Oct 10, 2000 (by Jone Dakuvula)
published Oct 11, 2000 in Daily Post

Mere Samisoni has become more coherent in her response to my earlier two articles (Daily Post 7/10/2000). Her 17 points attempt to rebut my criticisms of her and the current S.V.T. leadership do not warrant a point by point reply because a good number are just cheap point scoring nonsense that one usually expects from the S.V.T. behind the scenes drafter, Dr Ahmed "Afghanistan" Ali who does not have the guts to write under his own name and prefers to shoot from behind other people. Let me assure Mere Samisoni that I am quite capable of writing my own views and I do not write for other people whom Dr Ahmed Ali likes to call the "Cane Belt Mafia", neither am I dependent on other people's views. Unlike Mere Samisoni whose views are based a great deal on what other people have offered her, such as Dr Ahmed Ali or Professor Davis and I shall deal with Professor John Davis views on indigenous issues, expressed through Mere Samisoni in a later article. I also remind her that I am still a member of the S.V.T and I am awaiting her decision about where her true loyalty is: to Ratu Inoke Kubuabola and Dr Ahmed Ali, or to those who seriously believe in observing the S.V.T. Party Constitution and the 1997 Constitution. The Party Constitution directs the S.V.T. to favour a G.N.U. and the day of reckoning is coming soon when she will have to choose between Ratu Inoke and the Party Constitution.

Mere went to great lengths at the beginning criticizing what she perceives as the attitude of the Fiji Labour Party's to her mantra words "the aspirations of the i taukei". She has tried to distance herself and the S.V.T. from what George Speight and his gang did, yet the whole thrust of her latest articles amount to a dogmatic justification of the illegal seizure and abrogation of the 1997 Constitution. (On this issue she needs to ask Adi Kuini Speed and Lute Powell again whether they agree with her or me!) I do not need to tell her how many people across the board support of my criticisms and I am certainly not motivated by a feeling of isolation as she alleged. Indeed the majority opinion in Fiji (including the Taukei) and international opinion support my position and that weight of opinion will sooner or later change the course of the history of this country for the better from George Speight's disastrous agenda which the Interim Administration is following. What motivates me to write is the confidence that what I am saying is right and accords with the sentiment of the majority of decent and fair-minded people in this country. Furthermore, I believe the issues that Mere Samisoni had raised in her articles, some of which I have not canvassed yet, are important to be debated publicly in the interest of enhancing democratic culture in this country. For that she remains a friend and not an enemy.

As I said, the whole trust of Mere Samisoni's articles is to justify George Speight's illegal seizure of the Coalition Government and its removal from political power. At the end she and Ahmed Ali say rather weakly (quote): "Of course it was wrong. But the point we are arguing is: How could it have been avoided?" That was not the point of her articles at all. They were not concerned about the illegality or immorality of the holding hostage of the government or the abrogation of the Constitution, or the sacking of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara! Nor were they concerned if it could have been avoided. No one is fooled by such mealy-mouthed nonsense. Their arguments were justification for the removal of the Coalition Government by unlawful means. Her point was that the events leading up to May 19th and all else that followed were inevitable and right because of (to quote her) "Chaudhry's reckless leadership" and the "triumph of blind F.L.P. idealism". In other words, because we do not like what we believe is your superior attitude, your attractive idealistic policies, Chaudhry's style of leadership, and what we believe is lack of respect and caution, then you deserve all that you got! Mere Samisoni and Ahmed Ali need to ask themselves why have they demonised Mahendra Chaudhry to the point of absolute purgatory? Why do they seem to fear him so much? Just what crimes had he committed to deserve such unmerciful condemnation from them? And why have they also taken such an authoritarian, scornful and dismissive attitude to the F.L.P and its' Fijian Coalition partners? Was it because they had won a General Election fairly under the Constitution that the S.V.T. was responsible for introducing? Why do they believe that the F.L.P. led Coalition was not entitled to serve out its term and implement it's policies? After all the F.L.P led coalition won 58% of the popular votes as against 20% for the S.V.T.

According to all the 3 Constitutions that we have had in the last 30 years, a Party that is defeated in an Election and does not become part of the new Government, becomes the Official Opposition and should practice opposition to the Government's policies within the laws.

I had never said as she claims that indigenous Fijians are not entitled to change their mind. Indeed that is the main point of having a democracy where people criticize, organise publicly protests and change the Government in an election according to the law. Samisoni is arguing here that a few thousand taukei who demonstrated were justified in supporting the illegal overthrow. As if 5,000 marchers on the 19th and an average of about 1,000 supporters in Parliament each day represent 400,000 indigenous Fijians! All through her long articles, Samisoni has not given any credible reason why the F.L.P. Coalition deserved to be thrown out in the way it was on May 19th. We need a very simple explanation from her: "Just what sinister evil was F.L.P. foisting on the i Taukei that deserve such a response from George Speight's gang? It will not do for her to fob off this question to George Speight because all her argument so far add up to her personal endorsement and S.V.T. support for the "cause" and the "method".

That was evident from the words of Ratu Inoke and other S.V.T. stalwarts after the 1999 General Election. It was also evident in the words and action of the S.V.T. Management Board after May 19th (including herself) when they went to express their support to George Speight and gave cash and food supplies. Ratu Inoke told George Speight's supporters, in the hearing of people I know, that they should consider themselves under his "protection". He also went to the F.L.P. Office and told the President of the F.L.P., Jokapeci Koroi, to clear out because they were taking over the offices of Government. If that was not support of illegality, than what was it? Feigning ignorance of the plan of George Speight's "batis" does not excuse supporting the illegal action after it happened. Samisoni now tries to deny that Ratu Inoke made that "blood and guts" threatening statement at the S.V.T. Management Board. Neither she nor Dr Ahmed Ali were at that meeting. I have got the Minutes and the notes on that meeting and I will produce it in Court if need be. Anyway, Ratu Inoke has not denied what he said.

Speight's coup is indeed a stepchild of the S.V.T. A senior S.V.T. politician had told me that this was an F.A.P. coup. That could be true, but I maintain the ideas gestated from the time when Ratu Inoke took over the leadership and began meeting Apisai Tora, Reverend Lasaro's disaffected group in the V.L.V. and the F.A.P. members. There was a discussion group and network when I was still in the S.V.T. Office. I heard accounts of what were being discussed. Ratu Inoke himself admitted to me that he was "frightened" by the ideas that were being proposed then from the Nationalist Party supporters. The S.V.T. leadership admission of responsibility for the coup is indeed well encapsulated in the words: "We support the cause but not the method". The S.V.T. leadership may not have been involved in the seizure of the Government but they organised the marches and supported the hostage holding afterwards. It was quite amusing observing Ratu Inoke's machiavellian manouvers through other channels than George Speight's group to get to the position he is in now. And that at the cost of all the Members of Parliament in the S.V.T. losing their seats, their income, and their future career in politics.

Mere claims that she is one of those who have "bothered to try a deeper analysis of the reasons for the prevailing i Taukei discontent. But then she says "these investigations are still embryonic for the moment". Well, her articles certainly displays "embryonic analysis". But to be generous to her, let me summarise the embryonic reasons that she has advanced so far as justification for George Speight's treasonable actions: 1. Fijians did not accept Chaudhry's "Sham victory". 2. The S.V.T. had appeared to abandon its pro Taukei roots at the time it formed the Coalition with N.F.P and G.V.P. 3. The Taukei did not like the result of the Constitution. 4. Chaudhry did not take on board the views of the S.V.T. in Parliament. 5. Taukei acceptance of the Constitution was "conditional on it delivering the elevated economic future to which Fijians have always aspired". 6. Chaudhry was not "focussed on the existential reality of those views". 7. Chaudhry did not investigate the reasons for the Fijians discontent. 8. The Fijians had been marginalised for decades.

My summary reply to the above points are these: 1. Was 58% of the valid votes for the F.L.P. led Coalition a sham? What about the S.V.T's 20%? 2. Why did she become a candidate for the S.V.T. in the last General Election if she believed the Party was then abandoning it's pro Taukei roots? 3. She has not provided any credible empirical evidence of widespread Taukei discontent with the 1997 Constitution. 4. She has not given any specific example of the Chaudhry's Government's refusal to consider the S.V.T's view in Parliament. And by that I mean practical policy alternatives that could have improved on the Government's policies and decisions. 5. For indigenous Fijians to expect the 1997 Constitution to deliver "elevated economic development" for them, and within a year is cargo cult thinking, and an incredible insult to the intelligence of ordinary Fijian voters. As a business woman, she should be one of the first people to know that good laws are important to commercial development but do not in themselves deliver the hot bread into Fijian hands immediately. (Is that why she was supplying hot bread to George Speights' people in Parliament?) 6. If Chaudhry and his colleagues had not done enough to understand what was behind the Taukei Movement discontent, that is still not a justification for the S.V.T's support of George Speight after the Coup.

In any case we do not need deep analysis to understand the reasons and motives behind the mobilisation of the Taukei Movement. The movement of indigenous Fijians behind George Speight were roused over a period of a year by half truths, distortions and out right lies peddled by Opposition politician and their network of activists, and leading supporters all over Fiji on a range of issue which are well known. The fault of Chaudhry's Government, and I think Mere agrees with me here, is that it did not take the Taukei movement seriously and did not do enough to counter the propaganda peddled against them at the grassroots. It may have been blindly over-confident because of their numbers in Parliament. It also trusted the Police and the marchers too much to observe the laws. There had been more than enough warnings in the news media about the possible violent turn that the Taukei marches could take. 7. On the issue of marginalisation of indigenous Fijians, about which Professor Davis and Mere have come to similar conclusions I will address this in another article. Suffice to say that the Fiji Labour Party had very good and relevant policies for indigenous Fijian development, such as the Land Use Commission, the Micro-Finance Scheme, the Village Development Scheme and others that were integrated with legislative and policy programmes to be implemented over the five years period. These were not based on "ivory tower theories" as Samisoni claimed but were the sort of programmes that the S.V.T. and the Alliance Party should have pursued when in power, had they had consistent and sustained commitment to uplifting the standard of living of the Fijians and the poor in general.

I believe it was because the S.V.T. and the other dissenting Fijian Parties feared that a Party with a strong philosophical commitment to the poor, would do a better job in promoting "indigenous rights and interests", that was one of the major reasons behind the revival of the Taukei Movement protests and the Coup. Chaudhry had to be stopped because he was such a capable Indo-Fijian leader who might, with the backing of his Fijian colleagues, achieve more for the indigenous Fijians than the S.V.T. and the Alliance Party in the last 30 years. Such success was seen as a threat that could "marginalise" the S.V.T., the N.V.T.L.P. and other dissenting Fijian Party factions in the very political territory that they claimed to be their own. So this Coalition Cabinet with a majority of indigenous Fijian members had to go!

Finally, Mere said "there is no point for me to try to explain the i Taukei world view to Dakuvula who has no excuse for not being familiar with it in the first place". I do not need Ahmed Ali to tell me what indigenous Fijians think. I believe I have known about this "world view" for about thirty years. My concern has been that Fijian leaders who claim to represent this "world view" should follow the laws that they agreed to be bound by and the civilized Christian principles they often cloak themselves with. If they do not honour Constitutional laws they made for themselves, then this belief does not deserve to be called a "world view" but just naked greed and self interest of a few, using indigenous people to support whatever suits them. However, if I have got this "Taukei World View" wrong, then I ask Mere Samisoni to enlighten me and the readers about it. Define the Fijian world view for us.