On February 10, 1999, the ruling Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa Ni Taukei party made a stunning revelation on the floors of Parliament.
That day, Minister for Finance, James Ah Koy, announced the government was going to buy 44 per cent of shares in the ailing newspaper, The Daily Post.
The pronouncement came as a surprise because, before this, the Government had been rolling out its reform policy, including selling off public assets that continued to make losses and could not run efficiently.
So when the leadership took a U-turn from selling public assets to acquiring them, and out of all businesses – a rundown newspaper, the Fiji public was suspicious.
Overnight, Government’s decision sparked a huge public outcry, spearheaded by those who could read between the lines of political rhetoric.
You see, that decision was wrong on so many levels. Let me point out two.
Firstly, the government should never be in the business of running or controlling media organisations.
Secondly, the general elections were just three months away.
It was held between May 8 and 15, 1999, the first election held under the 1997 Constitution, which instituted a new electoral system.
The elections resulted in Fiji Labour Party leader, Mahendra Chaudhry, taking office as Fiji’s first non-i Taukei Prime Minister.
Many questioned the motive behind The Daily Post deal saying it undermined the role of the media as a Government watchdog and threatened media independence and freedom.
Some went far as saying it was a desperate attempt by the Government to curb the media on the eve of the May 1999 general elections.
But Government was adamant it had bought 44 per cent of the shares from the Fiji Development Bank for all the right reasons.
That included developing the paper and floating it on the Stock Exchange. Members of the public were told they would be given an opportunity to own shares in what the government had itself termed “a virtual rag”.
The government argued the move was its political obligation and it had been its intention for a while to establish a Fijian-owned newspaper.
Mr Ah Koy said it was all about getting a “better return for an asset that had been negligible in the past”.
“By bringing it back to the Government … and floating it on the stock exchange, every member of the public of this country can own this newspaper,” Mr Ah Koy said.
“There is no ulterior motive and we are not trying and deny someone the purchase of it. We are just trying to maximise a bad situation.”
Those who advised against Government’s decision did not mince their words. At stake was something bigger than company profit – media freedom.
Opposition Leader Jai Ram Reddy said the takeover was “perplexing”.
He said the need to have the media free from political influence was a very important adjunct to any democracy.
“Government should only do those things that governments are supposed to do and not go into areas where they have a very poor track record.”
University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme coordinator David Robie said the venture was “worrying” and “ill-advised”.
“It would be foolish if Government uses the paper for its election campaigns. It is really bad timing on the part of the Government to buy shares in the company when the country is close to the general elections,” he said.
Mr Chaudhry said Government’s decision was “absolutely absurd”.
“No free world country has state-run media. Such practices are prevalent only in communist states and are used as a tool of government propaganda,” said Mr Chaudhry.
“With elections only a couple of months away, the real motive behind Government’s intention in acquiring shares in the financially-troubled daily is quite obvious.”
The Daily Post was established in October 1987 through a loan from the FDB.
In 1993, after seeing that the newspaper could not repay its loan, the FDB converted the loan and interests into 245,000 shares at $1 per share.
In 1995, FDB bought another 225,000 shares at $1 per share, ending up with a total of 475,000 shares.
The government bought the paper’s shares worth over $500,000.
Under the deal, the three majority shareholders – Government, Colonial (now BSP) and Unit Trust, were to refurbish The Daily Post into a respectable, significant and alternative daily newspaper.
We all know how far that deal went. Not too far. The Daily Post is now history.
History also tells us, that as governments approach the elections, they have a general tendency to influence the voting public by a variety of crafty means.
They may go on an unnecessary and wasteful spending spree, hand out freebies, come up with a promising campaign, introduce or amend laws to suit them, go vote-buying and use strategies to control information dissemination through the media, among others.
The list goes on, all in the quest to hold on to power or grab it.
All these shrewd tactics may not come off in black and white. Political allegiance can be visibly bought or swayed by the exchange of gifts or money. It could be subtly done through the provision of day-to-day development assistance.
It could be complex through the implementation of new or existing pro-poor policies that appeal to the vulnerable.
Responsible and active citizens are needed to help pluck out these unfair practices by disrupting the supply or demand side in the vote-buying marketplace and demanding transparency and accountability.
On the topic of election stunts, this week, the Acting Prime Minister, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, launched satellite projects for rural Vanua Levu schools where he seized the opportunity to remark on the government’s effort in digitising broadcast in Fiji.
He said Fiji would have access to “the right information about Government” and other issues and would help people differentiate the truth and “lasulasu” information on social media and other sources.
He took the time to highlight the advantage of switching from digital from analogue via Walesi and its benefits to the people, especially those living in the rural areas.
Digitalising television allows viewers to access more channels.
While the switch to digital television is welcome, noting its promise on superior picture, sound quality and better access, it has its share of flaws. Its implementation can also be used to politicians’ advantage.
If implemented using transparent and accountable processes and genuine respect for media freedom, the switch can result in a diversity of media possibilities and great opportunities in e-commerce.
It can be a gold mine!
However, we must also be alert about the change, making sure those in leadership do not use the change to control the media, allow state broadcasters to control the market, encourage unfair competition and practices, and evade the use of transparent and just licensing processes and so forth.
The use of digital technology should not perpetuate or create the dominance of the transmission operator.
Without adherence to good governance principles and the effective participation of key stakeholders through proper consultation, what we envisage as technological advancement in broadcast may manifest political interference, media control and unfair dominance, among others.
We want the switch to digital technology to decrease inequality and ensure greater access to information as espoused by Government. Anything that borders on dishonesty and bias should not be tolerated.
As proud citizens, we must guard against those who rule, ensuring that as we draw closer to election day, they do not pull any stunt that will create an uneven playing field in the upcoming general elections. We certainly do not want anything close to my 1999 story.
The government’s job is to lead. Our job is to hold it accountable.
Until we meet again on this same page same time next week, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe.
