Fijileaks: Shortly after the 2022 general election, Reddy had contacted the newly elected Education Minister Aseri Radrodro to assist him in securing a teaching position at Fiji National University but Radrodro declined, informing Reddy to follow 'application process for a job at FNU' |
"The Minister (Mahendra Reddy) took over the case in his hands and entertained a recorded CD made on me which is baseless and contains no merit for a suspension without pay. There were obvious frustrations raised by teachers at the school about the conduct of business in the school. The Minister's wife was also teaching at the school and implicated. Those teachers who gave evidences against the wrong doings were immediately transferred out of the school upon the instructions by the Minister himself. A serious crime was committed by the Principal and evidences were clear but the Minister concealed the crime and has aided and abetted the Principal. I sent him a message through Director Secondary that the case needed to be reported to the Police but my advise was ignored." - PS Basundra Kumar in her resignation letter of 29 December 2014 to Public Service Commission |
29th December 2014
The Permanent Secretary
Public Service Commission
Berkley Cresent
Suva
RE: Resignation from Service
"Dear Sir
I wish to tender in my resignation from the service with effect from 29th January 2015. I have handed over the office of the Permanent Secretary of Education today at 2pm to Mrs. Kelera Talonga the Deputy Secretary Professional as per the letter from PSC dated 23rd December 2014.
I am being compelled to resign because of the following reasons (Fijileaks in bold):
1. Immediately after my handing over, I was issued with a suspension letter without pay effective from 30th December 2014. This is a clear indication of a personal vendetta against me. The suspension is issued based on a case at Bhawani Dayal Arya College in early October 2014. At this particular school the Principal was exercising lethargy and the Mathematics department teachers were having a free ride. I merely executed my duty as the Permanent Secretary of Education.
2. The Minister took over the case in his hands and entertained a recorded CD made on me which is baseless and contains no merit for a suspension without pay. There were obvious frustrations raised by teachers at the school about the conduct of business in the school. The Ministers wife was also teaching at the school and implicated. Those teachers who gave evidences against the wrong doings were immediately transferred out of the school upon the instructions by the Minister himself. A serious crime was committed by the Principal and evidences were clear but the Minister concealed the crime and has aided and abetted the Principal. I sent him a message through Director Secondary that the case needed to be reported to the Police but my advise was ignored.
3. The Minister failed to report the case then to PSC, if he had thought I had breached the code of conduct. Instead he quietly without A/PS’S (my knowledge) directed the Director Secondary to form a task team, investigate and report to him so that he could save his wife’s and his reputation.He is a micro-manager and performs the duties of the PS interpreting the constitution to his pleasure.
4. The Minister has no respect for the staff; he is an uncouth person, breaching the Civil service procedures, practicing parochialism, cronyism and favoritism.
5. He (Minister) works against the civil service procedures and when advised correctly feels offended, shows tantrums and threatens all for suspension and termination. He has a disregard for cabinet collective decision and unilateral decision making.
6. I continued to protect my staff against his vindictive approaches and he felt I was not supporting him thus he began plotting against me so that I could be removed from the position. My staff have been looking to me for rescue but I was always helpless. I have now made up my mind that I will not be able to work with this Minister.
I am attaching a letter of complaint written earlier together with my resignation letter herein for my employer to note and understand the duress compelling me to resign from the service. I thank the Ministry of Education for recognizing my good work and the positive contributions that I have made to the education sector in this country.
Basundra Kumar (Mrs.)
Acting PSE
The Permanent Secretary
Public Service Commission
Berkley Cresent
Suva
RE: Resignation from Service
"Dear Sir
I wish to tender in my resignation from the service with effect from 29th January 2015. I have handed over the office of the Permanent Secretary of Education today at 2pm to Mrs. Kelera Talonga the Deputy Secretary Professional as per the letter from PSC dated 23rd December 2014.
I am being compelled to resign because of the following reasons (Fijileaks in bold):
1. Immediately after my handing over, I was issued with a suspension letter without pay effective from 30th December 2014. This is a clear indication of a personal vendetta against me. The suspension is issued based on a case at Bhawani Dayal Arya College in early October 2014. At this particular school the Principal was exercising lethargy and the Mathematics department teachers were having a free ride. I merely executed my duty as the Permanent Secretary of Education.
2. The Minister took over the case in his hands and entertained a recorded CD made on me which is baseless and contains no merit for a suspension without pay. There were obvious frustrations raised by teachers at the school about the conduct of business in the school. The Ministers wife was also teaching at the school and implicated. Those teachers who gave evidences against the wrong doings were immediately transferred out of the school upon the instructions by the Minister himself. A serious crime was committed by the Principal and evidences were clear but the Minister concealed the crime and has aided and abetted the Principal. I sent him a message through Director Secondary that the case needed to be reported to the Police but my advise was ignored.
3. The Minister failed to report the case then to PSC, if he had thought I had breached the code of conduct. Instead he quietly without A/PS’S (my knowledge) directed the Director Secondary to form a task team, investigate and report to him so that he could save his wife’s and his reputation.He is a micro-manager and performs the duties of the PS interpreting the constitution to his pleasure.
4. The Minister has no respect for the staff; he is an uncouth person, breaching the Civil service procedures, practicing parochialism, cronyism and favoritism.
5. He (Minister) works against the civil service procedures and when advised correctly feels offended, shows tantrums and threatens all for suspension and termination. He has a disregard for cabinet collective decision and unilateral decision making.
6. I continued to protect my staff against his vindictive approaches and he felt I was not supporting him thus he began plotting against me so that I could be removed from the position. My staff have been looking to me for rescue but I was always helpless. I have now made up my mind that I will not be able to work with this Minister.
I am attaching a letter of complaint written earlier together with my resignation letter herein for my employer to note and understand the duress compelling me to resign from the service. I thank the Ministry of Education for recognizing my good work and the positive contributions that I have made to the education sector in this country.
Basundra Kumar (Mrs.)
Acting PSE
* Mrs KUMAR is currently Lecturer in Education at Fiji National University
BOOT THE RACIST OFF THE USP COUNCIL
USP unions and Professor Vijay Naidu must demand SEMI TUKANA, a co-opted Council member representing Fiji, is BOOTED OUT for his recent overtly racist FB postings
DEPORTATION: USP unions in their submission (24 April 2024) to the USP Council alleged that Ahluwalia's arrest and deportation out of Fiji has affected his mental state, hence his response to a question from a staff when asked when he was relocating from Samoa to Suva was deemed 'over the top' by many staff members. He needs 'trauma counselling which is affecting his leadership performance at USP'
Fijileaks: It was Dr Giulio Masasso Tu’ikolongahau Paunga who had prayed with Professor Ahluwalia and his wife Sandra Price in the moments before they were bundled into a car and driven to Nadi when they were detained in the early hours of the morning and deported out of Fiji.
*Following the Bainimarama Government's sudden deportation of Pal Ahluwalia, the USP Council had appointed Tonga's Dr Paunga as the interim Acting Vice-Chancellor.
*In their recent submission, USP unions condemned Ahluwalia's style of leadership, and especially his treatment of Paunga whose contract expires on 30 June 2024. Ahluwalia is accused of not renewing Paunga's contract.
Fijileaks: As we revealed the voting pattern yesterday, Professors Gurmeet Singh and Bibhya Nand Sharma voted with Nauru and Samoa for Pal Ahluwalia to continue running the USP from Samoa.
COMING: The two unions want FICAC to investigate Ahluwalia regarding payments to Arvind Patel, Head of the School of Accounting & Finance
From Fijileaks Archive, 22 April 2016
"With regards to his relationship with Dr Gurmeet Singh, VPA [Dilawar Grewal] mentioned that his family had a family relationship with Gurmeet and his family. He further mentioned that when on a weekend he felt like eating Parathas, he would call Gurmeet and go over to his house for breakfast. Hence, it was inappropriate for VC&P [Rajesh Chandra] to ask him to cease his relationship with Gurmeet and his family. To which the VC&P responded that to keep his trust VPA would have to stop being friends with Gurmeet because he was perceived to be a “conduit” to Dr Biman Prasad. VPA responded that he did not have a problem not talking to Dr Prasad but cannot not talk to Dr Gurmeet Singh as he was a friend. VC&P then stated that the choice was VPAs but if he wanted to keep his trust, then his (VPAs)relationship with Dr Biman Prasad would make this very difficult. VPA responded that he fully understood VC&P’s concern about his relationship with Dr Biman Prasad and would discontinue talking to him."
www.fijileaks.com/home/paratha-treat-or-biman-prasads-friendship-minutes-of-meeting-reveal-vc-rajesh-chandra-giving-dr-dilawar-grewal-ultimatum-you-must-cut-all-contact-with-dr-gurmeet-singh-and-prasad-to-save-your-contract
*According to highly reliable sources, Pal Ahluwalia is 'running out of friends in the USP Council'.
*In a heated meeting of the USP Council, he was 'put in his place'.
*Pacific Islands Forum representative abstained as usual.
*Of the 4 negative votes, two USP professors (Gurmeet Singh and Bibhya Nand Sharma) appointed by Ahluwalia, voted with Samoa and Nauru for him to remain in Samoa.
*The Tongan Prime Minister led the charge against Ahluwalia and the VC's side-kick BIMAN PRASAD was not at the meeting to defend Ahluwalia. The re-instated Education Minister Aseri Radrodro attended the USP Council meeting on behalf of the Coalition government.
From Fijileaks Archive, 28 May 2023
*BIMAN PRASAD is refusing to answer whether HIS WIFE was aware (via Pillow Talk) that the Coalition Cabinet was going to set aside $500,000 for Girmit Celebrations, hence Rajni and Ganesh Chand ran and re-registered the defunct Global Girmit Institute.
*The GGI was approved the next day, and it went on to organise the two-day international girmit conference at USP.
*Was Prasad aware that his wife was running around, registering the de-registered GGI, which had failed to submit its audited accounts.
*Ahluwalia, who was the Chief Speaker, is yet to answer questions (see below) regarding the famous Nixonian question: When did he know that Rajni was a GGI trustee, and what did he know about the GGI?
*Was USP paid to host the conference? How much?
Fijileaks to USP Vice-Chancellor PAL AHLUWALIA, 15 May 2023
Apologies dost.
1. Were you aware when you accepted the invitation from GGI that Biman's wife Rajni was one of three trustees who registered the de-registered GGI on 23 February 2023 shortly after Biman announced the $500,000 for the Girmit celebrations?
2. Did the USP charge the GGI to host the conference, and if so, how much will be billed to the GGI?
3. What is the explanation for such a magnanimous gesture if it was free?
4. What action will USP take against Rajni or will you launch your own separate inquiry into her association with the Global Girmit Institute?
Most people, especially Indo-Fijians, are appalled by my revelations, and more to follow later.
Regards
Victor
*The Mahmood Khan report alleged that the Director Assurance and Compliance at USP, DORIS DULARI TRAILL, was given an inducement allowance of 50% by VCP Pal Ahluwalia.
*This was given contrary to Ahluwalia's own stance against issuing of inducement allowances.
*Traill was on an annual salary of $124,386, and then given an inducement allowance of $63,693, taking her total salary to $188,079.
*According to the 'Mahmood Khan Report' she got the allowance while compiling a report alleging corruption on the part of others in receipt of much smaller allowance.
*The Report also alleged that Traill was given a one year extension by Ahluwalia at the end of her contract from May 28, 2020 to May 26, 2021 on the same salary of $188,079 which included the 50% inducement allowance.
PIO TIKODUADUA on Semi Tukana:'I blocked his guy some time back.'
MURGIWALLAH chickens out from confronting new march of RACISM
We remind SEMI TUKANA, other bogus nationalists of 1990 Constitution
that was imposed on Fiji, and which remained in existence until 1999.
From Fijileaks Archive, 6 September 2017
THE 1987 roadblocks after Rabuka's racist coups being replayed in 2024
After Sitiveni Rabuka's two coups, Jone Dakuvula wrote: |
From Fijileaks, 14 May 2022
The 1987 Dr Timoci Bavadra led Coalition government had more Indo-Fijian MPs by virtue of them winning more seats.
*It was no different from Sitiveni Rabuka's current Coalition government where i-Taukei MPs dominate government.
*Imagine Indo-Fijian Chants:
'We don't want this i-Taukei dominated Rabuka coalition government'
"Nevertheless, Fiji’s other ethnic groups must take this warning seriously since former RFMF officer Jone Baledrokadroka was “in the thick of things”, as self-confessed key actor during the 2000 coup and mutiny. | Fijileaks: A Bainimarama loyalist, Lieutenant Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka and his Zulu company, stormed the Kalabu school and arrested the Kalabu gang on |
The Committee’s vision of the expanded role for the GCC "will only succeed when other communities in Fiji understand and accept that unless the indigenous people have their fair share of the national wealth, Fiji’s long term progress and security cannot be guaranteed” |
*What exactly did the chiefs do to improve the welfare of indigenous Fijian commoners even after independence in 1970, as I have asked in several of my writings on the failure of the GCC to foster iTaukei welfare (all ignored by the Baledrokadroka Report which is full of references to Baledrokadroka’s own writings)
"Are other ethnic groups being threatened with another coup? What have the other ethnic groups (and especially Indo-Fijians) done to iTaukei to deserve receiving this threat?"
Professor Wadan Narsey, 'Closing the Gap', The Fiji Times, 27 April 2024
CLOSING THE GAP
By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY
In Australia, “Closing the Gap” between mainstream Australia and its indigenous population (the First Nations or Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders), has for decades been a horror story, which Australian government after government failed to improve while Pacific Islanders continue to ignore the plight of the first Pacific Islanders who came to the Pacific at least 65 thousand years ago (another article).
In Fiji without any supporting statistics, “Closing the Gap” between indigenous Fijians and Others has been ominously made the litmus test by a Review of the re-established Great Council of Chiefs by a Committee chaired by Dr Jone Baledrokadroka. The Baledrokadroka Report warns that “the Committee’s vision of the expanded role for the GCC” will only succeed “when other communities in Fiji understand and accept that unless the indigenous people have their fair share of the national wealth, Fiji’s long term progress and security cannot be guaranteed” (reported in Fiji Times, 16 April 2024.)
Even though the Fiji Bureau of Statistics is a treasure trove of relevant statistics, the Baledrokadroka Report contains no statistical evidence on the iTaukei share of the national wealth other than a brief superficial observation that the iTaukei now comprise 75% of the poor in Fiji.The Baledrokadroka Report does not explain why other ethnic groups should be held responsible for iTaukei not having a “fair share” of the national wealth. Nevertheless, Fiji’s other ethnic groups must take this warning seriously since former RFMF officer Jone Baledrokadroka was “in the thick of things”, as self-confessed key actor during the 2000 coup and mutiny. I will leave the analysis of the Baledrokadroka Report to another day.
The Baledrokadroka Report does not even hold to account all the numerous iTaukei-led governments who have been in power in Fiji for 53 out of 54 years after independence in 1970. In this article, I produce some hard statistics from seven Fiji Bureau of Statistics national household surveys (for 1991, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2015-16, and 2019-20) so that Fiji Times readers can understand the nature of the “gaps” between iTaukei and Others (read Indo-Fijians) and how iTaukei welfare has been improving over the last three decades.
The colonial era and iTaukei
But first, note that the “wealth” that the Baledrokadroka Report refers to is that generated in Fiji’s capitalist economy. Remember also that it was the British colonial authorities who for a hundred years, as a matter of government policy, expected indigenous Fijians to remain in their villages, under the “supervision” of the chiefs, with even their land leased out to Others. There are lots of historical questions and answers here, not to be addressed in this article. But the readers can ask:
*Why did the British rulers do that knowing full well what the long-term consequences would be for indigenous Fijians?
* Why did the Fijian leaders (especially their chiefs) accept that policy when they could see the other ethnic groups struggling away to slowly build their families’ future based on the modern capitalist economy, even including the use of native land?
* What exactly did the chiefs do to improve the welfare of indigenous Fijian commoners even after independence in 1970, as I have asked in several of my writings on the failure of the GCC to foster iTaukei welfare (all ignored by the Baledrokadroka Report which is full of references to Baledrokadroka’s own writings).
By PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY
In Australia, “Closing the Gap” between mainstream Australia and its indigenous population (the First Nations or Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders), has for decades been a horror story, which Australian government after government failed to improve while Pacific Islanders continue to ignore the plight of the first Pacific Islanders who came to the Pacific at least 65 thousand years ago (another article).
In Fiji without any supporting statistics, “Closing the Gap” between indigenous Fijians and Others has been ominously made the litmus test by a Review of the re-established Great Council of Chiefs by a Committee chaired by Dr Jone Baledrokadroka. The Baledrokadroka Report warns that “the Committee’s vision of the expanded role for the GCC” will only succeed “when other communities in Fiji understand and accept that unless the indigenous people have their fair share of the national wealth, Fiji’s long term progress and security cannot be guaranteed” (reported in Fiji Times, 16 April 2024.)
Even though the Fiji Bureau of Statistics is a treasure trove of relevant statistics, the Baledrokadroka Report contains no statistical evidence on the iTaukei share of the national wealth other than a brief superficial observation that the iTaukei now comprise 75% of the poor in Fiji.The Baledrokadroka Report does not explain why other ethnic groups should be held responsible for iTaukei not having a “fair share” of the national wealth. Nevertheless, Fiji’s other ethnic groups must take this warning seriously since former RFMF officer Jone Baledrokadroka was “in the thick of things”, as self-confessed key actor during the 2000 coup and mutiny. I will leave the analysis of the Baledrokadroka Report to another day.
The Baledrokadroka Report does not even hold to account all the numerous iTaukei-led governments who have been in power in Fiji for 53 out of 54 years after independence in 1970. In this article, I produce some hard statistics from seven Fiji Bureau of Statistics national household surveys (for 1991, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2015-16, and 2019-20) so that Fiji Times readers can understand the nature of the “gaps” between iTaukei and Others (read Indo-Fijians) and how iTaukei welfare has been improving over the last three decades.
The colonial era and iTaukei
But first, note that the “wealth” that the Baledrokadroka Report refers to is that generated in Fiji’s capitalist economy. Remember also that it was the British colonial authorities who for a hundred years, as a matter of government policy, expected indigenous Fijians to remain in their villages, under the “supervision” of the chiefs, with even their land leased out to Others. There are lots of historical questions and answers here, not to be addressed in this article. But the readers can ask:
*Why did the British rulers do that knowing full well what the long-term consequences would be for indigenous Fijians?
* Why did the Fijian leaders (especially their chiefs) accept that policy when they could see the other ethnic groups struggling away to slowly build their families’ future based on the modern capitalist economy, even including the use of native land?
* What exactly did the chiefs do to improve the welfare of indigenous Fijian commoners even after independence in 1970, as I have asked in several of my writings on the failure of the GCC to foster iTaukei welfare (all ignored by the Baledrokadroka Report which is full of references to Baledrokadroka’s own writings).
In my revised Volume 2 eBook A Fair Go For All Fiji, because of the historical importance of this topic, I have added another Section I : “A Fair Go for iTaukei”, bringing together all my articles tackling the relative failure of indigenous Fijians in succeeding in the modern capitalist economy, including the impact of their communal culture, and lack of appropriate leadership from their chiefs. Here I try to show with the limited data on my computer how the “Gaps” have been changing over the last thirty years, and surmise what factors might be responsible. |
ITaukei Share of Population Rising
The first fundamental fact is that over the last thirty years the iTaukei share of the population (and all the households in Fiji) has been steadily rising because of the lower fertility of Indo-Fijians and higher emigration rates. The iTaukei share is currently over 62% and inexorably growing, while that of Indo-Fijians is now 34% and falling. From my population projections, by 2037, the iTaukei share will be around 72% and rising, and the Indo-Fijian share will be 21% and still falling. Graph 1 (above), based on census data from 1881 to 2017 and projections thereafter, show clearly these trends, and are confirmed by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics household surveys for 1991, 2002-03, 2008-09 and 2019-20.
That interesting intersection of the two curves in the middle is when for thee decades only, the Indo-Fijian share exceeded that of the iTaukei for three decades, and also when the rare Indo-Fijian dominated Governments were brutally removed by the coups of 1987 and 2000. Bottom line: that falling line for Indo-Fijians must lay to rest once and for all the BOGEY of Indo-Fijian domination of iTaukei, which morally bankrupt politicians have always used to justify their evil coups. I present here also other statistics which suggest that the economic Gaps against iTaukei are also being narrowed or even reversed, while their material welfare has been steadily improving.
The first fundamental fact is that over the last thirty years the iTaukei share of the population (and all the households in Fiji) has been steadily rising because of the lower fertility of Indo-Fijians and higher emigration rates. The iTaukei share is currently over 62% and inexorably growing, while that of Indo-Fijians is now 34% and falling. From my population projections, by 2037, the iTaukei share will be around 72% and rising, and the Indo-Fijian share will be 21% and still falling. Graph 1 (above), based on census data from 1881 to 2017 and projections thereafter, show clearly these trends, and are confirmed by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics household surveys for 1991, 2002-03, 2008-09 and 2019-20.
That interesting intersection of the two curves in the middle is when for thee decades only, the Indo-Fijian share exceeded that of the iTaukei for three decades, and also when the rare Indo-Fijian dominated Governments were brutally removed by the coups of 1987 and 2000. Bottom line: that falling line for Indo-Fijians must lay to rest once and for all the BOGEY of Indo-Fijian domination of iTaukei, which morally bankrupt politicians have always used to justify their evil coups. I present here also other statistics which suggest that the economic Gaps against iTaukei are also being narrowed or even reversed, while their material welfare has been steadily improving.
Graph 2 (right) shows that the iTaukei share of Total Household Income (as estimated from FBS data) has been rising from 49% in 1991 to 53% in 2019-20. Conversely, the share of Indo-Fijians was generally falling from 50% in 1991 to 36% in 2008-09 before rising strangely to 41% in 2019-20 (yet to be explained- if the data is made available to me by the FBS). I emphasise that this graph refers to only household income, not corporate income, for which the only source can be Fiji Revenue and Customs Services. |
FRCS unfortunately does not provide data on taxable incomes by ethnicity (although it has provided me with data disaggregated by gender, which I gratefully used for an FWRM Report). Mr Malakai Niayaga, my former student, can surely remedy this given that he is the Chairman of the FRCS Board and was also for a while the Executive Chairman.
But iTaukei per capita income is Lower
Despite their larger share of Total Household Income, the iTaukei per capita income is lower than that of Indo-Fijians, although it is still rising over time (in nominal dollars).
But iTaukei per capita income is Lower
Despite their larger share of Total Household Income, the iTaukei per capita income is lower than that of Indo-Fijians, although it is still rising over time (in nominal dollars).
WHY is iTaukei per capita income lower? There are several factors I present some statistics on. ITaukei have larger families The demographic facts indicate that iTaukei households, with very similar incomes per household as Indo-Fijians, have to support far more people in the household, because of their higher birth rates for decades. Even though both iTaukei and Indo-Fijian birth rates have been falling for decades, Indo-Fijian birth rates have not only been lower, but falling faster as is indicated by Graph 4. In 2019-20, iTaukei households were on average supporting 1.7 children aged (0 to 14) compared to the 0.7 children in Indo-Fijian households. Of course, these children cost the families for food, clothing, education, etc. without earning any income. Indo-Fijian households therefore have far more income left over to spend on improve their housing, spend on cars and trucks, durable household goods like fridges and stoves, and even clothes and shoes. But even in these areas, the statistics I have indicate that iTaukei households are showing huge improvements over the last thirty years (see Graph 5). This demographic factor has nothing to do with any Other ethnic group keeping iTaukei down. The Employment Factors The FBS household surveys (especially the Employment and Unemployment Surveys of 2004-05 and 2010-11 for which I have ethnicity data (but not the 2015-16 EUS), make abundantly clear that iTaukei have made enormous progress in their involvement in the modern Fiji economy. |
Education: iTaukei have increased their share of Certificate/Diplomas/Degrees from 34% in 2004-05 to 47% in 2010-11, and I suspect well over 50% today. In the same period, the Indo-Fijian share has declined from 50% in 2004-05 to 45% in 2010-11 and I suspect probably less than 40% today.
Occupation Groups 1, 2 and 3: The iTaukei share of the top three Occupation Groups (Managers, Professionals and Technical Persons) remained at 47% between 2004-05 and 2010-11, while the Indo-Fijian share declined from 43% to 42% over the same period. I suspect that the iTaukei share of the top three occupation groups is well over 50% today.
Salaried Persons: iTaukei are well over 50% of all the salaried persons while Indo-Fijians are now less than 40%. This would of course be helped by civil service recruitment in favour of iTaukei as may be happening currently.
FNPF Contribution
While the Fiji National Provident Fund declines to publish any data by ethnicity, my indirect estimates from the Employment and Unemployment Surveys and those who state they contribute to FNPF, indicate that the iTaukei share of Annual Contributions has increased from 46% in 2004-05 to 49% in 2010-11, and is probably well over 50% today. Conversely, the Indo-Fijian share of FNPF contributions declined from 49% in 2004-05 to 45% in 2010-11 and is probably less than 40% today. Given the high emigration of Indo-Fijians, I suspect that the iTaukei share of Total FNPF funds is probably well over 60% today. The FNPF Board, who have declined to provide me with basic data, can confirm or deny my estimate.
But fewer iTaukei employers
Probably the only negative news in all these EUS statistics is that iTaukei are less than 10% of Employers who include the large self-employed business persons earning high incomes. Given that the iTaukei received little encouragement in the colonial era, even in this area here there has been great progress, especially with the successes of the Fiji Development Bank and the many government initiatives to encourage Small and Medium Enterprises in Fiji, especially in tourism.
Let us not forget the great success of Fijian Holdings Limited, a conglomerate of monopolies skilfully put together by a white entrepreneur, Lyle Cupit, long gone and forgotten by iTaukei business leaders today. There are many aspects of increased iTaukei involvement as employers and business persons which can be better estimated from FBS, FRCS and FNPF data.
iTaukei More Unemployed
One aspect which all the published statistics on employment and incomes completely fail to recognize is that iTaukei are more susceptible to “under-employment” and “effective unemployment”. From the Employment and Unemployment Surveys mounted by the FBS, you can estimate accurately (as I have done) the rates of “underemployment” by taking into how many hours per week the workers are actually working compared to the normal 40 hour week.
This is much higher than the oft-quoted Rates of Unemployment, usually reported as around 5% to 7%, (not consistent with the hordes of iTaukei youth hanging around in the towns of Fiji). iTaukei in Fiji are in many “self-employed” categories in the informal sector where they work much less than the full 40 hour week. When these unemployed hours are aggregated, the results are horrifying for both ethnic groups, but more so for iTaukei. The Rate of Effective Unemployment for iTaukei rose from a horrendous 34% in 2004-05 to an even worse 37% in 2010-11.
Even for Indo-Fijian workers, their Effective Rate of Unemployment rose from 27% in 2004-05 to 31% in 2010-11. I suspect that the numbers were worse in 2019-20 with poverty having risen. The bottom line is that when you are not working the full 40 hours per week, you are not earning in cash or kind (such as farm produce), and your per capita and total income will be less BECAUSE YOU ARE WORKING LESS.iTaukei workers and households cannot earn as much per week as Indo-Fijian workers and households, because they are working fewer hours per week. Whose fault is that?
What about Cultural Factors?
It is a fact of life that iTaukei society does not allow their members to be as “materialistic” as Indo-Fijians or Chinese are. ITaukei communal obligations are much higher than for Indo-Fijians. Whatever financial savings iTaukei have are less likely to be spent on acquiring houses, cars, fridges, TV sets, computers, household furniture, or other material possessions, than an Indo-Fijian household with the same income, but fewer children and less communal obligations. One can see such cultural differences at work even in Australia where new migrant Indian and Chinese families will buy houses rather then rent and go on annual holidays to Bali or Fiji. Despite that, Graph 5 shows that by all these important criteria, iTaukei were making significant progress between 2002-03 and 2008-09.
They are probably much better off today by all these criteria (and many others reported on by FBS Household Surveys) especially given that Indo-Fijian families have been emigrating and leaving the bulk of their assets behind- they certainly cannot take their houses with them, even if computers etc. can all go in the containers.
In the sixties, the distinguished Fijian academic, Rusiate Nayacakalau, had warned Fijians who wished to enjoy the material benefits of development,, that “they must now make the momentous choice between preserving and changing their way of life. The belief that they can do both simultaneously is a monstrous nonsense”. Sadly this brilliant and brave commoner academic was never given adequate respect by the chiefly leaders of Fiji who wished that commoners continue to pay homage to the traditional leaders even if it meant that their businesses failed.
My friend the late Dr Ropate Qalo who mentored his family business (Mucunabitu Iron Works) used to insist that MIW shareholders must keep their company accumulation goals separate from their traditional obligations (Reading 29 “Qalo’s lessons from Fijian Company MIW”, Volume 1 (The Challenges of Growing the Fiji Ecnomy”.)
No other chief has ever been brave or honest enough to emphasize that to the iTaukei commoners or their talatala.
What have iTaukei Governments done?
Do iTaukei commoners ever openly ask themselves, what have our iTaukei Leaders done for us to improve our economic conditions? Let us remember all the iTaukei Governments who have ruled for 54 years, except for just one year and one month, when they were viciously deposed by iTaukei military commanders.:
* 1970 to 1987: iTaukei Government (Ratu Mara)
* 1987 (one month): Indo-Fijian/iTaukei Government led by Reddy, Chaudhry and Bavadra.
* 1988-1999: iTaukei Government of Ratu Mara then led by Rabuka.
* 1999 (one year only): Indo-Fijian Government led by Mahendra Chaudhry
* 2000-2006: iTaukei SDL Government led by Qarase (in partnership with FLP without Chaudhry)
* 2007-2022: iTaukei Government led by Voreqe Bainimarama.
* Dec. 2022- iTaukei Government led by Sitiveni Rabuka (with minor partners Prasad and Gavoka).
Even during these periods, one should be able to document that enormous progress was made by iTaukei, led by commoners such as the late Laisenia Qarase who initiated their mataqali owned enterprises and was viciously punished by the Bainimarama Government for allegedly not declaring his family interests when he was CEO of the Fiji Development Bank decades ago (all iTaukei should read Qarase’s autobiography, very revealing.)
Today, the GCC Review Committee chaired by a former Military Officer (Jone Baledrokadroka) is telling Fiji that unless non-indigenous people understand and accept that iTaukei must have their fair share of Fiji’s wealth, there cannot be peace and stability in Fiji.
Are other ethnic groups being threatened with another coup? What have the other ethnic groups (and especially Indo-Fijians) done to iTaukei to deserve receiving this threat?
Is Government looking for statistics?
It is abundantly clear that there can be great progress in the monitoring the problems of iTaukei development through solid statistics which can guide constructive debates and solutions by Government and organizations like the Great Council of Chiefs. I acknowledge one Government Statistician (the late Timoci Bainimarama) who had the courage to foster such independent academic studies using FBS data and withstand political pressure, until he was forcibly retired (after which he soon passed away with a broken heart).
But are there Government Ministers today who know the value of relevant statistics to guide their difficult policy decisions, enough to adequately resource the organizations under their control, and to pay for expert consultants who can do so?
Waiting for their assistance and instruction are:
– the Fiji Bureau of Statistics
– the Fiji National Provident Fund
– Fiji Revenue and Customs Services
– the Ministry of Education
– the three universities
There may also be several PhDs which can be written on all the critical aspects of iTaukei development, based on hard statistical data, guided by a qase or two still alive, somewhere, although they should not hold their breath, waiting, for any response to their offers to do solid consultancies which will be value for money. Source: The Fiji Times, 27 April 2024
Occupation Groups 1, 2 and 3: The iTaukei share of the top three Occupation Groups (Managers, Professionals and Technical Persons) remained at 47% between 2004-05 and 2010-11, while the Indo-Fijian share declined from 43% to 42% over the same period. I suspect that the iTaukei share of the top three occupation groups is well over 50% today.
Salaried Persons: iTaukei are well over 50% of all the salaried persons while Indo-Fijians are now less than 40%. This would of course be helped by civil service recruitment in favour of iTaukei as may be happening currently.
FNPF Contribution
While the Fiji National Provident Fund declines to publish any data by ethnicity, my indirect estimates from the Employment and Unemployment Surveys and those who state they contribute to FNPF, indicate that the iTaukei share of Annual Contributions has increased from 46% in 2004-05 to 49% in 2010-11, and is probably well over 50% today. Conversely, the Indo-Fijian share of FNPF contributions declined from 49% in 2004-05 to 45% in 2010-11 and is probably less than 40% today. Given the high emigration of Indo-Fijians, I suspect that the iTaukei share of Total FNPF funds is probably well over 60% today. The FNPF Board, who have declined to provide me with basic data, can confirm or deny my estimate.
But fewer iTaukei employers
Probably the only negative news in all these EUS statistics is that iTaukei are less than 10% of Employers who include the large self-employed business persons earning high incomes. Given that the iTaukei received little encouragement in the colonial era, even in this area here there has been great progress, especially with the successes of the Fiji Development Bank and the many government initiatives to encourage Small and Medium Enterprises in Fiji, especially in tourism.
Let us not forget the great success of Fijian Holdings Limited, a conglomerate of monopolies skilfully put together by a white entrepreneur, Lyle Cupit, long gone and forgotten by iTaukei business leaders today. There are many aspects of increased iTaukei involvement as employers and business persons which can be better estimated from FBS, FRCS and FNPF data.
iTaukei More Unemployed
One aspect which all the published statistics on employment and incomes completely fail to recognize is that iTaukei are more susceptible to “under-employment” and “effective unemployment”. From the Employment and Unemployment Surveys mounted by the FBS, you can estimate accurately (as I have done) the rates of “underemployment” by taking into how many hours per week the workers are actually working compared to the normal 40 hour week.
This is much higher than the oft-quoted Rates of Unemployment, usually reported as around 5% to 7%, (not consistent with the hordes of iTaukei youth hanging around in the towns of Fiji). iTaukei in Fiji are in many “self-employed” categories in the informal sector where they work much less than the full 40 hour week. When these unemployed hours are aggregated, the results are horrifying for both ethnic groups, but more so for iTaukei. The Rate of Effective Unemployment for iTaukei rose from a horrendous 34% in 2004-05 to an even worse 37% in 2010-11.
Even for Indo-Fijian workers, their Effective Rate of Unemployment rose from 27% in 2004-05 to 31% in 2010-11. I suspect that the numbers were worse in 2019-20 with poverty having risen. The bottom line is that when you are not working the full 40 hours per week, you are not earning in cash or kind (such as farm produce), and your per capita and total income will be less BECAUSE YOU ARE WORKING LESS.iTaukei workers and households cannot earn as much per week as Indo-Fijian workers and households, because they are working fewer hours per week. Whose fault is that?
What about Cultural Factors?
It is a fact of life that iTaukei society does not allow their members to be as “materialistic” as Indo-Fijians or Chinese are. ITaukei communal obligations are much higher than for Indo-Fijians. Whatever financial savings iTaukei have are less likely to be spent on acquiring houses, cars, fridges, TV sets, computers, household furniture, or other material possessions, than an Indo-Fijian household with the same income, but fewer children and less communal obligations. One can see such cultural differences at work even in Australia where new migrant Indian and Chinese families will buy houses rather then rent and go on annual holidays to Bali or Fiji. Despite that, Graph 5 shows that by all these important criteria, iTaukei were making significant progress between 2002-03 and 2008-09.
They are probably much better off today by all these criteria (and many others reported on by FBS Household Surveys) especially given that Indo-Fijian families have been emigrating and leaving the bulk of their assets behind- they certainly cannot take their houses with them, even if computers etc. can all go in the containers.
In the sixties, the distinguished Fijian academic, Rusiate Nayacakalau, had warned Fijians who wished to enjoy the material benefits of development,, that “they must now make the momentous choice between preserving and changing their way of life. The belief that they can do both simultaneously is a monstrous nonsense”. Sadly this brilliant and brave commoner academic was never given adequate respect by the chiefly leaders of Fiji who wished that commoners continue to pay homage to the traditional leaders even if it meant that their businesses failed.
My friend the late Dr Ropate Qalo who mentored his family business (Mucunabitu Iron Works) used to insist that MIW shareholders must keep their company accumulation goals separate from their traditional obligations (Reading 29 “Qalo’s lessons from Fijian Company MIW”, Volume 1 (The Challenges of Growing the Fiji Ecnomy”.)
No other chief has ever been brave or honest enough to emphasize that to the iTaukei commoners or their talatala.
What have iTaukei Governments done?
Do iTaukei commoners ever openly ask themselves, what have our iTaukei Leaders done for us to improve our economic conditions? Let us remember all the iTaukei Governments who have ruled for 54 years, except for just one year and one month, when they were viciously deposed by iTaukei military commanders.:
* 1970 to 1987: iTaukei Government (Ratu Mara)
* 1987 (one month): Indo-Fijian/iTaukei Government led by Reddy, Chaudhry and Bavadra.
* 1988-1999: iTaukei Government of Ratu Mara then led by Rabuka.
* 1999 (one year only): Indo-Fijian Government led by Mahendra Chaudhry
* 2000-2006: iTaukei SDL Government led by Qarase (in partnership with FLP without Chaudhry)
* 2007-2022: iTaukei Government led by Voreqe Bainimarama.
* Dec. 2022- iTaukei Government led by Sitiveni Rabuka (with minor partners Prasad and Gavoka).
Even during these periods, one should be able to document that enormous progress was made by iTaukei, led by commoners such as the late Laisenia Qarase who initiated their mataqali owned enterprises and was viciously punished by the Bainimarama Government for allegedly not declaring his family interests when he was CEO of the Fiji Development Bank decades ago (all iTaukei should read Qarase’s autobiography, very revealing.)
Today, the GCC Review Committee chaired by a former Military Officer (Jone Baledrokadroka) is telling Fiji that unless non-indigenous people understand and accept that iTaukei must have their fair share of Fiji’s wealth, there cannot be peace and stability in Fiji.
Are other ethnic groups being threatened with another coup? What have the other ethnic groups (and especially Indo-Fijians) done to iTaukei to deserve receiving this threat?
Is Government looking for statistics?
It is abundantly clear that there can be great progress in the monitoring the problems of iTaukei development through solid statistics which can guide constructive debates and solutions by Government and organizations like the Great Council of Chiefs. I acknowledge one Government Statistician (the late Timoci Bainimarama) who had the courage to foster such independent academic studies using FBS data and withstand political pressure, until he was forcibly retired (after which he soon passed away with a broken heart).
But are there Government Ministers today who know the value of relevant statistics to guide their difficult policy decisions, enough to adequately resource the organizations under their control, and to pay for expert consultants who can do so?
Waiting for their assistance and instruction are:
– the Fiji Bureau of Statistics
– the Fiji National Provident Fund
– Fiji Revenue and Customs Services
– the Ministry of Education
– the three universities
There may also be several PhDs which can be written on all the critical aspects of iTaukei development, based on hard statistical data, guided by a qase or two still alive, somewhere, although they should not hold their breath, waiting, for any response to their offers to do solid consultancies which will be value for money. Source: The Fiji Times, 27 April 2024
editor@fijileaks.com
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