8 Comments
![]() Municipal councils fail to account for $30m It comes as no surprise that municipal councils have failed to provide accounts for close to $28m given to them in grants over the past three years as per the Auditor General’s 2016 report. “This is symptomatic of the total lack of accountability and transparency that we have witnessed over the past 10 years under the current leadership when it comes to the management of public moneys,” says Labour Leader Mahendra Chaudhry. All Auditor General’s reports since 2008 have pointed out the failure of ministries, including the Prime Minister’s Office, to provide proper accountability and acquittals for funds used. “There has been an appalling laxity in the handling of public funds at all levels of governance,” Mr Chaudhry said. The final responsibility for good governance and accountability for funds disbursed lies with the Finance section. Minister for Economy Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum must, therefore, take full responsibility for this shocking government record. Although as Minister for Local Government Praveen Bala is equally at fault. “As for municipal councils, FLP has consistently over the years complained about the lack of accountability and transparency in their use of ratepayers’ funds and government grants, and the delivery of service. “It supports our repeated calls for municipal council elections to be reinstated to ensure transparency and accountability at the local government level. “This shocking lack of accountability in governance is the price our nation is paying for the dismantling of democratic institutions in the country since 2009,” Mr Chaudhry said. THE Auditor-General's Report 2016 has found that an unclaimed container of medicine for the health system sat idle at the Port of Suva for 253 days before it was finally cleared.
The unclaimed consignment was revealed in the audit of the Ministry of Economy. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) found a container was consigned for Fiji Pharmaceutical & Biomedical Services (FPBS), but remained uncleared for 253 days because of an oversight. The consignment was supposed to have been cleared by the Fiji Procurement Office (FPO), but it was not advised of its arrival by the government agency responsible. "Currently, the process is for ministries and departments to advise of inbound consignments upon receipt of arrival notice which was not the case in this instance," the Ministry of Economy said. "The agency's advice was received 76 days later upon follow-up from the shipping agent hence the delay should not be attributed to the negligence of officers involved." The report also noted the port's charges for the uncleared container amounted to $48,984.60 and was paid on March 24, 2016. This newspaper posed questions to Health Minister Rosy Akbar on what medicine the container was carrying and whether any had expired while the container was at the wharf. She was also asked whether the 253-day delay at the wharf attributed to the shortage of drugs and medicine in 2015 and 2016 and if the ministry had taken staff to task over the issue. However, in response, the ministry's permanent secretary Philip Davies said the OAG report related to the Ministry of Economy's FPO and indicated they were responsible for the charges incurred. "This is therefore a matter for FPO to address as the agency responsible. It is not appropriate for the Ministry of Health & Medical Services to comment on this matter." In the OAG report, the Ministry of Economy said it was putting in place strategies to ensure the incident was not repeated. "The bond checking has been reintroduced whereby stakeholders and shipping agents' permission are requested for warehouses to be physically inspected for any pending government consignments that need to BE cleared." Source: The Fiji Times, 14 July 2017 From Fijileaks Archive, 21 November 2013 http://www.fijileaks.com/home/the-driti-trial-bainimarama-refused-to-sack-khaiyum-and-told-driti-to-leave-his-residence-turned-blind-eye-to-alleged-dirty-dealings-of-a-g HISTORY NOTE: In 1987, the then Army Commander Ratu Epeli Nailatikau declared that the military will fully support the newly elected Bavadra government. What did he do when the coupist and third-ranking racist Sitiveni Rabuka cowardly struck and overthrew the Bavadra government? Nailatikau had quietly slipped to Australia, refused to lead a counter force to overthrow Rabuka, accepted to become Fiji's High Commissioner to London post Rabuka coup, and lo and behold, became President of Fiji after the Bainimarama coup and signed into law the 2013 Constitution of Fiji 50 YEARS AGO: "One of these days I will reveal all the correspondence made available to me between the late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and my former academic supervisor at Oxford, Sir David Butler, on race, ethnicity, chiefs, party politics, and constitutionalism in Fiji, and how Coups and Aiyaz Khaiyum's D'Hondt Electoral System has destroyed politics and the machinery of government in Fiji" - VICTOR LAL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11511608/Meet-the-man-who-invented-the-Swingometer.html
Archbishop Chong nails Aiyaz Khaiyum's thesis to the TEST "The Attorney-General Aiyaz Saiyed-Khaiyum's thesis for his Master's Degree (Cultural Autonomy: Its implication for the nation state) concurs with the above critiques on cultural administrations such as the village bylaws where he argues that the continuation of separate indigenous Fijian administration has restricted the growth of a coherent national narrative, in politics, myth and ritual. He adds that such institutions like the village bylaws propagate communal politics. Hence he concludes that cultivating cultural or ethnic cleavages for administration and politics should end. History tells us that village bylaws have failed the economic development of the iTaukei. History is also telling us that village bylaws are not a good option for the present and future development of the iTaukei. Why is the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs reintroducing a failed system? How will the village by-laws develop the iTaukei? Whose interest does the village bylaw serve?" THE Ministry of iTaukei Affairs plans to reintroduce the village bylaws for all villages. The ministry argues it has carried out consultations in the 14 provinces. How will the village bylaws serve the total development of iTaukei villages? American historian Gordon Woods states: "History gives us a sense of where we have come from and how we became what we are." He contends historical awareness gives us the best guide for shaping the present and the future. Therefore a historical reflection on village bylaws in Fiji may help guide our decisions on this matter. Here are some historical facts: * the village bylaws were part of the British colonial government's indirect rule policy. Indirect rule was the colonial native rule policy; * through the indirect rule policy, the colonial government ruled natives by incorporating chiefs under the colonial administration. Once the colonial administration brought the chiefs under their authority, native rule was assured; and * village bylaws: One of the strategies of indirect rule was to sanction tribal or village customs. The colonists identified the strands of power and authority in the native institutions and moulded them to serve the interest of the colonial government. The native peoples were to be ruled and led by their own leaders and customs. Sir Arthur Gordon, the first British Governor of Fiji, introduced indirect rule in Fiji and the village bylaws. The system was known at that time as the Native Administration. During early colonial era, the Native Administration was criticised for failing to develop the iTaukei. Hence in 1916, the colonial government abolished the Native Administration and the village bylaws. In 1945, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna returned from his studies in Britain and together with Governor Phillip Mitchel re-established the Native Administration (and village bylaws), renaming it as the Fijian Administration. Again, like the Native Administration, the Fijian Administration also failed to enhance the economic development of the iTaukei. As a result the colonial government carried a commission to investigate the reason why the iTaukei were lagging behind in economic development. In 1959 the colonial government brought Oscar Spate, Australian anthropologist, to carry out the investigation. His findings were published as the Spate Commission. 1n 1960, the colonial government carried out another commission of inquiry to investigate land and population problems in Fiji. Alan Burns led this commission and the report was known as the Burns Commission. The Spate and Burns commissions and academics such as Cyril Belshaw, Rusiate Nayacakalou, and Isireli Lasaqa, heavily criticised the Fijian Administration (including the village bylaws) for the economic and political lag of the iTaukei. As a result, beginning in 1967, the colonial government again gradually abolished the Fijian Administration, along with its subsidiary bodies including the village bylaws. The Attorney-General Aiyaz Saiyed-Khaiyum's thesis for his Master's Degree (Cultural Autonomy: Its implication for the nation state) concurs with the above critiques on cultural administrations such as the village bylaws where he argues that the continuation of separate indigenous Fijian administration has restricted the growth of a coherent national narrative, in politics, myth and ritual. He adds that such institutions like the village bylaws propagate communal politics. Hence he concludes that cultivating cultural or ethnic cleavages for administration and politics should end. History tells us that village bylaws have failed the economic development of the iTaukei. History is also telling us that village bylaws are not a good option for the present and future development of the iTaukei. Why is the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs reintroducing a failed system? How will the village by-laws develop the iTaukei? Whose interest does the village bylaw serve? * Archbishop Peter Loy Chong is the head of the Catholic Church in Fiji. The views expressed are his and not of this newspaper. Source: The Fiji Times, 15 July 2017 "We are the High Chiefs of these islands. We are the leaders of the people. On us is the duty of pointing out to them the right course. Bear this in mind. We have to lead on two points- hold back those who advocate radical changes (for which we are not sufficiently educated) and enliven the laggards before their ignorance destroys us". |
[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 |