Below are the allegations:
|
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is deeply concerned at the level of disinformation directed at some of our missions overseas, and wishes to assure the people of Fiji that the information propagated by the blogger is false and misleading." |
*Instead, the Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement branded our Editor as 'a blogger' without mentioning him by name or Fijileaks.
*For Heaven's Sake, we are a news and investigative journalism website (not some dubious blogsite) that was created in 2012 to fight censorship in Fiji and to act as a conduit for Fijian journalists who were too lamu sona to report freely because of the draconian media decrees.
PARROTING Ministry of Foreign Affairs propaganda on Fiji One News
FLYING FIJI'S FLAG in London after disastrous career in Tokelau Islands
*On 24 November 2017, the first (Jovilisi Suveinakama) and second plaintiffs (Heto Puka), both at that time public servants of the Government of Tokelau based in Apia, Samoa, had their employment |
Background
[8] The first plaintiff was employed by the Government as “General Manager –
Apia” and the second plaintiff was employed as “Director of Finance”. They are both
based in Apia, Samoa.
[9] On an unspecified date but on or before May 2017, the Tokelau Public Service
Commission (the Commission) was instructed by the General Fono to undertake an
investigation into the actions of the first and second plaintiffs in their capacity as
Tokelauan public servants. The primary concern of the General Fono related to the
plaintiffs’ actions in respect of the purchase of two helicopters by the Government and
the purchase of a property in Apia, Samoa.
[10] The investigation followed a report prepared on behalf of the third defendant
to review Tokelau governance of capital development purchases. An interim report,
dated 9 March 2017, included a comment that the Ulu O Tokelau, General Fono and
the Council all failed to exercise sufficient governance over the work of officials.
[11] In April 2017, the Council suspended the first and second plaintiffs from work
until further notice pending the investigation.
[12] The terms of reference for the investigation contained allegations that the
purchases of the helicopters were unauthorised and the purchase of the property, while
authorised, was based on unprofessional advice.
[13] The objectives of the investigation included holding a fair and objective
investigation following the rules of natural justice, to hear evidence, to hear the
responses of the plaintiffs and to make necessary inquiries.
[14] The first and second plaintiffs raised concerns with the identity of the
investigator and the terms of reference.
[15] In June 2017, the first and second plaintiffs wrote to the investigator explaining
why they considered it was fair they should be interviewed in Apia rather than Tokelau
as required, primarily because they wanted their lawyers present.
[16] On 4 October 2017, the first and second plaintiffs applied for interim relief in
respect of their suspension. On 13 November 2017, the plaintiffs received a letter
from the second defendant saying the Council approved reinstatement of their salary
to be backdated on the understanding they would cooperate with the investigation and
discontinue the application for interim relief. The salaries were reinstated and backpay
paid on 17 November 2017.
[17] The investigation report was completed on 22 September and provided to the
plaintiffs for comment on 4 October 2017. The report found the plaintiffs had not
taken necessary steps or obtained relevant approvals in respect of the purchases,
including: not obtaining Council and General Fono approval for the helicopter
purchases; not obtaining regulatory approvals from the New Zealand, Samoan and
United States’ governments to operate the helicopters; and reliance upon an
inappropriate property valuation for the property purchase.
[18] The Commissioner concluded the first and second plaintiffs had engaged in
serious misconduct and recommended dismissal. That recommendation was accepted
[8] The first plaintiff was employed by the Government as “General Manager –
Apia” and the second plaintiff was employed as “Director of Finance”. They are both
based in Apia, Samoa.
[9] On an unspecified date but on or before May 2017, the Tokelau Public Service
Commission (the Commission) was instructed by the General Fono to undertake an
investigation into the actions of the first and second plaintiffs in their capacity as
Tokelauan public servants. The primary concern of the General Fono related to the
plaintiffs’ actions in respect of the purchase of two helicopters by the Government and
the purchase of a property in Apia, Samoa.
[10] The investigation followed a report prepared on behalf of the third defendant
to review Tokelau governance of capital development purchases. An interim report,
dated 9 March 2017, included a comment that the Ulu O Tokelau, General Fono and
the Council all failed to exercise sufficient governance over the work of officials.
[11] In April 2017, the Council suspended the first and second plaintiffs from work
until further notice pending the investigation.
[12] The terms of reference for the investigation contained allegations that the
purchases of the helicopters were unauthorised and the purchase of the property, while
authorised, was based on unprofessional advice.
[13] The objectives of the investigation included holding a fair and objective
investigation following the rules of natural justice, to hear evidence, to hear the
responses of the plaintiffs and to make necessary inquiries.
[14] The first and second plaintiffs raised concerns with the identity of the
investigator and the terms of reference.
[15] In June 2017, the first and second plaintiffs wrote to the investigator explaining
why they considered it was fair they should be interviewed in Apia rather than Tokelau
as required, primarily because they wanted their lawyers present.
[16] On 4 October 2017, the first and second plaintiffs applied for interim relief in
respect of their suspension. On 13 November 2017, the plaintiffs received a letter
from the second defendant saying the Council approved reinstatement of their salary
to be backdated on the understanding they would cooperate with the investigation and
discontinue the application for interim relief. The salaries were reinstated and backpay
paid on 17 November 2017.
[17] The investigation report was completed on 22 September and provided to the
plaintiffs for comment on 4 October 2017. The report found the plaintiffs had not
taken necessary steps or obtained relevant approvals in respect of the purchases,
including: not obtaining Council and General Fono approval for the helicopter
purchases; not obtaining regulatory approvals from the New Zealand, Samoan and
United States’ governments to operate the helicopters; and reliance upon an
inappropriate property valuation for the property purchase.
[18] The Commissioner concluded the first and second plaintiffs had engaged in
serious misconduct and recommended dismissal. That recommendation was accepted
The release of a report from an investigation into the alleged misuse of millions of dollars of
government funds in Tokelau has been delayed by a pending legal case, the territory’s leader
says.
It’s been a year since Jovilisi Suveinakama and Heto Puka were fired from Tokelau’s public service,
over their role in the purchase of two helicopters and a property in Apia, which together cost
more than $US9 million.
The pair were first suspended by Tokelau’s government in April last year, on instructions from
New Zealand, before they were eventually dismissed in November at the conclusion of an investigation in their conduct.
Since then, Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka have launched legal action against the government,
Tokelau’s Ulu, or titular head, Afega Gaualofa and New Zealand’s Administrator to the territory,
Ross Ardern.
They allege they were wrongfully dismissed and made scapegoats by Tokelau’s leaders, who
allegedly authorised the expenditure, a view backed by analysts.
But the report produced from the investigation, which was produced by the appointed
investigator, Aleki Silao, and reviewed by Commissioner Casimilo Perez, has yet to be made
public.
The release of the report is now pending the completion of the court case, Mr Gaualofa said in an
interview in Tokelau in September.
“Let the court decide all these things, and you’re not going to drag me into [this],” he said.
A hearing has been set for February, but a venue has yet to be finalised, with the plaintiffs
fighting for it to be heard in Tokelau, which would be a first for the territory.
Call for release of report
The investigation report has become a politically charged item in the controversial case, with Mr
Suveinakama and Mr Puka’s allies in Tokelau calling for its immediate public release.
Members of the Taupulega, or council of elders, of Fakaofo atoll, which last year agreed to fund
the pair $NZ50,000 towards their legal fees, have now demanded the former public servants to
be reinstated.
Two elders told RNZ Pacific the decision to dismiss Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka was improper
because it was made before the Taupulega were given an opportunity to review the report.
“It’s unfair for me to make a decision because a decision might depend on the report,” said Safiti
Vavega.
The Fakaofo Taupulega had asked for the report to be provided to them by Mr Silao and Mr
Perez, but had not heard back, said Tinielu Tumuli.
“The main issue for us is an issue of disobedience,” he said, in reference to Mr Silao and Mr Perez.
“So, the decision against Heto and Joe to be dismissed should be reversed.”
An open rebellion
Mr Gaualofa was not present when the Fakaofo Taupulega decided to grant legal costs towards
Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka and appears to be facing an open rebellion on his home atoll.
He would not rule out reinstating the pair, and said if the court ruled in their favour, then
“obviously they did nothing wrong”.
But the odds of a reversal of Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka’s dismissal last year are being
gradually stacked against them.
In October, Aukusitino Vitale, a former private secretary to Siopili Perez, the Faipule of Nukunonu
atoll, was appointed as the government’s General Manager, a position last held by Mr
Suveinakama, who has since found other work and is now based in Fiji.
Mr Vitale’s “practical experiences and his ability to communicate in three languages, especially
Tokelauan, meet the requirements of the position,” Commissioner Casimilo Perez said in a press
release announcing the appointment.
Mr Suveinakama, who is of Fijian descent, does not speak Tokelauan.
Mr Puka’s former position of Finance Director had been advertised earlier this year but a
replacement has not been found yet. It is currently occupied by Alan Shaw, who has been acting
in the role since Mr Puka’s was first suspended.
government funds in Tokelau has been delayed by a pending legal case, the territory’s leader
says.
It’s been a year since Jovilisi Suveinakama and Heto Puka were fired from Tokelau’s public service,
over their role in the purchase of two helicopters and a property in Apia, which together cost
more than $US9 million.
The pair were first suspended by Tokelau’s government in April last year, on instructions from
New Zealand, before they were eventually dismissed in November at the conclusion of an investigation in their conduct.
Since then, Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka have launched legal action against the government,
Tokelau’s Ulu, or titular head, Afega Gaualofa and New Zealand’s Administrator to the territory,
Ross Ardern.
They allege they were wrongfully dismissed and made scapegoats by Tokelau’s leaders, who
allegedly authorised the expenditure, a view backed by analysts.
But the report produced from the investigation, which was produced by the appointed
investigator, Aleki Silao, and reviewed by Commissioner Casimilo Perez, has yet to be made
public.
The release of the report is now pending the completion of the court case, Mr Gaualofa said in an
interview in Tokelau in September.
“Let the court decide all these things, and you’re not going to drag me into [this],” he said.
A hearing has been set for February, but a venue has yet to be finalised, with the plaintiffs
fighting for it to be heard in Tokelau, which would be a first for the territory.
Call for release of report
The investigation report has become a politically charged item in the controversial case, with Mr
Suveinakama and Mr Puka’s allies in Tokelau calling for its immediate public release.
Members of the Taupulega, or council of elders, of Fakaofo atoll, which last year agreed to fund
the pair $NZ50,000 towards their legal fees, have now demanded the former public servants to
be reinstated.
Two elders told RNZ Pacific the decision to dismiss Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka was improper
because it was made before the Taupulega were given an opportunity to review the report.
“It’s unfair for me to make a decision because a decision might depend on the report,” said Safiti
Vavega.
The Fakaofo Taupulega had asked for the report to be provided to them by Mr Silao and Mr
Perez, but had not heard back, said Tinielu Tumuli.
“The main issue for us is an issue of disobedience,” he said, in reference to Mr Silao and Mr Perez.
“So, the decision against Heto and Joe to be dismissed should be reversed.”
An open rebellion
Mr Gaualofa was not present when the Fakaofo Taupulega decided to grant legal costs towards
Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka and appears to be facing an open rebellion on his home atoll.
He would not rule out reinstating the pair, and said if the court ruled in their favour, then
“obviously they did nothing wrong”.
But the odds of a reversal of Mr Suveinakama and Mr Puka’s dismissal last year are being
gradually stacked against them.
In October, Aukusitino Vitale, a former private secretary to Siopili Perez, the Faipule of Nukunonu
atoll, was appointed as the government’s General Manager, a position last held by Mr
Suveinakama, who has since found other work and is now based in Fiji.
Mr Vitale’s “practical experiences and his ability to communicate in three languages, especially
Tokelauan, meet the requirements of the position,” Commissioner Casimilo Perez said in a press
release announcing the appointment.
Mr Suveinakama, who is of Fijian descent, does not speak Tokelauan.
Mr Puka’s former position of Finance Director had been advertised earlier this year but a
replacement has not been found yet. It is currently occupied by Alan Shaw, who has been acting
in the role since Mr Puka’s was first suspended.
Jovilisi Suveinakama has withdrawn from his appointment as the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Local Government.
The Public Service Commission had appointed Suveinakama as one of the newly five Permanent Secretaries last week. Chairman Vishnu Mohan says the Commission will make a further announcement in due course.
Suveinakama spent two years as a Solicitor in Fiji having been admitted to the High Court and later the Supreme Court of Samoa. He was an Advisor and the General Manager and Coordinator of Tokelau’s National Public Service. He completed his work in Tokelau in 2017 and returned to Fiji – where he has been working with and advising his indigenous land-owning unit in the Suva area on their strategic plan and its implementation.
The Public Service Commission had appointed Suveinakama as one of the newly five Permanent Secretaries last week. Chairman Vishnu Mohan says the Commission will make a further announcement in due course.
Suveinakama spent two years as a Solicitor in Fiji having been admitted to the High Court and later the Supreme Court of Samoa. He was an Advisor and the General Manager and Coordinator of Tokelau’s National Public Service. He completed his work in Tokelau in 2017 and returned to Fiji – where he has been working with and advising his indigenous land-owning unit in the Suva area on their strategic plan and its implementation.
*The President Ratu Wiliame Katonivere officiated the commissioning of the newly appointed Fiji’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Jovilisi Vulailai Suveinakama at the State House today, 14 March.
Present at the commissioning ceremony was the Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary, Lesikimacuata Korovavala.
*Prior to this new appointment, Suveinakama was a Consultant Lawyer at Toganivalu Legal, Fiji where he provided commercial advice to clients locally and abroad. He has been admitted to practice law in New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa and Tokelau.
*But we have to admit that the FFP has done the right thing by being firm with the GREEDY 17. Just shocking is their party constitution with no dispute resolution clause. However, it could be amended to deal with the FFP Greedy 17.
*As for the Speaker, since he will be the biggest beneficiary from the pay scandal, we should not expect much from him. A convicted criminal (only served 11 days out of eight months prison sentence for assisting Speight's coup objectives} who failed to make it to Parliament via the front door with Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka and PAP, he has been plonked in the Speaker's chair through the back door.
*Fiji has been rotting to the bone since the 1987 COUPS, and Mick Beddoes' FIRST NATION PEOPLES (means i-Taukei, despite the late Laisenia Qarase revealing that he (Qarase) was of Jewish ancestry, and one of Qarase's deputy at the FDB happened to our Editor's first cousin: I-Taukei and Indo-Fijian mix heritage but who decided to register in the Vola in Kawa) are fast turning Fiji into Dada Idi Amin's Uganda, starting with the Judiciary.
*One of the most high-profile racist from Rabuka's 1987 coups, ISIKELI MATAITOGA, is now sitting as Fiji Court of Appeal judge, and many who fled after the 2006 Bainimarama coup, are back on the Fiji judiciary.
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/screenshot-3-6-2024-74138-www-facebook-com_orig.jpeg)
Statement from the President of FijiFirst, Ratu Joji Satakala
To all FijiFirst supporters and all Fijian citizens, please be informed that on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 May 2024, FijiFirst delivered its notification, under section 63 of the Fijian Constitution, to the Honourable Speaker of the Fijian Parliament, copied to the Electoral Commission, that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
We also on the same afternoon, sent letters to the 17 individuals informing them of the notification that was sent to the Honourable Speaker. A copy of the notification to the Honourable Speaker was also sent to them.
The notifications are included in this statement.
While we have not heard from the Honourable Speaker as to when the 17 replacement members of FijiFirst will be sworn in, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. We will address the matters raised by the Supervisor of Elections on another occasion.
Since the evening of 30 May 2024, a number of statements have been made by certain individuals from this group of 17 and a handful of their misled supporters. Most of these statements have been personalised and individual attacks have been made, as well as attacks against the Party itself and its mechanisms. Yet, ironically at the same time, they want to continue to be FijiFirst Parliamentarians.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺, 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗣𝗹𝘂𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗵𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼.
We have seen Prime Minister Rabuka, his party members and the SODELPA leadership justify the pay rise, that is however their thinking, their prerogative. 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
Under the FijiFirst Constitution, we have to have 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲, we have 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀. Our mission is to 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 and aim for a Fiji in which 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 and in all of this 𝗮 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
Who we are and what we stand for, our core values and our attributes define us as a political movement and political party. To deviate from these principles and values would spell the end of our political movement. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟴 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟱% 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 $𝟮𝟳𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬.𝟬𝟬 𝗮 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝟱% 𝗰𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
The increase in company tax and various duties have had a huge impact on business confidence, turnover and investment. Law and order have been deteriorating rapidly including the inability to curb the usage of drugs and its impact on our society. Coupled with this current Government’s inability to make decisive and coherent decisions and to maintain policy stability and consistency at a practical level, these have all led to a slowing down in investor confidence and uptake of investment and even flight of capital. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. FijiFirst had said to the current Government last year that there was an exodus of Fijians leaving Fiji, and that this problem and its impact on the economy needed to be urgently addressed. Instead, the Government buried its head in the sand, only to come up for air some weeks ago and acknowledge that is a massive exodus problem. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Some weeks ago, the current Government introduced the idea of a possible 5% dividend tax. Again, another blow to investor confidence and uptake. Companies are already paying an increased 5 % corporate tax. Another reason why certain businesses are clamping down and 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝗽 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱. 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗣𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿.
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟭𝟬𝟬%, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀? 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆. 𝗪𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲? 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲? 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗦𝗼, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁, 𝟭𝟳 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗡𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀, 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀.
𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆, 𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿.
𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
Ratu Joji Satakala
President
FijiFirst
To all FijiFirst supporters and all Fijian citizens, please be informed that on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 May 2024, FijiFirst delivered its notification, under section 63 of the Fijian Constitution, to the Honourable Speaker of the Fijian Parliament, copied to the Electoral Commission, that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
We also on the same afternoon, sent letters to the 17 individuals informing them of the notification that was sent to the Honourable Speaker. A copy of the notification to the Honourable Speaker was also sent to them.
The notifications are included in this statement.
While we have not heard from the Honourable Speaker as to when the 17 replacement members of FijiFirst will be sworn in, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. We will address the matters raised by the Supervisor of Elections on another occasion.
Since the evening of 30 May 2024, a number of statements have been made by certain individuals from this group of 17 and a handful of their misled supporters. Most of these statements have been personalised and individual attacks have been made, as well as attacks against the Party itself and its mechanisms. Yet, ironically at the same time, they want to continue to be FijiFirst Parliamentarians.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺, 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗣𝗹𝘂𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗵𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼.
We have seen Prime Minister Rabuka, his party members and the SODELPA leadership justify the pay rise, that is however their thinking, their prerogative. 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
Under the FijiFirst Constitution, we have to have 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲, we have 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀. Our mission is to 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 and aim for a Fiji in which 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 and in all of this 𝗮 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
Who we are and what we stand for, our core values and our attributes define us as a political movement and political party. To deviate from these principles and values would spell the end of our political movement. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟴 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟱% 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 $𝟮𝟳𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬.𝟬𝟬 𝗮 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝟱% 𝗰𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
The increase in company tax and various duties have had a huge impact on business confidence, turnover and investment. Law and order have been deteriorating rapidly including the inability to curb the usage of drugs and its impact on our society. Coupled with this current Government’s inability to make decisive and coherent decisions and to maintain policy stability and consistency at a practical level, these have all led to a slowing down in investor confidence and uptake of investment and even flight of capital. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. FijiFirst had said to the current Government last year that there was an exodus of Fijians leaving Fiji, and that this problem and its impact on the economy needed to be urgently addressed. Instead, the Government buried its head in the sand, only to come up for air some weeks ago and acknowledge that is a massive exodus problem. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Some weeks ago, the current Government introduced the idea of a possible 5% dividend tax. Again, another blow to investor confidence and uptake. Companies are already paying an increased 5 % corporate tax. Another reason why certain businesses are clamping down and 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝗽 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱. 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗣𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿.
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟭𝟬𝟬%, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀? 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆. 𝗪𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲? 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲? 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗦𝗼, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁, 𝟭𝟳 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗡𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀, 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀.
𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆, 𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿.
𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
Ratu Joji Satakala
President
FijiFirst
DOWN THE BEATEN ROAD: In 2006, Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief was instrumental in persuading Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition! From Fiji Sun archive:
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/victor-mug-shot-new-face-4_orig.jpg)
MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
Mick Beddoes to Victor Lal in 2006: "Just got app[oin]ted"
*Sources in the Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed to Fijileaks that the Ministry objected to the failed SODELPA 2022 general election candidate to take a woman, which they claim is NOT his WIFE or was his co-habiting PARTNER, to London when he was appointed Fiji's new high commissioner to the UK.
*The sources claim that SODELPA, and allegedly Ro Teimumu Kepa, lobbied for Jovilisi Suveinakama to take his 'girlfriend' with him to London, where she has been very prominent in social events.
*The Fiji Foreign Ministry moles claim SODELPA threatened to break away from the Coalition deal if Suveinakama's 'girlfriend' was not provided with a Diplomatic Passport and he was refused 'marital allowance' for her upkeep in London.
*Equally, the same sources claim that Fiji's ambassador to the United States is allegedly not entitled to take 'his children' with him, for he has not legally adopted them, and they are not entitled to diplomatic passports.
*The sources allege that established Fiji Foreign Ministry protocols prevent 'lovers and girlfriends' to accompany Fiji diplomats as 'spouses'.
*The same sources claim that Sitiveni Rabuka overruled them and directed that Suveinakama's 'girlfriend' accompany him to London.
*We wrote to Suveinakama last week but he is not responding.
Bula High Commissioner
"I would be highly grateful if you could comment on allegations that you are not entitled to a marital allowance or that your partner is entitled to a diplomatic passport because you are still married to your wife and are not legally separated for your partner to be living with you in London.
Sources inside the Fiji Foreign Ministry have claimed to us that Sodelpa threatened to break up the Coalition government if your partner was refused permission to accompany you to London as your live-in partner despite you still being legally married to your previous wife.
We look forward to hearing from you."
Loloma mada yani
Victor Lal
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Fijileaks
HALLELUJAH, ITS RAINING MONEY MAN FROM THE CANADIAN CHAP
"The primary responsibility must clearly rest with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka who appointed the Special Emoluments Committee drawn from Parliament itself with NFP strangely not a member. Secondary responsibility must rest with the members of this Special Committee comprising Chairperson Linda [Lynda} Tabuya, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Aseri Radrodro, Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu, all of whom have tarnished their reputations. Thirdly, this debacle has been unprofessionally facilitated by a supposedly “independent” UNDP consultant (Ken Deveaux). But his Report was firstly not independent of the Tabuya Committee and secondly, his tables of statistics and analysis were professionally “shoddy”. This is a bad reflection on UNDP, his employer, who should have been concerned that good governance practices were undermined by their consultant’s Report, paid for using UNDP funds."
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/screenshot-1-6-2024-9444-www-bing-com_orig.jpeg)
All of Fiji, including responsible senior social leaders, have been up in arms over the fast-tracked decision of the Fiji Parliament on the 24th May 2024, in a specially extended sitting, to exorbitantly increase the emoluments of Ministers, Opposition Leader, MPs, the President and Speaker. Cunningly quiet has been the Employers’ Federation.
The critics include The Fiji Council of Social Servies Executive Director (Vani Catanisiga), Dialogue Fiji (Nilesh Lal), the NGO Coalition on Human Rights, the FPSA General Secretary (Judith Kotobalavu), Unity Fiji leader and former Governor of the Reserve Bank (Savenaca Narube), FLP Leader (Mahendra Chaudhry), WCC head Shamima Ali and Jioji Kotobalavu (former senior civil servant). Dozens of very sensible Letters to the Editor in Fiji Times also continue to attack the Parliamentary decision.
This entire debacle reflects very badly on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for approving the appointment of the Tabuya Committee in the first place, his brazen defence of the Report recommendations, the fast-tracking of the Parliamentary approval, then his ill-considered public threat to discipline his Coalition partner, the National Federation Party whose principled position has been internationally reported and respected throughout Fiji.
Rabuka has now back-tracked considerably (FT 30/5/2024 “PM to listen to the people: Have your say”) but he is still deliberately fuzzy about how his Government will save its reputation. The public cannot forget his quiet opportunistic use of Bainimarama’s exorbitant per diems ($3,000 plus per day) with overseas jaunts for a whole year after becoming Prime Minister in 2022.
Then just yesterday (31/5/2024) came the bombshell that the increase has already been gazetted and PM Rabuka is now saying that the changes will have to be implemented from 1 August 2024 but that he wont accept any rise personally.
Hullo? This is not about you, Prime Minister. This is about the proper process and everyone’s remunerations in Parliament. AND there are two months remaining till 1 August 2024.
This article focuses briefly on the process of decision-making by the Tabuya Committee but more the shoddy analysis and Report by the UNDP consultant (Deveaux) who connived to facilitate the Tabuya Committee Report.
Nine years ago I had written a prophetic article (Fiji Times, 7 Feb, 2015) “The People’s Parliament: Letters to the Editor” and published also in Pacific Scoop (AUT):
https://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2015/02/fiji-democracy-letters-to-the-editor-and-battling-censorship/
Today, it is abundantly clear that in this major test for the Rabuka Government, it is Fiji Times that is holding it to account, not the Fiji Parliament and certainly not the Opposition FFP which disgracefully collaborated with Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party and Gavoka’s SODELPA for their own mutual selfish interests.
But first, readers should watch this video clip of a former Prime Minister, the late Mr Laisenia Qarase very humbly answering questions about his own salary as Prime Minister (a mere $106 thousand), just before he was treasonously deposed by Voreqe Bainimarama in 2006, supported by other senior RFMF officers, some in the Fiji Parliament today as FFP MPs.
https://www.facebook.com/FijianChiefs/videos/what-was-your-salary-mr-qarase-when-you-were-the-pm-and-what-is-the-salary-of-th/1773903689563594/
Public Popular Uproar and Parliamentary fast tracking
First, why was the parliamentary decision fast-tracked and voting done through an extended Friday afternoon session?
Remember FTUC General Secretary (Felix Anthony) came out with “tongue in cheek” support demanding that the outrageous increases must be extended to all the workers of Fiji who were fighting for a decent Minimum Wage and Wages Councils Orders?
Given that Government is currently considering (and taking its time) the setting of Minimum Wages and the Wages Councils Orders, the threat of escalation of general wage and salary demands must mean fuelling a wage-price spiral which would hurt those in the informal sector and the poorest the most.
But as important, any comparable increases to the public service salaries, must also scupper any attempt by the Minister of Finance to control public expenditure which is the only hope for reducing Fiji’s massive Public Debt curse left by the Bainimarama Government (see Graph 4 below).
It is no wonder that the Minister of Finance said on Friday morning “it is still a Report and if we need to shelve it, we can”.
But lo and behold, that very afternoon the Chairperson of the Emoluments Committee (Linda Tabuya) called for a special extension of the parliamentary sitting and zipped the Bill through with most FFP MPs also supporting Government, a unique moment of co-operation- in their own selfish interests.
Responsibility for this debacle?
There have been no positive comments on this debacle, other than by the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and the Leader of the Opposition (Inia Seruiratu), both of whom stand to gain massively in comparison to the salaries and remuneration what prevailed under the Government of the late Laisenia Qarase (before the Bainimarama/Khaiyum Government escalated their own benefits. See my graphs 1, 2 and 3 below).
The primary responsibility must clearly rest with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka who appointed the Special Emoluments Committee drawn from Parliament itself with NFP strangely not a member.
Secondary responsibility must rest with the members of this Special Committee comprising Chairperson Linda Tabuya, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Aseri Radrodro, Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu, all of whom have tarnished their reputations.
Thirdly, this debacle has been unprofessionally facilitated by a supposedly “independent” UNDP consultant (Ken Deveaux). But his Report was firstly not independent of the Tabuya Committee and secondly, his tables of statistics and analysis were professionally “shoddy”.
This is a bad reflection on UNDP, his employer, who should have been concerned that good governance practices were undermined by their consultant’s Report, paid for using UNDP funds.
First go back to the 2014 precedent, facilitated by the same consultant.
The disgraceful 2014 precedent
In 2014, the Fiji Parliamentary Remunerations Decree 2014 (No. 29) set out the fine principles supposed to be followed (also quoted by Deveaux in his Report):
* be transparent in the use of public money, with no hidden perks (OK);
* be competitive with both the private and public sectors so as to attract persons of the right calibre to lead the country (HA HA HA);
* be fair to the person or incumbent for the work they do (HA HA HA);
* be fair to taxpayers and take account of prevailing economic conditions (HA HA HA);
* reflect the ethos of political service which entails making sacrifices (HA HA HA);
* maintain the confidence in and integrity of Parliament (HA HA HA);
* and set the remuneration at a rate lower if necessary (HA HA HA).
BUT were these principles put in practice by either the Bainimarama Government in 2014 or the Rabuka Government in 2024? HA HA HA.
For a start, contrary to good governance practice, this Decree astonishing stated (paragraph 3) that Parliament itself, would set the remuneration for members of parliament. The 2014 Decree published a Schedule of salaries and was "signed into law" by the illegally appointed President of Fiji then, former RFMF Commander Ratu Epeli Nailatikau.
What happened in 2014 has happened again in 2024 under PM Rabuka, except that a supposedly “independent” foreign consultant (Deveaux) was used to do the dirty work (no doubt for a fat consultancy fee).
Can you imagine what Fiji (and the Fiji Employers Association) would say if FPSA and FTUC were to announce that from hence forth their wages and salaries would be set by a committee appointed by themselves? It is no wonder the Employers Federation is deathly quiet.
Deveaux very selectively chose “comparator” countries out of thin air with no rhyme or reason, including NZ and Australia- both developed high income countries, whose higher incomes he did not adjust for at all.
Deveaux also very strategically chose not to ask: what process do NZ and Australia follow in setting the remuneration of their MPs? I just give NZ’s excellent example (which any decent Fiji Parliament should follow).
Process followed by NZ?
NZ has a permanent Remuneration Authority (NZRA) which regularly determines the salaries and allowances of all Members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and Speaker. Fiji Times readers can visit this website:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0327/latest/LMS438252.html
The three members of the NZRA are highly competent in their own rights, at or above the levels of the persons whose salaries they are setting. Three years ago, the Chair (Hon Dame Fran Wilde) was a former Minister in the NZ Government, former Mayor of Wellington, CEO of the NZ Trade Development Board, and experienced company director in both the private and public sectors.
The second member was the owner, director and Principal Consultant for a company that specialised in advising private and public sector companies in setting salaries and remuneration for their top executives.
The third member had been the National Statistician of UK and NZ itself, and a past President of NZ's Institute of Public Administration.
In contrast, the public can ask: what exactly are the credentials of the Fiji’s Tabuya Committee?
Credentials of the Tabuya Committee?
Why did the Rabuka Government not select a professional external committee from the private sector (perhaps corporate leaders), accounting and auditing firms, public enterprises, important NGOs, and past senior civil servants?
If you are going to unwisely draw from your MPs, why would you ignore the Minister of Minister of Finance, Planning and Statistics responsible for the Fiji budget that pays the remuneration of parliament, and who is moreover a Professor of Economics?
But then, NFP had opposed this Committee from the beginning and its submission was conveniently ignored by the Tabuya Committee, PM Rabuka, Opposition Leader (Inia Seruiratu) and the consultant Deveaux.
Chair Linda (Lynda) Tabuya’s suitability for her role can be seen in her disingenuous arguments since the Report was released. She first argued that her Ministry’s Budget was bigger than that of the Minister of Finance and so her salary should be the same as his.
How can Tabuya not understand that the Minister of Finance is responsible not only for setting the budgets for all the Ministries (including hers) but also setting the economic environment for the entire country? How can Tabuya not understand that there are other much larger Ministries (like Education and Health) whose Minister should be paid more because the workload is more.
Linda (Lynda) Tabuya also complained that her own salary was lower than that of her Permanent Secretary. But as has been pointed out by the public, this is the case in most developed countries, simply because of the rigorous criteria that have to be satisfied before a person was appointed to the highest civil service position in a ministry. I suspect that some Ministers can be sent home on full pay for the full term of parliament, and their Ministries would continue operating quite efficiently under the Permanent Secretaries; or do even better in some without the interfering perpetually grandstanding Ministers in salusalus (you fill in the names).
The flawed Committee-Consultant Process
While even the 2014 Legislation states that the Tabuya Committee could have obtained independent advice, it chose not to, but it allegedly “requested the assistance of an independent consultant to conduct an analysis of the current remuneration for all of the offices noted above and to report to the Committee with specific findings and recommendations”.
The consultant (Deveaux) just ever so conveniently happened to be one who had already been used by the Bainimarama Government to escalate their salaries. HA HA HA.
It is clear from Deveaux’s Report that it was NOT at arms length. Deveaux himself states that he prepared a Preliminary Report and: “Once the consultant received feedback from the Committee on the preliminary findings provided, the consultant conducted an analysis of the data and evidence collected and produced a draft of the report with recommendations. The draft report was presented to the Committee at the start of November. Based on the feedback provided by the Committee (YIPPEE?), the consultant finalised this report.”
It is abundantly clear that the Tabuya Committee had a continuous strong input into the Draft Report AND the Final Report.
Deveaux’s flawed selection of countries
Deveaux reports he chose the following jurisdictions for the comparative analysis of salaries and remuneration: New South Wales State, South Australia State, Victoria State, New Zealand Papua New Guinea and Trinidad & Tobago.
He argued “All of these jurisdiction have a similar parliamentary system as, with Fiji, they are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and their systems have evolved from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. For the first five noted above, they are jurisdictions in the Pacific region. Papua New Guinea is a developing country. For Trinidad & Tobago, there are remarkable similarities to Fiji, with regard to demographics, culture, population, historic colonial impact, and development status (middle income).”
But why would you select the developed countries or states from the Pacific with massively different GDP per capita and different fiscal situations compared to Fiji? Why choose to list developing countries for which you did not even have data?
Deveaux compares the parliamentary salaries with that of “Average Incomes” of some countries (not all) for which he gives no authoritative sources. His estimate for Fiji ($22,097) is way above my estimate for Fiji from FBS data ($14,562).
He claims that he had no data for Papua New Guinea or Trinidad and Tobago, so compared their parliamentary salaries with that of “Teachers". How utterly ridiculous.
Then when he has some salaries in the table for Fiji and the developed countries, he makes no further analysis allowing for their different average incomes, just implying that the Fiji emoluments should be higher, towards that of NZ or Australia.
Then in another Table where he lists all the salaries of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Speakers, and MPs, again, he draws no comparison with the Average Incomes.
Finally, the consultant boldly claims “However, it is possible to see from Victoria State, New South Wales State, and New Zealand, where full data sets were available, the ability to compare to Fiji office holders.” WOW.
How pathetic is it that this UNDP Consultant compares Fiji parliamentary emoluments with those of developed countries like Australia and NZ, simply because there was data available for the developed countries but not the developing countries (which he previously selected out of the blue then ignored thereafter). Even a USP junior economist would not make these methodological mistakes which the Tabuya Committee clearly had no inkling of.
My crude analysis: comparing NZ with Fiji
Any economist worth his/her salt would know that to compare parliamentary salaries of NZ and Fiji, one must take into account the capacity of those countries’ taxpayers to pay those salaries. Good economists would usually public sector salaries compare with GDP per capita (as even Rick Rickman, an elderly FNPF pensioner pointed out on social media).
Graph 1 compares the salaries of the Prime Minister in NZ, with that of the late Qarase, then of PM Bainimarama which PM Rabuka is also on. The GDP per capita data in Constant Local Dollars (not perfect but will do roughly) is derived from World Bank’s development database.
* The NZ Prime Minister had 8 times the NZ GDP per capita.
* Prime Minister Qarase had 12 times the Fiji GDP per capita.
* But Bainimarama increased his PM salary to 30 times that of Fiji’s GDP per capita. Under the Tabuya Committee recommendation will be ever so slightly reduced to 29 times the GDP per capita still massively higher than the Qarase relativity.
Graph 2 shows the ratio of the salary of the Leader of Opposition and Ministers to the GDP per capita. For NZ is was 5 times, increased in the Qarase years to 9 times, increased again to 11 in the Bainimarama period. But the Tabuya Committee has increased it massively to 18 times. No wonder we saw unanimity in the Tabuya Committee between the PAP, the SODELPA and Fiji First MPs, and also Inia Seruiratu’s unprincipled support of the Tabuya Committee Report and the parliamentary fast tracking decision. Graph 3 shows that ordinary MP’s salaries in NZ was 2.7 times GDP per capita, 3.5 under Qarase, rose to 4.6 under Bainimarama, but is now recommended to 8.7 times GDP by the Tabuya Committee. It is no wonder that many Government and Opposition MPs joyfully combined to vote YES for the increase. I have done similar analysis as Deveaux did, comparing the parliamentary salaries with “Average Incomes” which in the case of Fiji is the average for “Wages and Salaries” as accurately estimated by the FBS Employment and Unemployment Surveys (adjusted to 2023 by the Consumer Prices Index). The patterns in the graphs are almost exactly the same as above by comparing with GDP per capita. Consultant’s Shoddy Analysis of Post Requirements Deveaux states that in addition to skills in public consultations, media relations, general management skills, leadership skills, and be sources of funding, that the Fiji MPs needed to be proficient in * Legal Analysis – the need to analyse legislation and bills, including the identification of potential amendments to both and to extrapolate the impact of such changes to legislation. * Policy Analysis – to analyse public policy, which may or may not flow from legislative mandates. * Budget Analysis – to be capable in reading budgets and public accounts. |
The Fiji public can also ask themselves by reading Hansard or the daily newspapers of the TV and radio transcripts, how many times and how many of Fiji MPs have ever displayed their superior skills in “legal analysis” or “policy analysis” or budget analysis” other then when reading prepared speeches? I suggest that there is more sensible analysis done by the many writers of Letters to the Editor of Fiji Times.
Deveau astonishingly claimed that that the closest set of skills in the private sector to that required of MPs in the Fiji Parliament was that of a barrister or solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000 a year.
WOW. How many of Fiji’s MPs have ever been employed at these salary levels, with the exception of a few like Professor Biman Prasad.
Employment Prospects of Military Prime Ministers?
There is little doubt about the market value of the former Prime Minister the late Lasenia Qarase, who left a high paying job as Head of the Fiji Development Bank to become Prime Minister. He is probably the most honest and hard-working PM Fiji has ever had (except that the late Dr Bavadra and Mr Mahendra Chaudhry were never allowed to complete their term).
But before setting the remuneration of Prime Ministers, Fiji should ask itself: what is the “market value” to Fiji taxpayers of military prime ministers like Voreqe Bainimarama and Sitiveni Rabuka? Or Leaders of the Opposition Inia Seruiratu or the Speaker of the House Lalabalavu?
Think of the billions of dollars damage done by RMF Commanders and officers to the economy and national income of Fiji, starting with the precedence set by the Rabuka coup in 1987.
What of Rabuka’s NBF disaster which cost Fiji more than $200 million dollars in 1997 prices (in excess of $500 million in today’s prices).
What of the 2000 coup which Bainimarama refused to stop even though he was told about the planning six months before, and the actual CRW coup a week before (but conveniently left the country)?
What of former Commander Epeli Nailatikau as President signing Bainimarama's decrees before the 2014 Elections including that robbing FNPF pensioners and stopping the case from being heard in court?
Remember when Bainimarama did the coup in 2006, he promised that no military officer would benefit from the coup and that no military officer would ever stand for elections? Really?
We can even ask: what jobs can these former military officers get in the private sector and at what salaries, were they not to be in Parliament?
Consultant’s Shoddy Reasoning about Current Economic Circumstances
Deveaux claimed “The current economic circumstances in Fiji are significantly improving since the catastrophic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, it can now be said that Fiji has recovered from the pandemic-induced recession of 2020-21 and with a 20.0% increase in GDP in 2022. In 2023 it is forecasted to grow by another 8.3% and in 2024 another 3.7%”.
He completely missed the point that the large increase in 2022 was precisely because the growth was from the low base in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID. Deveaux even notes that the growth rate was predicted to go down to 8.3% in 2023 and 3.7% for 2024.
The consultant then lists the rates of inflation for the last three years (4.3%, 3.0% and 3.0%) and then leaps to the grand conclusion “Therefore, it is concluded, for purposes of this report, that the economic conditions in Fiji in 2024 do not warrant a limitation on the salaries and allowances of the office holders”.
What pathetic reasoning.
* What about the massive Public Debt that the current Fiji Minister of Finance is struggling to bring down: from 89% in 2022 to 80% in mid-2023 and unlike to reduce in 2024 or 2025? (look at Graph 4); or read here: https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2022/11/19/voters-the-ffps-public-debt-and-the-poisoned-chalice-for-the-next-minister-of-finance-ft-19-11-2022/
* What about the massive rates of poverty, especially among the indigenous Fijians?
* What about the crumbling public infrastructure in water, sewage, roads?
* What about the crumbling health services and public hospitals and health centres?
It is utterly disgraceful that the UNDP, a UN organization focused on good governance and a wide range of development indicators (by which Fiji is failing and even regressing), should be associated with a mediocre consultancy Report like that of Deveaux, which undermines Fiji’s parliamentary good governance at the core.
Consultant’s Saving Grace: what he should have done
The Consultant’s reputation is saved only slightly in that he recommends at the end of his Report that the Parliamentary Remuneration Act (2014) should be amended to require an Independent Review of Office Holders’ Salaries and Allowances to ensure that elected officials have no influence over the determination of their salaries and allowances. He points out that it can be done easily done by amending the Higher Salaries Commission Act or appointing an ad hoc Commission.
So WHY, WHY, WHY did he still go ahead and make his own recommendations, with his shoddy analysis, with an equally shoddy input from the Tabuya Committee itself?
Even if the recommendations are going to be implemented only between 1 August and 31 December 2024, why would Deveaux make his salary and allowance determinations, given that it must set some kind of precedence?
Was this in fact the “Game Plan” of some smart cookie in the Tabuya Committee, having seen the Submission by the National Federation Party. It is no wonder that the Tabuya Report was rushed through Parliament in a special sitting on the Friday afternoon.
NFP Submission
It is to the credit of the National Federation Party that they gave a principled submission which was clearly ignored by the Tubuya Committee and by the Consultant Deveaux. NFP stated clearly
“The Committee must not make any determination whatsoever. It cannot also make recommendations. Otherwise it will be seen as another body which compromised the independence of this crucial process…. Elected legislators must treat any review of salaries and allowances at arms length, because of the self-serving inferences that may be drawn.”.
NFP recommended that subject to independent analysis by experts that there be (a) reduction in salaries by 30% of the Prime Minister and Ministers and (b) reduction in overseas travel allowances for the PM, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament (c) reductions to loadings for per diems based on UN DSAs
These were all ignored by the Emoluments Committee although Deveaux supported the reduction of per diems correctly noted as incentivising overseas travel.
Fiji not out of the woods yet
It is clear that PM Rabuka is now thoroughly rattled but he is still fuzzy.
He first stated (FT 30/5/2024) that the a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 will be prepared by the Solicitor General’s Office, and be available for public consultations and independent review before it is considered by Cabinet and Parliament. Rabuka stated that factors to be considered before the Bill is presented to Parliament will be availability of funds and options to minimize impact on the national budget. An annoyed public must of course ask, “why did you not do this in the first place?”
But yesterday it came out that the salary changes have been already gazetted and Rabuka now claims they have to be now followed.
Hullo? There are two months before the gazette comes into effect and as Mahendra Chaudary demands (FT 31/5/2024), Parliament should suspend that gazette.
PM Rabuka can still save his reputation by calling for a special Bill from the Solicitor General’s Office that suspends the previous decision AND establishes a genuinely independent “Parliamentary Salaries Remuneration Authority” (like NZ’s) based on specific nominations by social leaders (unions, NGO Coalition on Human Rights, Employers’ Federation), which will make its specific determinations taking into account all the principles discussed earlier?
This parliamentary remunerations exercise will not require any input by the Rabuka Government or Opposition or Parliament or any foreign consultant or party hacks. It can also be implemented from 1 January 2025.
Most importantly, if the remunerations are recommended to go back to the relativities of the Qarase years (as I think they should given my analysis above in Graphs 1, 2 and 3 above), the total overall cost to the taxpayers and the Government Budget will be LESS than currently, and the next Budget will have some savings0 to devote to poverty alleviation with most going to the iTaukei poor.
BUT the sixty four thousand dollar question: will the Rabuka Government “fast-track” this Bill the way they did the Tabuya Committee recommendations? HA HA HA.
Post-script (1 June 2024): My apologies.
Before the 2022 Elections I went to considerable lengths through Fiji Times articles and appearances on the influential Sashi Singh’s Talking Points, to support the election of the Rabuka/Prasad Coalition Government, who scraped in by just one vote in Parliament. Since then, although the primary objective of seeing the last of the Bainimarama Government was achieved, like many members of the public I have been steadily disappointed by the Rabuka Government’s poor performance. Source: The Fiji Times
Deveau astonishingly claimed that that the closest set of skills in the private sector to that required of MPs in the Fiji Parliament was that of a barrister or solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000 a year.
WOW. How many of Fiji’s MPs have ever been employed at these salary levels, with the exception of a few like Professor Biman Prasad.
Employment Prospects of Military Prime Ministers?
There is little doubt about the market value of the former Prime Minister the late Lasenia Qarase, who left a high paying job as Head of the Fiji Development Bank to become Prime Minister. He is probably the most honest and hard-working PM Fiji has ever had (except that the late Dr Bavadra and Mr Mahendra Chaudhry were never allowed to complete their term).
But before setting the remuneration of Prime Ministers, Fiji should ask itself: what is the “market value” to Fiji taxpayers of military prime ministers like Voreqe Bainimarama and Sitiveni Rabuka? Or Leaders of the Opposition Inia Seruiratu or the Speaker of the House Lalabalavu?
Think of the billions of dollars damage done by RMF Commanders and officers to the economy and national income of Fiji, starting with the precedence set by the Rabuka coup in 1987.
What of Rabuka’s NBF disaster which cost Fiji more than $200 million dollars in 1997 prices (in excess of $500 million in today’s prices).
What of the 2000 coup which Bainimarama refused to stop even though he was told about the planning six months before, and the actual CRW coup a week before (but conveniently left the country)?
What of former Commander Epeli Nailatikau as President signing Bainimarama's decrees before the 2014 Elections including that robbing FNPF pensioners and stopping the case from being heard in court?
Remember when Bainimarama did the coup in 2006, he promised that no military officer would benefit from the coup and that no military officer would ever stand for elections? Really?
We can even ask: what jobs can these former military officers get in the private sector and at what salaries, were they not to be in Parliament?
Consultant’s Shoddy Reasoning about Current Economic Circumstances
Deveaux claimed “The current economic circumstances in Fiji are significantly improving since the catastrophic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, it can now be said that Fiji has recovered from the pandemic-induced recession of 2020-21 and with a 20.0% increase in GDP in 2022. In 2023 it is forecasted to grow by another 8.3% and in 2024 another 3.7%”.
He completely missed the point that the large increase in 2022 was precisely because the growth was from the low base in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID. Deveaux even notes that the growth rate was predicted to go down to 8.3% in 2023 and 3.7% for 2024.
The consultant then lists the rates of inflation for the last three years (4.3%, 3.0% and 3.0%) and then leaps to the grand conclusion “Therefore, it is concluded, for purposes of this report, that the economic conditions in Fiji in 2024 do not warrant a limitation on the salaries and allowances of the office holders”.
What pathetic reasoning.
* What about the massive Public Debt that the current Fiji Minister of Finance is struggling to bring down: from 89% in 2022 to 80% in mid-2023 and unlike to reduce in 2024 or 2025? (look at Graph 4); or read here: https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2022/11/19/voters-the-ffps-public-debt-and-the-poisoned-chalice-for-the-next-minister-of-finance-ft-19-11-2022/
* What about the massive rates of poverty, especially among the indigenous Fijians?
* What about the crumbling public infrastructure in water, sewage, roads?
* What about the crumbling health services and public hospitals and health centres?
It is utterly disgraceful that the UNDP, a UN organization focused on good governance and a wide range of development indicators (by which Fiji is failing and even regressing), should be associated with a mediocre consultancy Report like that of Deveaux, which undermines Fiji’s parliamentary good governance at the core.
Consultant’s Saving Grace: what he should have done
The Consultant’s reputation is saved only slightly in that he recommends at the end of his Report that the Parliamentary Remuneration Act (2014) should be amended to require an Independent Review of Office Holders’ Salaries and Allowances to ensure that elected officials have no influence over the determination of their salaries and allowances. He points out that it can be done easily done by amending the Higher Salaries Commission Act or appointing an ad hoc Commission.
So WHY, WHY, WHY did he still go ahead and make his own recommendations, with his shoddy analysis, with an equally shoddy input from the Tabuya Committee itself?
Even if the recommendations are going to be implemented only between 1 August and 31 December 2024, why would Deveaux make his salary and allowance determinations, given that it must set some kind of precedence?
Was this in fact the “Game Plan” of some smart cookie in the Tabuya Committee, having seen the Submission by the National Federation Party. It is no wonder that the Tabuya Report was rushed through Parliament in a special sitting on the Friday afternoon.
NFP Submission
It is to the credit of the National Federation Party that they gave a principled submission which was clearly ignored by the Tubuya Committee and by the Consultant Deveaux. NFP stated clearly
“The Committee must not make any determination whatsoever. It cannot also make recommendations. Otherwise it will be seen as another body which compromised the independence of this crucial process…. Elected legislators must treat any review of salaries and allowances at arms length, because of the self-serving inferences that may be drawn.”.
NFP recommended that subject to independent analysis by experts that there be (a) reduction in salaries by 30% of the Prime Minister and Ministers and (b) reduction in overseas travel allowances for the PM, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament (c) reductions to loadings for per diems based on UN DSAs
These were all ignored by the Emoluments Committee although Deveaux supported the reduction of per diems correctly noted as incentivising overseas travel.
Fiji not out of the woods yet
It is clear that PM Rabuka is now thoroughly rattled but he is still fuzzy.
He first stated (FT 30/5/2024) that the a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 will be prepared by the Solicitor General’s Office, and be available for public consultations and independent review before it is considered by Cabinet and Parliament. Rabuka stated that factors to be considered before the Bill is presented to Parliament will be availability of funds and options to minimize impact on the national budget. An annoyed public must of course ask, “why did you not do this in the first place?”
But yesterday it came out that the salary changes have been already gazetted and Rabuka now claims they have to be now followed.
Hullo? There are two months before the gazette comes into effect and as Mahendra Chaudary demands (FT 31/5/2024), Parliament should suspend that gazette.
PM Rabuka can still save his reputation by calling for a special Bill from the Solicitor General’s Office that suspends the previous decision AND establishes a genuinely independent “Parliamentary Salaries Remuneration Authority” (like NZ’s) based on specific nominations by social leaders (unions, NGO Coalition on Human Rights, Employers’ Federation), which will make its specific determinations taking into account all the principles discussed earlier?
This parliamentary remunerations exercise will not require any input by the Rabuka Government or Opposition or Parliament or any foreign consultant or party hacks. It can also be implemented from 1 January 2025.
Most importantly, if the remunerations are recommended to go back to the relativities of the Qarase years (as I think they should given my analysis above in Graphs 1, 2 and 3 above), the total overall cost to the taxpayers and the Government Budget will be LESS than currently, and the next Budget will have some savings0 to devote to poverty alleviation with most going to the iTaukei poor.
BUT the sixty four thousand dollar question: will the Rabuka Government “fast-track” this Bill the way they did the Tabuya Committee recommendations? HA HA HA.
Post-script (1 June 2024): My apologies.
Before the 2022 Elections I went to considerable lengths through Fiji Times articles and appearances on the influential Sashi Singh’s Talking Points, to support the election of the Rabuka/Prasad Coalition Government, who scraped in by just one vote in Parliament. Since then, although the primary objective of seeing the last of the Bainimarama Government was achieved, like many members of the public I have been steadily disappointed by the Rabuka Government’s poor performance. Source: The Fiji Times
Rabuka: "How dare Biman Prasad VOTE against whopping pay rise, house, allowances for the SPEAKER, Tui Cakau, 'my paramount chief'."
Fijileaks: It has emerged from the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee Report that the NFP had 'objected' to the pay rise in its letter dated 11 August 2023. Eleven days later, Pio Tikoduadua, the NFP Whip accompanied Tabuya to the conference in Melbourne where she had brutal sex with Aseri Radrodro in Room 233 on 23 August 2023.
*A year later, when Fijileaks exposed the text messages, Tikoduadua leapt to Tabuya's defence saying the 'text messages were obtained illegally".
*Naturally, for his own leader is facing a legal challenge in the Fiji High Court for sending those lurid text messages to the wife of one of his former provisional election candidate Hiroshi Taniguchi.
*The NFP at no stage objected to Tabuya chairing the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee after her sexual antics in Room 233 were laid bare.
*To be sure, we were not even aware that NFP had written a letter expressing reservations regarding the pay and allowance increases or that it had not nominated any NFP MP to sit on Tabuya's Committee.
Fijileaks: The way Kevin Deveaux decided on salary change is completely different from way the UN does it. They do a market survey, look at comparators and cost of living and set post adjustment allowance rather than full salary scale change.
*The so-called Independent Consultant Kevin Deveaux did not abide by the UN rules for salary advice, raising questions whether he was an Honest Broker or a Charlatan who has inflicted further financial pain and suffering on the people of Fiji?
"In addition, with support from the Parliament’s staff, interviews were arranged with other actors as part of the in-country interviews. However, some interlocutors were not available for an interview or did not reply to repeated requests for an interview. For example, there was no submission or interview with the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of Parliament, the Office of the Prime Minister or the State President or his office"
Independent Consultant Kevin Deveaux
"The committee decided to engage an Independent consultancy firm or individual as it strongly felt it should not be reviewing its own salaries and allowances. The Committee published an advertisement calling for independent consulting firms or individuals to undertake the review and make recommendations to the committee. With no success locally, we reached out to UNDP to assist us to find an independent consulting firm, noting that UNDP would be funding the independent consulting firm, they identified Mr Kevin Deveaux. After conducting the review, the independent consultant reported back to the Emoluments Committee, which endorsed the recommendations. There were some increases, some reductions and some retained.
Lynda Tabua, Chair, Parliamentary Emoluments Committee
Fijileaks: We have decided to abridge his REPORT but you can read the full Report, starting at p.78 at the link we have provided at the bottom.
Fijileaks: NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD and his party, since he became leader in 2014, keep claiming that Prasad sacrificed $100,000 a year pay and perks at USP to serve the country.
*As we promised recently, we will soon put to rest his and the party's LIES, for he and his wife Rajni (USP lecturer) own plots of lands worth over $1million dollars, houses, cars, and cash in Fiji and NZ banks running into thousands of dollars.
*He could afford to vote against the pay rise, the 'Indian Paisawallah'.
Meanwhile, we let Kevin Deveaux speak to us in his 'Independent Report'
*So far, Sitiiveni Rabuka has demonstrated no leadership in the footsteps of the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, and his so-called educated i-Taukei lawyers seem to lack basic grasp of parliamentary laws.
*As former Speaker of Parliament and Lawyer, Ratu Sukuna must be turning in his grave. Rabuka's lawyers are Truly an A**e (Ass) in Fiji.
*Most shocking is the i-Taukeinization of the Fiji Judiciary, stuffed by his 1987 sympathizers and the late Laisenia Qarase's legal cronies.
Fijileaks: The 2013 Constitution of Fiji stipulates that the remuneration of Ministers, MPs, the President, Speaker etc is to be prescribed by a written law. Written law is defined as an Act or Subordinate Legislation.
*In 2014 Parliament passed the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014. It says that the remuneration of those individuals is to be determined by resolution of Parliament that will form part of the schedule to the Act.
*It further states that the determination must express an expiry date but does not expire on the date unless it has been replaced by a new determination. Remuneration was last set by resolution 2016.
*The wording of that resolution made clear that Parliament was adopting the Committee's recommendations as a determination.
*Lynda Tabuya's motion referred to the section of the Act and two superfluous sections. It concluded with the word determination but did not make clear what was happening.
*That was why Sitiveni Rabuka and others in Parliament had made incorrect statements that the resolution was NOT effective until the Act was amended.
*It seems that they went through the motions with no one explaining what the legal requirements were and what was happening.
*We must be reminded that the resolution is effective once passed.
*The Speaker's Gazette notice is only to give the public notice.
*Now, Sitiveni Rabuka is blaming BAD LEGAL ADVICE to him
*Will he SACK the lawyers - the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, especially lawyer Lynda Tabuya, Chair of pay hike and allowance Report?
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/screenshot-31-5-2024-92352-fijionenews-com-fj_orig.jpeg)
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka revealed that he was wrongly advised regarding the approval of the Parliament’s Emolument Committee report, which proposes adjustments to members of Parliament’s salary and benefits.
It comes after the report proposals has been gazetted, and is now binding on the Executive arm of Government to implement.
He says they mis-read the law, and were not properly advised.
Earlier this week, Prime Minister Rabuka told Fiji One News that the increase in pay and allowance for members of Parliament and Cabinet has not yet come into effect.
However, overnight, the Secretary General to Parliament gazetted the ‘determination’ by Parliament, as required by the 2014 Act.
This means, that the decision to approve the report proposals in Parliament makes the proposal lawful and will come into effect from the 1st August to the 31st December 2024.
“And that is the effect; the acceptance of the report by Parliament makes that law. So that is going to be published, and we will have to act in accordance with that. That is an executive decision of the Parliament,” Rabuka said.
The decision has prompted mixed reactions from the public.
When questioned if government is lying to the people, Rabuka says otherwise.
“Its not a lie. We mis-read the law. We were not properly advised”, he said.
The Gazette also includes a determination to amend the allowances and benefits payable under the Parliament remunerations act 2014.
“What has happened has happened. If they want to blame us, they should blame us. We cannot go back”, Rabuka said.
Rabuka says, to accommodate these changes, there will be an adjustment in the coming national budget.
“There will be adjustment in the budget to accommodate that, and there has to be some adjustment to other areas which we feel are of priority as far as the country is moving forward”, he said.
Meanwhile, Rabuka confirmed that he and two other Cabinet members, which he refused to reveal, will not be having a pay increase.
It comes after the report proposals has been gazetted, and is now binding on the Executive arm of Government to implement.
He says they mis-read the law, and were not properly advised.
Earlier this week, Prime Minister Rabuka told Fiji One News that the increase in pay and allowance for members of Parliament and Cabinet has not yet come into effect.
However, overnight, the Secretary General to Parliament gazetted the ‘determination’ by Parliament, as required by the 2014 Act.
This means, that the decision to approve the report proposals in Parliament makes the proposal lawful and will come into effect from the 1st August to the 31st December 2024.
“And that is the effect; the acceptance of the report by Parliament makes that law. So that is going to be published, and we will have to act in accordance with that. That is an executive decision of the Parliament,” Rabuka said.
The decision has prompted mixed reactions from the public.
When questioned if government is lying to the people, Rabuka says otherwise.
“Its not a lie. We mis-read the law. We were not properly advised”, he said.
The Gazette also includes a determination to amend the allowances and benefits payable under the Parliament remunerations act 2014.
“What has happened has happened. If they want to blame us, they should blame us. We cannot go back”, Rabuka said.
Rabuka says, to accommodate these changes, there will be an adjustment in the coming national budget.
“There will be adjustment in the budget to accommodate that, and there has to be some adjustment to other areas which we feel are of priority as far as the country is moving forward”, he said.
Meanwhile, Rabuka confirmed that he and two other Cabinet members, which he refused to reveal, will not be having a pay increase.
"The Hon Prime Minister is correct in stating that the increases have not been implemented yet. There is still the process of changing the laws to give it legal effect, which in the normal process of any proposed law, public consultations and views will be received by the Solicitor General’s office before it is brought to Parliament for debate and passing. That is why the motion gives up to 6 months from 1st August for this process to take place.
The public have the right to know the full story of the Emoluments Committee’s duty to follow parliament processes as well as the accusations being leveled at those that voted for the motion by NFP. I would implore members of the public to obtain a copy of the Emoluments Report which is public record, and note the the reductions as well as things that did not change. You will have the opportunity to be heard when the normal process of proposed laws are undertaken, which includes public consultation."
Hon Lynda Tabuya
Chair Emoluments Committee
Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection
The public have the right to know the full story of the Emoluments Committee’s duty to follow parliament processes as well as the accusations being leveled at those that voted for the motion by NFP. I would implore members of the public to obtain a copy of the Emoluments Report which is public record, and note the the reductions as well as things that did not change. You will have the opportunity to be heard when the normal process of proposed laws are undertaken, which includes public consultation."
Hon Lynda Tabuya
Chair Emoluments Committee
Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection
[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