash flow because of VAT increase and general cost of doing business, and,
- pressure from employees to raise wages because of increased day to day costs for them,
now having to pay 5% more corporate taxes (an increase of 25%) when Fiji Water and other water extraction and bottling companies will now not pay any corporate tax for the next 7 years.
The rationale that was given to us by FRCS was that it will help Fiji Water with its tax obligations in USA and that in any case the water resource tax has been increased.
This justification does not hold water. We simply cannot exempt an entire sector from paying corporate tax just because one very wealthy company, that by the way has trademarked the name Fiji and therefore owns it, wants favourable tax arrangements. Where is the interest of Fiji and Fijians? Why exempt them from corporate tax when all this time they have been paying corporate tax and water resource tax?
The justification that by increasing water resource tax we will overall be collecting more on balance also does not hold water. They can pay corporate tax and water resource tax. Other water companies also now have a free ride because of the kowtowing by Rabuka's government to Fiji Water.
All companies and in particular Fijian companies and even foreign owned who have been in Fiji for a number of years must be at the very least scratching their heads. They must be saying this is not a new industry. This is an industry that does not need protection. It is an established brand. These people have been paying taxes. Why the change? Why not us? Why them? What is the policy rationale? What message does it send to everybody else about a level playing field? Why such blatant discrimination?
The irony of course is that on one hand Rabuka and Biman say we need to raise revenue but are willing to forgo it when it comes to certain companies and individuals but not do so when it comes to low- and middle-income Fijian families and Fijian or Fijian-based companies, big, medium or small.
From a global economy perspective, this is a classic case of a weak government from a developing country being subservient to the interests of a large foreign owned company. It is even more marked when a finite resource from that developed country is being extracted for offshore wealth creation without commensurate onshore wealth generation.
Did the projected growth factor in the higher VAT rate and corporate tax? You would think not as forecasts were prepared prior to the announcement of the higher taxes. The higher tax rates will negatively impact demand and spending in the economy.
Let’s not get distracted with debt to GDP ratios coming down. Biman likes to compare current debt to GDP ratio with the debt to GDP ratio during the pandemic. This is comparing a normal time period to a one in a 100-year event. Smacks of disingenuity. Interesting how the Rabuka government talks about the debt to GDP ratios and does not focus on the nominal value of the debt but when in opposition it was the reverse.
Overall as said before there is nothing wrong with debt as long as you are able to service it, the cost of debt is attractive, you borrow to build assets and productive capacity and which will lead to economic growth and expansion and result in improving the quality of life of all Fijians in particular the marginalised.
This budget is the outcome of a government that is now the victim of its own and misplaced narrative, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of managing a modern day economy and working to harness the country's potential. It demonstrates gross incompetence and also shows that the national budget is tailored to the serve the interests of a few companies and individuals.
The policies reflected in the budget provides no real prospects to have real and sustained growth to service the burgeoning debt.
There is very little fiscal space left to cater for any unexpected events or shocks such as a rebuild after a climatic event.
The budget is anti low-income and middle-income families. It has accepted and allowed for wasteful operational expenditure and seeks to make it the norm. It has augmented the size of ministries and curtailed efficiencies by assigning delivery of services to non-specialised ministries or departments. It has dampened the prospects for real growth. It will in a tangible manner adversely affect the lives of ordinary Fijians.
The reduction of opportunities for businesses and low-income and middle-income earners to own their own homes and how our young have been duped are some of the many matters arising out of this budget, which I’m sure many will comment on. This is the tip of the iceberg.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Professor Biman Prasad says it's ironical that the FijiFirst Party which increased Fiji's debt by over $7 billion since 2007 is wanting to lecture the new Government about financial prudence, fiscal discipline and debt management after former Minister for Economy, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said that debt, which was supposedly a very bad thing for the country, is now going to be above $10 billion under the Rabuka led government.
While responding to Sayed-Khaiyum’s facebook post, Professor Prasad says it's under the FijiFirst and Sayed-Khaiyum that Fiji's debt increased from $2.7 billion in 2007 to almost $10 billion.
Professor Prasad says the man who now wants to be the "defacto Leader of Opposition" is the same person that was responsible for the $6 billion addition to our national debt under his leadership as Finance Minister from 2014.
He says the $6 billion increase out of the $7 billion increase was directly piled up by Aiyaz, and he should be the last person to lecture us about debt management.
Professor Prasad says in the 2023/2024 budget, they have halved the fiscal deficit from an average of 9 percent in the last few years to 4.8 percent.
He says they have put the debt to GDP ratio on a sustainable path from the peak of 90 percent under FijiFirst to now below 80 percent. Professor Prasad says they have been responsible and taken the hard decision to fix the revenue problem by permanently adding $600 million additional revenue to Government coffers, and also made sure that the vulnerable are protected and the economic recovery is not disrupted.
He says this has in fact built credibility amongst the people, businesses and development partners about the coalition government's commitment to fiscal prudence.
The Deputy Prime Minister says on expenditure, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has quickly forgotten that his 2017/2018 had planned expenditure of almost $4.4 billion and again in his 2018/2019 budget he had allocated a total expenditure of almost $4.7 billion, and he did that with a revenue hole of over $1 billion.
Professor Prasad points out that Aiyaz promised a large budget before the 2018 elections and delivered $1 billion less because there was no money.
He says Aiyaz went that far to mislead the people.
Professor Prasad says the 2023/2024 budget of $4.3 billion is still lower than those two budgets but more importantly, they are basing the expenditure on a sound revenue forecast and financing plan and not like the fake budgets that were made in the past by Aiyaz.
He says they have received an overwhelming support for the budget given its prudence and inclusiveness.
The Deputy Prime Minister says they have a plan to fix the debt situation and our economy and they will not be distracted by people like Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum who were solely responsible for creating the mess that the coalition government is trying to fix.
He also says Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has also presented a convoluted analysis of the tax exemption to the water sector to mislead everyone and try to portray that Fiji has lost government revenue.
Professor Prasad says while Aiyaz talked about the corporate tax exemption, he selectively ignored that water resource tax has been increased from 18 cents per litre to 19.5 cents per litre.
He says overall, there is a revenue gain for Fiji through this arrangement and at the same time it also allows our major investors to claim tax credits overseas which will help us with more reinvestment in Fiji.
The Deputy Prime Minister says basically, under this new arrangement, all bottled water companies will have a corporate tax holiday and they will only pay the water resource tax.
He says for those extracting less than 10 million litres per month, the rate will be unchanged, however for those extracting more than 10 million litres, the rate has been increased from 18 cents to 19 cents with an overall gain in revenue for Fiji.
While responding to Sayed-Khaiyum’s facebook post, Professor Prasad says it's under the FijiFirst and Sayed-Khaiyum that Fiji's debt increased from $2.7 billion in 2007 to almost $10 billion.
Professor Prasad says the man who now wants to be the "defacto Leader of Opposition" is the same person that was responsible for the $6 billion addition to our national debt under his leadership as Finance Minister from 2014.
He says the $6 billion increase out of the $7 billion increase was directly piled up by Aiyaz, and he should be the last person to lecture us about debt management.
Professor Prasad says in the 2023/2024 budget, they have halved the fiscal deficit from an average of 9 percent in the last few years to 4.8 percent.
He says they have put the debt to GDP ratio on a sustainable path from the peak of 90 percent under FijiFirst to now below 80 percent. Professor Prasad says they have been responsible and taken the hard decision to fix the revenue problem by permanently adding $600 million additional revenue to Government coffers, and also made sure that the vulnerable are protected and the economic recovery is not disrupted.
He says this has in fact built credibility amongst the people, businesses and development partners about the coalition government's commitment to fiscal prudence.
The Deputy Prime Minister says on expenditure, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has quickly forgotten that his 2017/2018 had planned expenditure of almost $4.4 billion and again in his 2018/2019 budget he had allocated a total expenditure of almost $4.7 billion, and he did that with a revenue hole of over $1 billion.
Professor Prasad points out that Aiyaz promised a large budget before the 2018 elections and delivered $1 billion less because there was no money.
He says Aiyaz went that far to mislead the people.
Professor Prasad says the 2023/2024 budget of $4.3 billion is still lower than those two budgets but more importantly, they are basing the expenditure on a sound revenue forecast and financing plan and not like the fake budgets that were made in the past by Aiyaz.
He says they have received an overwhelming support for the budget given its prudence and inclusiveness.
The Deputy Prime Minister says they have a plan to fix the debt situation and our economy and they will not be distracted by people like Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum who were solely responsible for creating the mess that the coalition government is trying to fix.
He also says Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has also presented a convoluted analysis of the tax exemption to the water sector to mislead everyone and try to portray that Fiji has lost government revenue.
Professor Prasad says while Aiyaz talked about the corporate tax exemption, he selectively ignored that water resource tax has been increased from 18 cents per litre to 19.5 cents per litre.
He says overall, there is a revenue gain for Fiji through this arrangement and at the same time it also allows our major investors to claim tax credits overseas which will help us with more reinvestment in Fiji.
The Deputy Prime Minister says basically, under this new arrangement, all bottled water companies will have a corporate tax holiday and they will only pay the water resource tax.
He says for those extracting less than 10 million litres per month, the rate will be unchanged, however for those extracting more than 10 million litres, the rate has been increased from 18 cents to 19 cents with an overall gain in revenue for Fiji.
Justice Pacific sums up unconstitutional treatment of Opposition
"To then have gone through multiple parliamentary sessions and even through the budget announcements without a full opposition is undemocratic and unconstitutional. Thousands of voters have been deprived of having their elected representatives represent their views in Parliament. Vacant seats, particularly those belonging to the opposition, contribute to an imbalanced distribution of power and hinder the ability of the Parliament to serve as a forum for robust debate, accountability, and effective governance. Any debate on our critical national budget and indeed parliament voting on it needs to occur with the opposition at full strength, or the entire process becomes undemocratic. We call on those in power to rectify this situation and restore democracy immediately."
DIVINE FIJIAN GROUP's 'Multi-Million Dollar' Head Office in Santa Rosa, California. Donning identical shirts of Divine Fijian Care Givers, Rabuka with Poasa Koroitamana opening the 'multi-million dollar office' - more like a fish stall at Nausori Market.
*The Californian tax authorities are looking into claims that the Divine Fijian Group is worth millions of dollars, when the truth is only last week the Divine Fijian Care Givers celebrated its 5th anniversary.
*Where and how Koroitamana made his millions in California?
*According to Californian authorities, Divine Fijian Group doesn't exist.
HAVE RABUKA and KOROITAMANA PULLED WOOL OVER OUR EYES?
From The Fiji Sun, 7 March 2023:
*The PSC was allegedly directed to appoint Deo's Bua kai vata JONE MARITINO NEMANI as new PS, who was reportedly promised but lost out to PITA WISE as PS in the Prime Minister's Office.
Fijileaks: We are not surprised, for since the late NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy gave the party's votes for Sitiveni Rabuka to become Prime Minister in 1994, the NFP has been shamelessly pimping Rabuka as Fiji's leader, supported by the likes of the late Brij Lal, the 1999 SVT-NFP coalition candidates BIMAN PRASAD and WADAN NARSEY, and lately RICHARD NAIDU, AGNI DEO, SASHI KIRAN and countless others.
*Today, the NFP is a junior partner under Rabuka as Prime Minister.
*The NFP has never called for Rabuka to be brought to justice for the rape, torture, beatings, and disenfranchisement of Indo-Fijians.
*Instead, they granted him IMMUNITY for his Crimes Against Indo-Fijians
*ACCORDING to highly-placed sources inside the Public Service Commission, FOUR candidates (two Indo-Fijians and two i-Taukei) applied for the post of PS, Fiji Ministry of Employment, Productivity and Industrial Relations.
*The PSC chose Dr Naren Prasad from the ILO as its preferred candidate who had come out on the top in the selection process.
*But NFP's Employment Minister AGNI DEO REJECTED Dr Prasad as his PS without providing any reason to the PSC Board.
*The PSC then put forward the second best candidate SEEMA SHANDIL, the second top candidate. Again, DEO rejected her.
*Since the other two i-Taukei candidates had not fared well, the PSC was allegedly directed to appoint Deo's Bua kai vata JONE MARITINO NEMANI who was reportedly promised but lost out to PITA WISE as PS in the Prime Minister's Office.
*We don't know if Deo was in conspiracy with his Cabinet colleagues to find another position for Jone Maritino Nemani, and allowed the interview process for his new PS to just rumble on or was he doing his Bua
kai vata a favour.
*We will only find out the answers when, and if, under the Doctrine of Necessity the RFMF invokes its constitutional mandate, and raids PSC office, seizes interview files, and takes AGNI DEO into CUSTODY for allegedly conspiring to ethnically cleanse Indo-Fijians out of Civil Service
*As for NFP, Sashi Kiran is allegedly on record claiming that NFP must not shed TEARS for Indo-Fijians for they VOTED for FFP
MUNRO LEYS' new 'WATERING HOLE': |
[email protected]
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012