An Endorsement in my Volume 4 book
“Wadan is an incisive commentator on how Fiji’s different communities fit in and often rub against, each other. He is that rare economist who can clarify to us how our humdrum everyday life is affected by the big economic decisions that important people make. Wadan is also an honest social observer. In multiracial Fiji, many of us pretend that we’re not racist, but we check the name of a letter writer or a defendant in a court case; identify the person’s racial origins and quickly jump to conclusions about that person’s motives, comfortably smug in our belief that we are not racist. Wadan Narsey often disturbs this comfort, raising the lid on our prejudices.” – Vimal Madhavan, Cardiff, Wales. (former 1980s Fiji Times Sub-Editor).
You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Mathew 7:5).
In 2014, at the height of media censorship, the Voreqe Bainimarama Government and its MIDA chairman (Ashwin Raj) mounted a vicious attack on the late Ratu Tim Vesikula, for alleged racism against Indo-Fijians.
Disturbed that there was a totally one-sided discourse taking place on racism, I wrote a series of articles which were published on my personal blog (NarseyOn- Fiji) and others internationally, with the Bainimarama Government censorship discouraging publishing locally.
This article is Reading 91 in my recently published Towards a Decent Fiji. I discuss the other racisms in Fiji in the next five instalments which come from Readings 92 (Fijian versus Indo-Fijian racisms), Reading 93 (GujaratiHindustani racisms), and Reading 94 (North versus South, Hindus versus Muslims, castes).
Ratu Tim Vesikula and MIDA Chairman
The chairman (Ashwin Raj) of the Fiji Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) has opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of questions, with his reaction over the alleged “hate speech” by a Fijian leader, Ratu Timoci Vesikula, who was apparently giving advice to Rear Admiral Voreqe Bainimarama on his campaign trail in his own province, Tailevu.
Was the chairman of MIDA making his judgment from some English translation of Vesikula’s speech? If so, how accurate was the translation as there appear to be different versions circulating?
It is still not clear to the public what exactly were Ratu Vesikula’s words that could be reasonably construed to be “hate speech”, even after Mr Raj’s explanations on the FBC TV program “4 The Record”.
How reasonable in law is it that the MIDA chairman can be prosecutor, judge and jury of third parties like Fiji TV (the “reporter” of the speech) even before the speaker and alleged culprit has been charged and found guilty of “hate speech” under current Fiji laws?
Could a mere three-minute airing by Fiji TV of what Ratu Vesikula said, be accurately called “unfettered coverage” as Raj claimed?
Could the fact that Mr Bainimarama’s response to Mr Vesikula was not immediately aired by Fiji TV, be reasonably called “unbalanced coverage” by Fiji TV, when most of Mr Bainimarama’s speech at that Tailevu meeting was reported?
Could Fiji TV be accused of unbalanced media coverage over this three-minute news item, when it is abundantly clear that in any one week or month, Fiji TV gives probably thirty times more coverage to Mr Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and other ministers than they do to the views of opposing politicians or traditional leaders like Ratu Vesikula?
Is MIDA going to ensure that every time Mr Bainimarama, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum or other government minister gets media exposure, that the media will be required to immediately give similar exposure to the Opposition?
Is MIDA’s demand that all political speeches in the vernaculars be translated into English consistent with the human right of citizens, and politicians and voters, to communicate with each other in their own languages, without being forced to translate into English?
Is Ashwin Raj exhibiting some preconceived attitudes of his own when he defensively admonished the media “my decision this morning cannot be misconstrued as an impingement of freedom of expression or dismissed as yet another instance of gagging media freedom by MIDA as has been insinuated by some who are posturing as the praetorian guard of human rights, but sadly very quiet over the issue of hate speech”.
Those who search for the meaning of “praetorian guard” may be forgiven for thinking that for the last eight years in Fiji, there has been only one set of praetorian guards, paid for by taxpayers, protecting political emperors, for all of whom protecting human rights are of little importance.
It would be wrong for critics to humorously brush off the MIDA chairman as another Don Quixote tilting at windmills in a Fiji which seems to provide a fertile ground for the unfettered (nice word, that) flexing of powers. But, there are three other important ongoing issues that this MIDA/Vesikula incident raises, which will continue to surface in the run-up to the September election and beyond, and need to be discussed by the public to put this MIDA incident in its proper perspective.
Was Ratu Vesikula legitimately raising indigenous Fijian concerns about indigenous Fijians systematically lagging behind in education and commerce, as allowed under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which concerns cannot be classified as “racism”.
It would seem that racism against Indo-Fijians was exercising the mind of the MIDA chairman when he quite extraneously compared Ratu Vesikula’s statement to that by Asenaca Caucau, a former SDL minister, who had derogatively referred to Indo-Fijians as “weeds”.
To balance this picture, we also need to acknowledge the racism by Indo-Fijians against indigenous Fijians, the pervasive internal racisms amongst Indo-Fijian groups such as Gujarati/Hindustani, North Indian/South Indian, upper caste/lower castes, Hindus/Muslims, fair-skinned/ dark-skinned and religious bigotry.
For all these groups, “race is a fact of life”, not dissimilar to Ratu Vesikula’s view of Fijian and Indo-Fijian relations as being “kerosene and water” (however inaccurate).
If Fiji is to build a genuinely multi-racial society then we need to recognise all racisms, and not just target indigenous Fijians, as is the current vogue for a small coterie of powerful individuals in the Bainimarama regime.
This article is broken into four parts:
Part I Raising indigenous concerns is not “hate speech”
Having read the media releases by MIDA and also viewed the FBC program “4 the Record” on Sunday night (April 6, 2014) in which Ashwin Raj was interviewed and allowed to explain his decision for half an hour, I was no wiser as to what actually Ratu Vesikula had said that might be construed as “hate speech” against IndoFijians.
Going by the various translations circulating, Ratu Vesikula is supposed to have warned Mr Bainimarama (with my personal views in parentheses) that
• Bainimarama needs indigenous Fijian votes to be elected Prime Minister (correct) • most indigenous Fijians would like to support Bainimarama (debatable) • other communities will not support Bainimarama (quite wrong)
• Indo-Fijians cared only about the Constitution (quite wrong)
• Indo-Fijians cared only about their investments (valid only for the business classes, but for all races, including Fijians) • Indo-Fijians will want to “pacify and assuage” Bainimarama to get whatever they want (valid for all races)
• that Fijians had lost their special FAB scholarships and were disadvantaged in the Toppers scholarship program (quite valid)
• that Fijians were concerned about their rights to marine qoliqoli resources (quite valid)
• that “race is a fact of life” (generally valid in Fiji) (next three articles)
• that “kerosene and water do not mix” (did he mean “oil and water”?)
Vesikula is entitled to his views, but this and the next three articles suggest that significant progress is being made, especially by our younger people.
Raising indigenous concerns is not racism
IndoFijians need to look at Fiji through the eyes of indigenous Fijian leaders like Vesikula and understand their genuine deep fears: • that they may lose control over their land and marine resources;
• lose political leadership;
• lose their cultural identity;
• and in the only country in the world where they can realistically hope to preserve these for posterity. Such fears of indigenous peoples were internationally recognized as legitimate by the UN General Assembly in 2007. (http:// www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/ documents/DRIPS_en.pdf)
While accepting the fundamental equality of all peoples the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• recognises the historical marginalisation of indigenous peoples the world over
• recognises the need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in historical treaties and constructive agreements with the state.
• recognises the right of indigenous peoples to organise themselves as a group for political, economic, social and cultural enhancements.
• encourages States to enhance indigenous peoples rights through consultation (not through force)
Article 5 states clearly that indigenous people “have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions”.
Indeed, many of the actions taken by the Bainimarama regime in forcing changes on Fijian people and institutions without their agreement, contradicts the above UN Declaration.
Of current relevance is that much of Ratu Timoci Vesikula’s concerns above, would be accepted as legitimate concerns of marginalised indigenous Fijians, as recognised by the United Nations.
Of course, none of the above would ever justify the physical violence against Indo-Fijians in the coups of 1987 or 2000, or periodic “hate speech” or the threatening of violence by racist politicians over the years, such as Butadroka.
Kerosene and water can mix
Does Ratu Vesikula’s statement that “kerosene and water do not mix” amount to “hate speech”? It is not stated which ethnic group was intended by Ratu Vesikula to be the “kerosene” and which “water”: both seem to be essential to the lives of indigenous Fijians, especially in the rural areas.
Of course, it is historically correct that IndoFijians and indigenous Fijians have not intermarried much in Fiji, partly discouraged by the British colonial policies of “divide and rule”, and surely also partly because of cultural and dietary differences.
But they certainly have been considerable “mixing” in both urban and rural areas, and even more inter-marriages are taking place today, especially amongst the young.
The public waits for Ashwin Raj to clarify what exactly he saw as the “hate speech” by Ratu Timoci Vesikula (in Fijian and in the translation) and whether Fiji’s courts would make the same conclusion as the MIDA Chairman .
We Indo-Fijians should also acknowledge first, that while we have faced the overt racism of 1987 and 2000, we also have our own covert historical racism towards indigenous Fijians (Part II here), and second, we are also plagued by all-pervasive internal racisms which are seldom aired publicly (Parts III, IV and V).
All these expressions of racism could easily be included in the “hate speech” category, that the chairman of MIDA aggressively talked about on the FBC program, “4 The Record”.
• Tomorrow in The Sunday Times: Part II – Fijian versus Indo-Fijian racisms
- PROF WADAN NARSEY is one of the region’s senior economists and a regular commentator on political and economic issues in Fiji. The views expressed in this articles are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times.
