Fiji Labour Party Leader Mahendra Chaudhry has strongly rebutted Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s recent comments on constitutional reform, accusing him of misrepresenting Labour’s position and undermining legitimate concerns over minority rights and national unity.
“The Prime Minister has chosen to distort my concerns and has resorted to questioning my mandate,” Mr Chaudhry said in a statement.
“Our concerns are not rooted in a desire to cling to ‘old politics’ or to secure ‘veto power’, as the Prime Minister tries to portray,” he said.
“They are rooted in a deep and abiding commitment to the stability and unity of our nation, which can only be achieved by ensuring every citizen feels secure.”
Mr Chaudhry said the fears of the Fiji-Indian community could not be dismissed or minimised, as they stem from a painful history.
“The fears and apprehensions of the Fiji-Indian community must be understood.”
“They are rooted in the trauma, suffering and violence experienced through three racially-motivated coups, including institutionalised discrimination and a denial of their basic rights.”
He criticised the Prime Minister for failing to provide clarity on what specific changes he intended to make to the 2013 Constitution.
“It is a question of trust. The Prime Minister has refused to spell out exactly what changes he seeks to make in the 2013 Constitution, thus giving rise to apprehension and distrust.”
Mr Chaudhry reiterated Labour’s openness to a national referendum as part of the process, calling it “a vital democratic tool.”
“The Prime Minister tries to say that a referendum and political negotiations are two opposed processes. In a mature democracy, the two are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary.”
Rejecting accusations of political gamesmanship, the Labour Leader defended his call for dialogue.
“This is not about ‘backroom politics,’ but the hard work of building trust and ensuring the fears of all communities, particularly our minority communities, are addressed,” he said.
“I stand by my call for open and honest political negotiations on any constitutional amendments. That is hardly ‘backroom politics.’