"I actually have a employee that handles the Facebook site. I will make an edit to the message indicating that this was written by Fijileaks Editor-in-Chief: Like the Sheriff's employee, a rookie acting editor had failed to contact the Sheriff's Office for verification but his inadvertent action resulted in the PLAGIARISM being EXPOSED! As now established, it was not FRANK BAINIMARAMA, as claimed by Fijileaks to Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum:
4 Comments
![]() Every day, there are reports in the media of criminals being convicted and jailed for forcibly taking a few thousand dollars or even a few dollars from some poor victim. But there is no uproar when every year, by the laws of Fiji, millions of dollars are taken from the life savings of 300,000 members of the National Provident Fund (FNPF), without their permission. These millions are effectively “stolen” because the RBF restricts the amounts of money that FNPF can invest overseas, where the investment returns are higher. As a result, large amounts of FNPF money either
The Fiji Government is able to borrow a lot, and a lot of it at very low rates of interest, while much money is placed by FNPF in term deposits, not paying high rates of interest either. FNPF has had great difficulty finding good commercial borrowers, and much of its own investments in the market, such as at Natadola, Momi Bay, and GPH, have not been given high returns, while some have resulted in very high “write-downs”. But if FNPF was allowed to take this money overseas (where there will always be stronger demand for its money) it would be able to obtain higher returns – for the benefit of FNPF’s members. Sometimes, as in 2009 when Fiji’s foreign reserves had dropped to extremely low levels, the RBF Board (appointed by the Minister of Finance) can decide, in the “national interest”, to instruct FNPF to bring back large amounts of its foreign investments, thereby placing them in RBF reserves. FNPF brings back its foreign currency and exchanges it with RBF for Fiji currency. FNPF is stuck with the low-earning Fiji dollars while RBF invests the foreign currency in overseas markets, thereby earning the higher interest “for itself”. Legally, FNPF has to ask the RBF for permission to invest overseas. This permission is given now and then, but not as much as FNPF wants. The net result is that RBF shows a good level of foreign reserves (usually expressed as months of imports), but it also receives the interest and dividends from holding the money that FNPF had originally invested overseas. These extra profits are then part of the healthy dividend cheque that the Government, which is RBF’s main and only shareholder. So, imagine a “heist” that goes as follows
The real question is: why does no one from the FNPF Board (or the recently hyperactive management) complain publicly on the owners’ behalf? Because for the last 50 years, the real owners of the FNPF have never elected a single representative to the FNPF Board, which continues to be totally controlled by the Fiji Government, elected or unelected. Sadly, the FNPF has always been a “cash cow” to be milked at every government’s convenience (not just the Bainimarama Government) but more blatantly “robbed by Decree”, as in 2012. FNPF is a private corporation – it is not owned by Government If any Tappoo or Patel or Punja owned $100 million, they would themselves decide how to invest their money, not RBF or the Fiji Government. Such good businessmen do not invest unless they earn at least 15% return per year. Certainly no one could force them to hold large amounts of cash (earning zero interest) or low rates of return like 1% or 3% per year such as from short term Fiji Government bonds and Treasury Bills. If these three families formed a company, they are still a private company, and the same principle applies. If 10,000 people got together to invest, as does Fiji Public Service Association in Sports City, they also are, legally, a private corporation. If 300,000 persons in Fiji (mostly employees) are by law put together, in order to compulsorily save and invest $4 billion of their income, they are still a private corporation, and should be left alone to maximize the income for their shareholders. But that is not the case with FNPF, which has the sacred duty of looking after the retirement funds of all the employees in Fiji (and voluntary contributors). I emphasize, the owners of FNPF are not the same as taxpayers or residents of Fiji or the voters of Fiji who elect a Fiji government, although there may be some who belong to all three groups. There is no question whatsoever that all the assets of the FNPF belong to the employees with account balances at FNPF, and no portion belongs to the Fiji Government. Yet the Fiji Government – which is actually the biggest borrower from FNPF – behaves as if it is the owner, appointing all the Board members. How much does FNPF lose? Currently by law, 18% of Fiji’s total wage bill pours into FNPF coffers every year, without fail, amounting to hundreds of millions (more than $400 million in 2015). All of Fiji’s banks drool with envy at FNPF’s guaranteed cash inflows. But because of FNPF’s inability to find good reliable commercial borrowers, hundreds of millions of dollars lie around as cash (earning no interest) or as Government Treasury Bills or short term Government bonds at low interest rates. Even low interest Term Deposits amounted to $600 million in 2015. [Note: It is no big sacrifice for FNPF to give out relief funds for Cyclone Winston: because these amounts are not earning much anyway. Indeed, if FNPF is able to get rid of some of the idle money it is holding, its economic performance appears better. Effectively FNPF’s Rate of Return increases, totally artificially, because the same annual income is divided by a lower amount of total investible funds (now that cyclone victims have withdrawn money previously not earning any interest or low interest). FNPF has always tried to invest as much as it could overseas (sometimes more than $400 million) where safe “blue chip” investments earn at least 4% return per year (FNPF and RBF would have more accurate figures). When FNPF is required to invest money locally, FNPF earnings are reduced while RBF returns increase, by the difference between overseas returns and domestic returns. Sometimes, the FNPF loss is larger because of devaluation after it has brought back its foreign investments. As a very rough estimate, FNPF, since 1987, FNPF may have lost more than $100 million in foreign earnings because RBF has restricted its investments abroad. RBF is not the “thief” I must reassure my RBF friends that I am not being “harsh” as they, as professional law-abiding employees, they have to do whatever the Board and the laws that govern RBF, require them to do. Although it is RBF which instructs the FNPF to reduce or limit its foreign holdings, RBF is merely the “accessory to the crime” since by instruction of the RBF Board, all RBF surpluses are paid to it legal shareholder, the Government of Fiji. On the other side, the Fiji Government also benefits financially as a result, because it makes a huge interest saving by being able to borrow from FNPF (which it also controls) at extremely low rates of interest, through the issue of short-term Government stock paying low interest rates, rolled over continuously. So the Fiji Government gains from a higher dividend cheque from RBF, and lower borrowing costs, because it does not have to borrow from the commercial banks (you can work that saving if you like). For sure, ANZ or Westpac or Baroda would never hold the kind of investment portfolio that FNPF holds. The central problem is that the biggest borrower and beneficiary of FNPF money, is the Fiji Government itself, which appoints all the members of FNPF and the Board of RBF. Other financial losses Since the 2006 Bainimarama coup there have been other major unexplained financial losses such as at FNPF’s investments in Natadola Bay Resorts Limited company which was strangely granted an indefinite loan of $200 million at zero interest, and FNPF made a “write-down” of more than $300 million. Despite FNPF claims of transparency and accountability, the FNPF Board refuses to release the audit reports such as those by Ernst and Young concerning some of FNPF’s stranger decisions. In one case FNPF agreed with one of its investment partners that the investment partner could build their jointly owned property at a low tender price, which was increased soon after to more than that tendered by other companies who had been eliminated on unusual grounds. FNPF still refuses to release the consultancy reports used to justify the unilateral 2012 breaking of pensioners’ contracts, reductions of future pensions from 15% of members’ account balances to 9%, and even refusing to allow their court case to be heard. Government’s total control and the banking irrationality The primary cause of governance failure at FNPF is that the Fiji Government (elected or unelected) has always appointed and totally controlled the Board of the FNPF since its inception. Once upon a time, there were “employers’ representatives” and “employee representatives” as well as government representatives. The employers’ organization usually nominated their representative; always, the Fiji Government decided which of their favorite union representatives would be on the board; and the Chairman was always appointed by the Government, usually a Permanent Secretary. If the Chairman was the Permanent Secretary of Finance, he was simultaneously borrowing money from FNPF on behalf of Government, and on the FNPF Board side, lending money to Government. Of course, he would declare his interest at the FNPF meetings, but it is difficult to argue that the total amount lent and the interest rates charged, were all determined at “arms length”. No commercial bank would ever allow its largest borrower to sit on and control its Board and decide at what interest rate it would borrow. But effectively this is what happens on the FNPF Board. I doubt very much if any commercial bank would lend such huge amounts as FNPF does to Fiji Government, at the low rates of interest currently prevailing. Why Government control? Government control is entirely due to the historical origins of FNPF. It was a Fiji Government which set up the FNPF more than 40 years ago and which has appointed and controlled the boards since then. Over the decades the unions, despite some calls, have failed to ensure that workers elect at least some of the Board Members, who can then appoint a genuine independent Chairman. This failure has meant that when the Bainimarama Government decided unilaterally in 2012 to reduce all pension rates (existing and new ones to come) to 9%, there was no Board protest, even when the contracts of existing pensioners were broken and their legal challenge was thrown out by a Decree, thereby denying them their basic human right to go to court. There are many decent law-abiding pensioners (they now think there were bloody fools) who assumed that legislation passed by the Fiji Parliament in 1998 was law, that a form that they signed with the FNPF was a lawful binding contract which bound not just them for their remaining life (including the prospect that they could die soon after taking the pension option and lose all their pension savings), but also bound FNPF to respect their contract; and they planned the rest of their life according to that sacred contract; and some even put their hands up to support the Bainimarama Government in December 2006 because they believed in his rhetoric of anti-corruption and justice for all. Sadly, they were kicked in the teeth by not just the Bainimarama/Khaiyum Governemnt but the FNPF Board, and FNPF management, led by Taito Aisake. Sadly, some of them, like Rick, are struggling to make ends meet on their reduced pensions. Note that thhe FNPF Board and the senior FNPF management actively collaborated with the Government decision. They did not fight for FNPF members (according to the Mission and Vision principles they falsely claim to follow) and they did not even allow the pensioners’ case to be heard – even in court – on the loss their life time savings. There is no transparent process for appointing board members now, meaning that the Government can, if it chooses, appoint its own political supporters to the board, some of whom may have potential conflicts of interest (at least perceived by the public, if not realized in practice) in major FNPF investments. Thus the Chairman of FBPF is Ajit Kodagoda, who is the Sri Lankan financial controller of CJ Patel, which has received preferential treatment as the owner of Rewa Dairy and the Fiji Sun newspaper, in return for favorable media treatment of the Bainimarama Government and a dilution of its “watchdog” function. A new member is Sanjay Kaba, who, after the Bainimarama coup in 2006, was part of the company that took over the very lucrative management of the FNPF investments at Natadola and Momi Bay; he was also involved in the Tappoo City construction; and was apparently an incredibly successful fund-raiser, especially among the Gujarati businesses, for the Fiji First Party in preparation for the 2014 Elections. The public might want to ask if he is linked in any way to FNPF investments and whether companies owned by him or any of his family members receive financial benefits from the Bainimarama Government in the form of duty protection or other incentives. Another new appointee is Ms Konrote, who is the Acting PS Finance. By no stretch of the imagination can an ordinary onlooker feel that these board members have no interest whatsoever in policy decisions by the FNPF Board, It may be pointed out that most of the FNPF board members have held, and some continue to hold multiple board memberships, which Bainimarama criticized in the previous Qarase Government, and which clearly compromise the independence of the companies concerned, some supposed to directly compete in the market (such as Vodaphone and Telecom Fiji). The track record of some previous FNPF board members, in their other activities outside, would not be something to be proud of. One recent board member, readily supported the trashing the illegal reduction of Fiji pensioners’ property rights by a Bainimarama Decree, and the denial of Fiji pensioners’ basic human right to go to court with their grievances, while himself enjoying the protection of the rule of law for his own family and property in NZ. He of course, also has his own business interests in Fiji. FNPF Board and Supervisor of Elections Next to the national elections, the most important election for the largest numbers of people in Fiji who are employees, ought to be for the Board of the FNPF. I suggest that it is for the workers of Fiji to demand that the majority of the FNPF Board be elected, under the scrutiny of the Supervisor of Elections, Mr Mohammed Saneem (this might be a better use of his time than conducting union elections and unreasonably suspending political parties for what many good accountants and auditors would consider an unimportant triviality). Of course, the candidates do not have to be unionists (although most will vie for the positions, as always). Such an election would now be very easy, given that the FNPF has already registered and given cards and IDs to all the contributors. To ensure that there is independent financial advice, there could be three independent members. For example there could be one nominated by the Employers’ Association; one by the Institute of Accountants; and perhaps a senior economist appointed collectively by the three universities. I urge that this does not become a political issue between parties, as the FNPF contributors come from all the political party supporters. Challenges for an Independent FNPF Board There would be many immediate questions for an independent FNPF Board to answer:
I emphasize “good” and “impartial” and “scholarly”. I [will] write soon on the sad absence of these qualities at USP. From the Archives: http://www.fijileaks.com/home/behind-the-tall-facade-tappoos-boast-they-have-bought-out-fnfp-investment-ltds-51-share-in-penina-and-taken-over-37m-commercial-loan-was-there-any-valuation-and-tender-and-what-about-the-lease-deal
![]() Historic moment for Fiji & the region - Bainimarama signs Fiji’s “Instrument of Ratification” for the Paris Agreement. The Instrument of Ratification reaffirms Fiji’s commitment to combatting the root causes of climate change and is being transmitted to New York ahead of the high level signing ceremony to be held by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, on April 22, 2016 What's with Meghji's EIA consultant Sairusi Rokcikavira informing four women at his second attempt at an EIA Public consultation meeting, this after his failed first attempt a week and a half ago, that they (he/the Meghjis) had reported some of four women present at the meeting to the Police and Commissioner Western. Looks like he couldn't take the heat with the women standing up to him and pointing out his disregard for proper process in convening the first meeting without complying with sections of the Terms of Reference, and their reference to his Government connection as a consultant before the women and others proceeded to walk out leaving him to continue his first "meeting" with just 2 members of the public. Was this a warning of some kind telling the women for all to hear that "we know who your group are and have reported you to the the Police and Commissioner Western" What a coward! http://www.fijileaks.com/home/shirley-parkgate-new-bully-in-town-sairusi-rokocikavira-refuses-to-answer-how-he-can-conduct-a-proper-report-when-three-months-ago-the-meghjis-dug-up-the-ground-with-khaiyum-and-bala-doing-the-honours
![]() The reasons for the change as announced by the Attorney General and Minister for Finance vindicates the Opposition and NFP when the Opposition’s Spokesperson on Finance described the 2016 Budget on 16th November 2015 as a “A Deceptive Budget of a Confused Government”. A little over four months later Government, in an effort to camouflage the unsustainability of the Budget, has outlined reasons that defy logic in an effort to convince the people of the need to change the financial year. On 10th March he spoke of re-aligning the Budget, which was and is the logical thing to do. Three weeks later, he has changed his tune. The most nonsensical reasons are that FRCA (Fiji Revenue & Customs Authority) received late payment of taxes on 31st December around 4.30pm and that in December most officers are on holiday or in holiday mode! This is insulting the honesty, efficiency and hard work of our public servants, especially those tasked with the responsibility of implementing fiscal policies outlined in every annual national budget. If the financial year ends on July 31 and FRCA once again receives a substantial amount in tax revenue late on that day, does this mean that the financial year will once again be changed? Or for that matter another natural disaster or severe cyclone hits Fiji, will there be another change to Government’s Financial Year? The fact is that the current financial year has been the standard since our Independent history for the last 45 years. We have had more than our fair share of natural disasters. But financial years were not changed. Instead we had Mini Budgets or virement of funds from different budgetary Heads as approved by Parliament. Or in most severe cases parliamentary approval was sought to raise loans to meet the costs of unbudgeted expenditure. When the NFP moved amendments to increase the Disaster Mitigation Fund allocation in the 2016 Budget from $1 million to $10 million and to increase the grant for cane replanting programme from $5 million to $10 million, Government and the Finance Minister rejected these amendments saying when the need arose, funds could be sourced through virement from Head 50, which is Miscellaneous. We have been once again vindicated. The NFP believes in the absence of a good budget process, which should include making public quarterly and six-monthly financial statements assessing our financial performance for every sector, there is no need to change the financial year, which is basically like changing horses in mid-stream. It will only mask the reality – the unsustainability of a deceptive budget and under-performing sectors. The best option that we have been advocating is for Government to introduce a Mini Budget to re-prioritize expenditure towards rehabilitation. A starting point is to slash the inflated budgets of our military and peacekeeping and instead demand the United Nations to repay all outstanding amounts to fund this; reduce the budget of Fiji Roads Authority which is currently over $600 million, slash the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation public service broadcast grant of over $11 million; as well as re-direct marketing and hosting expenses of $9 million allocated for the international golf tournament, over $6 million for a one-off Super Rugby match and $18 million to Fiji Airways to promote its Singapore route. These are measures that we will support in Parliament that must be done through a Mini Budget, definitely not changing the financial year. Biman Prasad NFP Leader Shadow Finance Minister ![]() Financial year to begin from 1st August to following July - Aiyaz Khaiyum Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.Fiji will now begin its financial year from the 1st of August this year until the following July. While speaking at a press conference the Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum says they have held meetings with the World Bank regarding this issue. He also says most of the companies pay their taxes in December, and with this new financial year the taxes paid in December will still be recorded for 2016. He says small economies like Fiji are running a very tight budget where our stated deficits can get out of balance. Sayed-Khaiyum adds another reason for changing our financial year is because most of the people go on holiday mode in December and early January and our economy may suffer from this issue. He also says that if our financial year starts from January, we are smacked in the middle of the cyclone season. Source: Fijivillage News "And to be fair to my friends at the RBF, we all know who the real thief is, don’t we, the one annually receiving a nice fat cheque from the RBF" ![]() The Reserve Bank of Fiji is one of the most efficient statutory bodies in Fiji, doing its work quietly, circulating money, the lifeblood of the economy, and transparently turning out its statistics in a timely manner, with no hint of dishonesty among its employees. You would not think that it would “steal” money from the public. But it does, in a petty way (this article) and in a big way (another article). To be really accurate and fair, in both, it is merely an accessory to a crime, not the real thief. The petty crime Not too long ago, one of the senior managers of the Reserve Bank of Fiji, an economist by training, “reassured” the Fiji public that they could bring their old Fiji coins to the RBF Head building in Suva, and receive new coins in return. There were no public comments from anyone, although sensible market vendors stopped accepting the old currency for their piles of beans or baigan, to the irritation of many shoppers holding the old coins. How fair and sensible was the RBF announcement, which drew no comments from the Commerce Commission or the Consumer Council of Fiji? Why should the holder of old Fiji currency pay for the cost of transport and waste his or her valuable time to get back the same face value of the currency? If I publicly threatened and extorted 50 cents from you, I would be promptly and rightly prosecuted, fined some moderate amount, and if the magistrate wanted to make an example of me, I would be jailed for a few months, to discourage others from committing the same crime. But apparently, Reserve Banks can “steal” a portion of your wealth in clear public view, with no public comment whatsoever, no policeman prosecuting them, as they have done previously also with old Fiji notes. Even more ridiculous was a recent case of the Central Bank of Samoa, refusing to redeem in Samoa, old Samoan bank notes. What is money? The senior bank manager who made the announcement is an economics graduate who ought to understand the fundamentals origins of “money” and the sacred “contract” it embodies. There are many fascinating historical origins of money the world over- as salt, cowries, tobacco, pieces of iron, copper, silver, gold, and in the Pacific, shells, stone wheels, and whales’ teeth (tabua). Historians and anthropologists argue that these monies were used not as a means of exchange, but as tribute or offerings to rulers, priests and anyone to whom people had social obligations such as during births, marriages, funerals, and even to atone for crimes committed thereby discouraging “payback crimes” (as in PNG). For economics textbooks, however, money is explained as a mechanism to facilitate exchange in the economy, as a universally accepted means of payment, for goods or services, replacing the inefficient barter in primitive times. Today, modern money is “fiat” money guaranteed by the state, the government, the central bank or reserve bank. Behind every unit of money, note or coin or electronic record, is a sacred contract, which the RBF should think about. Every single unit of money represents real goods or services already produced to the face value of that money, and the holder of that money is entitled to receive exactly the same value in return. That money (note or coin) issued by the RBF must, by law, be universally accepted in payment for exactly that face value, not a cent less. To then tell the holder of that old currency, say in Savusavu, that you cannot use it any more in Savusavu, but you must now take that old currency to the RBF office in Suva, and obtain exactly the same amount in new currency, is ridiculous. The RBF is forcing the holder of the old currency, to lose the original value, by the cost of transport, and the value of his time wasted in exchanging the new currency. Some holders will reluctantly do so if they have large amounts of old currency, and just put up with the costs. But many simply could not be bothered and the old coins and notes, lie in their possession unused and unusable, having totally lost value, with their holders, in effect, swindled by decree, out of whatever value they gave originally, for that money. But the RBF is not being prosecuted by any DPP or policeman, and the Central Police Station is just across the road from the RBF building. No magistrate is fining them or sending them to jail for this daylight robbery. Where you may ask, is the otherwise ever present and ever pugnacious Consumer Council of Fiji or the Commerce Commission CEO (rather reticent now their Executive Chairman has moved on to greener pastures)? But another Central Bank in the Pacific really takes the cake. Robbery by Central Bank of Samoa Not too long ago, a Confucius Institute group from USP in Fiji went to Samoa, and some sensibly (or so they thought) bought Samoan currency notes from one of the expatriate banks in Fiji. But they had “not banked” (ha ha) on shops in Samoa not accepting the old Samoan notes: old was not gold. Then to their amazement, even the commercial banks in Samoa would not accept the old Samoan currency notes. And then to their utter shock and disbelief, even the Central Bank of Samoa in Apia, refused to redeem the old Samoan notes. I suspect that had the holders of that old Samoan currency burnt one of the notes in the presence of the Governor of the Central Bank of Samoa, they would have been charged, fined and jailed, under some obscure Samoan law, for “defacing and destroying Samoan Government property” which they now did not want to admit ownership of. The Fiji group was cynically told to take the old notes back to whoever had sold them in Fiji. Which they meekly and mildly did, being peaceful law-abiding citizens, although they might easily have berated this bank for giving them the old Samoan notes in the first place. You can bet your bottom dollar (not Samoan obviously) that the giant multinational Australian bank in Fiji would have had no trouble getting their Samoan currency redeemed by the Central Bank of Samoa (albeit with more expense along the way). Where is the RBF common sense? Common sense suggests that the RBF should not set any time limits to the acceptance of any currency they issue. All traders must be required to accept all Fiji currency, which most would eventually deposit with the banks, who could, in the normal course of their business, eventually exchange them at the RBF for new currency. Why did the RBF ever allow commercial banks to refuse to accept old coins and notes? Commercial banks in Fiji make massive profits from the hundreds of millions of savings deposits which annually lose a large part of their value to inflation. Was it too much for them to provide this basic service to the holders of old currency, not as a favor, but a legal liability? Some might ask me, why make such a big thing out of a few coins or notes, worth a few dollars? Steal a dollar today, a million tomorrow I suggest that if the RBF ignores basic principles over a few dollars, it will also ignore them for a few million dollars. The bigger crime, involving an open annual robbery of tens of millions, where the victim never complains to the police, is the subject of the next article. And to be fair to my friends at the RBF, we all know who the real thief is, don’t we, the one annually receiving a nice fat cheque from the RBF. The next article explains why lots of robberies, amounting to millions, are taking place, with nobody being charged. There will be no Commission of Inquiry against Fiji after the International Labour Organisation Governing Body decided to close the Article 26 complaint filed against Fiji.
The decision was made at the 326th Session on Thursday. The Fijian Government Delegation to the Governing Body was led by Acting Permanent Secretary for Employment Salaseini Daunabuna and complemented by the Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other Organisations in Geneva, Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan, Deputy Permanent Representative Namita Khatri, and First Secretary Ajendra Pratap. Also in attendance were the representative of the Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation Nesbitt Hazelman and Fiji Trades Union Congress national secretary Felix Anthony. The Fijian Government Delegation informed the Governing Body about the success of the ILO Tripartite Mission in January and the subsequent signing of the single Joint Implementation Report between the Fijian Government, the Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation and the Fiji Trades Union Congress. The important achievements and concessions contained in the single Joint Implementation Report were also highlighted to the Governing Body and the passage in which this was swiftly transcended into law. The delegation stated that there will now be pursuit of pertinent projects with ILO such as Decent Work for All, Disabilities in Workplace, Gender Parity and Increasing Employment Opportunities for Youths. The Governing Body was also informed that for too long the Fijian Government’s energies have focused on the Article 26 Complaint to the detriment of other constructive programmes offered by ILO and relevant to labour reforms in Fiji. The closure of the Article 26 Complaint means that Fiji will also embark on rebuilding labour relations and harnessing sustainable labour practices through social dialogue with the social partners and ILO. This will become real and apparent now with the closure of the Article 26 Complaint against Fiji and the sentiments echoed by the ILO and member States is that the closing of the Article 26 Complaint makes Fiji an example of the true essence of tripartism and how it can be achieved. Fijileaks: Fiji's Karadžićs have remained on the run because of the likes of former NFP leader JAI RAM REDDY. He has NOT raised HIS VOICE against Injustice and Gross Human Rights Violations and Violence since he abandoned Fiji to become International Court of Justice JUDGE! Parliament and handsome parliamentary salary and allowances is the greed for many in Fiji, including political and human rights activists - street protest is not in their book! All they want is to sit in Parliament and make empty noises while filling up their bank accounts or hiding millions in overseas bank accounts! "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." - Thomas Jefferson "International justice is still a new idea. So far, it is a long way from perfect. But it is still better than nothing at all" ![]() The conviction of Radovan Karadžić at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia may be the court’s most prominent achievement in its 23-year history. Karadžić, who evaded capture for more than a decade after the war ended, has been found criminally responsible on a long list of charges that included the 44-month siege of Sarajevo, in which at least 5,000 men, women and children died, and the 1995 genocide at Srebrenica, where 8,000 men and boys were taken from a supposedly safe zone and gunned down. The testimony of survivors has been heard. Mothers have learned where their sons are buried, fathers have some closure for the killing of their child by a sniper’s bullet. At least some of the crimes of a European civil war, watched by western powers in handwringing inaction, have been fleshed out and their perpetrators punished. Karadžić, who is now 70, was sentenced to 40 years. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. For its supporters, the court has served its purpose: the age of impunity is over. That at least is the case of the promoters of the idea of a global tribunal that stands in impartial judgment over those charged with crimes against humanity. From the tribunal seeking retribution for the crimes of the Balkans, and its sister tribunal trying the perpetrators of Rwanda’s genocide in 1994, came the international criminal court. It laid the foundations for an architecture of international criminal justice. By ending impunity it would both bring some justice to survivors and families of victims, and deter future crimes. The most cursory look around the bleak landscape of the 21st century, from Sudan to Syria, shows how far such an effort has still to go. The ICC has been bitterly criticised for indicting only African dictators. The failure to sign up to the UN resolution establishing the court by the US, Russia, China and many of the major regional powers of the Islamic world, makes it hard to deny the appearance of the justice of the powerful against the weak. Events in the prosecution of Balkan war crimes have added to the criticism that the ICC’s conduct is shaped by the interests of the main sponsor of the original Balkan tribunal, the US. Most of the convicted are Serbs, few are Croats and fewer still Bosnian Muslims. That may have contributed to the lack of a sense of ownership of the court that even its most articulate backers, such as the lawyer Philippe Sands, acknowledge. It has also played into a narrative of martyrdom: on the eve of Karadžić’s conviction, his successor as president of Republika Srpska named a new school dormitory after him. The hope that the element of closure from the conviction of the guilty would also make reconciliation easier has not been realised. In a region where memories of historic grievances date from the 13th century, it was an ambition too far for any court. Perhaps the most devastating criticism of these early experiments in international justice is the charge that first the former Yugoslavia tribunal and then the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda were, in inspiration, exercises in salving the conscience of a world that had failed to intervene, an attempt to expunge the guilt of inaction. Now that the complexities of action are painfully familiar, that may seem a lesser weakness. Bringing people to justice at the end of a messy war was always going to be a messy business. But it is still worth doing. Source: Editorial, The Guardian, London "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King, Jr. Argentina: Obama visits 'Dirty War' memorial on coup anniversary; The US was "too slow to stand up for human rights" in Argentina, he said President Barack Obama has visited a memorial for the victims of Argentina's military dictatorship, on the final day of his visit to the country. He promised to release more secret military and intelligence files from the era, revealing the US government's role in the 1976 coup. The US was "too slow to stand up for human rights" in Argentina, he said. Some 30,000 people are estimated to have been killed during the six years of military government. Thousands of other people were illegally detained and tortured in what became known as the "Dirty War". President Obama said US foreign policy had changed since to always take into account transparency and human rights. He expressed hope that his gesture to release secret files of the 1970s would help mend relations between the two countries. "There`s been controversy about the policies of the United States early in those dark days, and the United States when it reflects on what happened here has to examine its own policies as well, its own past," he said. "Democracies have to have the courage to acknowledge when we don't live up to the ideals that we stand for. "When we've been slow to stand up for human rights, and that was the case here." Later, tens of thousands of people marched through the streets the Buenos Aires to mark the 40th anniversary of the coup. 'Never again' More than 4,000 secret files from the American government were released in 2002. But on Wednesday, after a meeting with President Mauricio Macri, Mr Obama announced that for the first time the US had agreed to declassify military and intelligence files from the era. Source: BBC world, 24 March 2016 https://www.facebook.com/BoycottFijiSun/
|
[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 |