Pacific Media fail to appreciate Fiji problem

Sadly, Pacific Media fail to appreciate the real Fiji problem

Thakur Ranjit Singh from Auckland, NZ

The recent Fiji Tourism advertisement on TVNZ, showing an Indo Fijian lady doing a salutation Namaskaar in front of the iconic Nadi Temple is not only unusual but historic as well.

This is because in the hitherto democratic Fiji, the other 40% of population never existed in any tourism promotions and hardly existed under Qarase’s democratic regime. They are the persecuted and envied Indo Fijians.

Indo Fijians in the Pacific exceed the populations of Samoa, Tonga and the whole of Polynesia and Micronesia put together. Yet when one looks at the role Samoan and Tongan media personnel and journalists play in the Fiji affairs, one would assume as if Indo Fijian journalists, like their absence from tourism brochures and promotions, do not exist in media circles as well. Indeed, they do not. This is because of ethnic cleansing in a supposedly democratic country. It was with the intention of filling that gaping vacuum that I took up post-graduate media studies in Auckland.

While the Indo Fijian Editor of Fiji Times, Vijendra Kumar was removed by Rabuka in 1987, the Indo Fijian publisher of Daily Post, Ranjit Singh was made redundant by Qarase regime in 2002 for refusing to bow down to the Lauan Mafia and for exposing the ills of an undeserving Qarase regime under the pseudo name of “Liu Muri”. Another bold and fearless journalist at Daily Post, who was caught up in the Parliament during George Speight’s coup, Josephine Prasad was unceremoniously removed from the paper by Qarase’s cousins Mesake Koroi, because Josephine was getting too bold in exposing the ills of Qarase regime. Another promising Indo Fijian journalist trained at USP Journalism School, Mithleshni Gurdayal also found things at the family-run Daily Post tasteless so she left. None of the other print media, all controlled by indigenous Fijians allowed any Indo Fijians to rise up, as has been done in Fiji’s racist civil service under Qarase regime.

When journalists from Samoa and Tonga have a field day in either Pacific Freedom Forum or other media outlets in shedding tears for a Fiji democracy that failed to deliver social justice to equivalent of whole of Polynesian and Micronesian population, there was no Indo Fijian journalist in sight to rebut the nonsense coming out from Polynesian countries which themselves are bereft of the democracy they want for Fiji.

Therefore, despite my very deep respect for Kalafi Moala, (the Publisher and Editor-in- Chief of Taimi ‘o Tonga and the Tongan Chronicle,) his opinion and pronouncement of Fiji and Bainimarama in the Pacific Scoop, (Why Bainimarama will fail in his quest for a ‘reformed Fiji’) if left unchallenged would be an affront to those scholars who call on students of journalism like me to dig deeper.

Bainimarama has removed two very strong divisive Fijian instruments that have been the main reason and cause for the coup culture in Fiji. The two institutions for which Moala shed tears are the Great Council of Chiefs and the Methodist Church.

During Speight’s coup, Dr Brij Lal had the following to say of Great Council of Chiefs, a supposedly august body:

“Formed by Sir Arthur Gordon soon after Fiji became a crown colony in 1874, it occupied an honoured place in Fijian society as the government’s and the Crown’s principal adviser on indigenous affairs. Sadly it stands today as a diminished body of dithering men and women, confused, partisan, manipulable, unable to exercise their much sought after – and much hoped for – role as the custodians not only of indigenous Fijians but also of Fiji’s broad national interests. The chiefs have grievously breached the trust bestowed in them by the nation. They listened to Speight’s pleas for Fijian paramountcy, but there was no place in their deliberations for the voice of a multi-ethnic democracy and the defence of a Constitution which they themselves had blessed just three years ago.
They have showed themselves to be parochial men and women, bereft of a broader vision, chiefs with a small ‘c’. Unelected, unrepresentative and dominated by chiefs of the east, especially from Speight’s Kubuna confederacy…..”

When Indo Fijian statesman, Justice Jai Ram Reddy had addressed this august body in 1990s, he saluted the Chiefs as and for being the Chiefs of all the people of Fiji, including Indo Fijians. Unfortunately, this body failed to live up to that expectation, and Bainimarama was perhaps not entirely wrong to say that they are good for drinking home brew under a mango tree. The Chiefs, split on provincial and confederacy lines, many deeply involved in national and local politics (like Ro Teimumu Kepa), have degenerated as chiefs for their confederacy, province and villages. National interest and statesmanship, as evident in Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, escaped their blinkered gaze.

As for the Methodist Church, the biggest casualty of coups in Fiji has NOT been democracy but Christianity, as its shepherds used pulpits to promote racial hatred and used the bible to bash the non-believers. To have a better appreciation of Fiji’s Methodist Church, Moala should read the article on the role the Assembly of Christian Churches, led by Methodist Church played during 2006 election to ensure Qarase’s racist regime wins the supposedly democratic elections. They breached Electoral Regulations by indulging in blatant fundamentalist election campaigning during actual election time. They put fear of God and catastrophes (like Tsunamis and floods) in people and voted for religious and indigenous superiority above democracy. So, I beg to ask the proponents of democracy, what democracy are they talking about?

As far as shedding tears for media, the Fiji Times is celebrating its 140 years in Fiji- it was established in Fiji in 1869 – ten years before Indian indentured labourers came to Fiji. In history of indenture by Dr Brij Lal, the violence of Girmit by Professor Vijay Naidu and untold tear jerking suffering in Rajendra Prasad’s “Tears in Paradise” there are numerous tales of gross human rights abuses and exploitation of Indian labourers by the Colonists. Have anybody read any cry from this supposedly revered media for defense of human rights of ignorant and poor people who were tricked to slavery in Fiji? Is it still continuing to protect the interest of the powerful and the mighty institution? In an academic research done in 2005 on reporting of 2000 coup, clear bias of the paper was established where the newspaper was seen to be a proponent of elitist interest be they commercial or chiefly.

I do not disagree with some of the things Moala has said; especially the rise of fundamentalist new Methodist Church, “ Talibanisation” of Christianity and am totally opposed to persecution of Netani Rika and other media personnel and am totally opposed to treatment of journalists as exposed in the Amnesty International Report. But it needs to be realized that media in Fiji is not entirely faultless, and especially the race-card element in Fiji media needs to be brought under closer scrutiny. I have one former journalist from one Fiji press here and she has stories of how the Fijian Editor picked Fijians for strategic stories and left Indo Fijians to do insignificant stories. The disease of racism did not spare Fiji’s newsrooms and its Fijian Editors. It is interesting to see more research being done on Fiji media and hope that Fiji media is capable of standing respectfully and unhurt by the escalating academic gaze and interest. The few that have been done do not portray as holy a picture as many would have wished.

Moala’s defense of Ro Teimumu Kepa would have been justified if she was only a Chief. No, she is a fully active politician first, and Methodist Church is the spiritual arm of Qarase’s SDL Party. When as Minister of Education in Qarase’s cabinet, she imposed an apartheid policy under which children of rich Fijians could gain free form seven education while destitute children of displaced Indo Fijian farmers could not get this deserving help because of their race. Is this the type of democracy Moala and his supporters want for Fiji?

What I sense from Moala’s article is more heat than the light – it is heavy on emotions and weak on facts. He coming to defense of Netani Rika in particular and other indigenous Fijians in general is commendable and even understandable. But where were these champions of media and human rights when Indo Fijians were victimized, robbed, raped, humiliated, persecuted and blatantly discriminated against on grounds of race under a democratic Qarase government that they want back now.Those outsiders from Fiji and from environment removed from Fiji’s population and racial mix, and racial politics are no expert in pontificating on issues, about which they have not read widely, had not experienced first hand and hence have little understanding of. Fiji’s issue is far wider and deeper than mere media rights, indigenous supremacy, religious freedom and customary systems.

As a former publisher of a Fiji newspaper during the turbulent times and having experienced the wheeling and dealing of racial manipulation at the high places makes one very skeptical and questionable about the model of democracy that outsiders want to impose on Fiji.

Perhaps Moala and others pushing Fiji for democracy should heed this cry from an Indo Fijian who abandoned his democratic Fiji for USA:” I would rather be a dog in America rather than an Indo Fijian in Fiji”

Is that the model of democracy that Moala and his media supporters want for Fiji? That is the type that Qarase delivered.

ends

© Scoop Media