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.
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 The Fiji Times, April 6, 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 per cent 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 The 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 per cent and inexorably growing, while that of Indo-Fijians is now 34 per cent and falling.
From my population projections, by 2037, the iTaukei share will be around 72 per cent and rising, and the Indo-Fijian share will be 21 per cent and still falling.
Graph 1, 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.
iTaukei share of household income rising
Graph 2 shows that the iTaukei share of Total Household Income (as estimated from FBS data) has been rising from 49 per cent in 1991 to 53 per cent in 2019-20. Conversely, the share of Indo-Fijians was generally falling from 50 per cent in 1991 to 36 per cent in 2008-09 before rising strangely to 41 per cent in 2019-20 (yet to be explained).
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). 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).
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 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 indicated that iTaukei households are showing huge improvements over the last thirty years.
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 per cent in 2004-05 to 47 per cent in 2010-11, and I suspect well over 50 per cent today.
In the same period, the Indo-Fijian share has declined from 50 per cent in 2004-05 to 45 per cent in 2010-11 and I suspect probably less than 40 per cent today.
Occupation Groups 1, 2 and 3: The iTaukei share of the top three occupation groups (managers, professionals and technical persons) remained at 47 per cent between 2004-05 and 2010-11, while the Indo-Fijian share declined from 43 per cent to 42 per cent over the same period.
I suspect that the iTaukei share of the top three occupation groups is well over 50 per cent today.
Salaried Persons: iTaukei are well over 50 per cent of all the salaried persons while Indo-Fijians are now less than 40 per cent. 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 per cent in 2004-05 to 49 per cent in 2010-11, and is probably well over 50 per cent today.
Conversely, the Indo-Fijian share of FNPF contributions declined from 49 per cent in 2004-05 to 45 per cent in 2010-11 and is probably less than 40 per cent today.
Given the high emigration of Indo-Fijians, I suspect that the iTaukei share of total FNPF funds is probably well over 60 per cent 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 per cent 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 recognise 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 per cent to 7 per cent, (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 per cent in 2004-05 to an even worse 37 per cent in 2010-11.
Even for Indo-Fijian workers, their effective rate of unemployment rose from 27 per cent in 2004-05 to 31 per cent 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 than 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 of today by all these criteria especially given that Indo-Fijian families have been emigrating and leaving the bulk of their assets behind.
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 emphasise 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).
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 organisations 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).
But are there government ministers today who know the value of relevant statistics to guide their difficult policy decisions, enough to adequately resource the organisations 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.
