Research or assumption?
MINISTER for Environment and Climate Change Lynda Tabuya attributed responsibility for the high volume of rubbish collected in the trash boom at the Wailea Street bridge in Vatuwaqa to local residents (FT 29/8).
Was this conclusion based on researched data, or was it an assumption?
Jioji Nasaya, a 23-year-old resident, who lives near the trash boom, disputed the minister’s claim.
He said “why would we throw rubbish in the creek when we know it will ultimately affect us?”
I believe the young man’s rebuttal makes good sense.
RAJEND NAIDU Sydney, Australia
Putting out fires
IT is interesting that those named and shamed in the COI report are the ones who have all banded together to discredit the whole proceedings.
Instead of doing the honourable thing and stepping down to allow investigations to clear them, these people have turned the tables, so they think.
I believe the PM has allowed all this to happen. Instead of being decisive, he is running around putting out fires at a huge cost to the taxpayers.
I cannot work out whether it is because of incompetence or is it by design.
Perhaps it is a combination of both. But my question is, when will the PM start to govern the country instead of being the fire chief who spends his time putting out fires of his own making.
JAN NISSAR Sydney, Australia
$US24b fine
THE news that Meta will pay a fine of $US24billion has been seen as a significant step in recognising the effects of social media platforms but is it enough?
To me $24b is an amount beyond comprehension but to these companies is it just a line item in their budgets?
Generally, a crime involving childhood addiction would result in significant jail time rather than just money.
A more consequential outcome could be a simple one — turning the site off for an hour each time something inappropriate happens and isn’t remedied within a reasonable, but short time.
Maybe the site would rarely be live but there would be less children damaged.
Change the algorithm and let young minds go free.
DENNIS FITZGERALD Melbourne, Australia
Quality party candidates
I WISH to sincerely thank Aren Nunnink of Savusavu for his faith and confidence in my contributions over the years, including his generous pledge to support my candidacy should I ever stand for election.
His encouragement reminds me that the issue is not the depth of any single writer’s contribution, but rather the absence of genuine leadership in our nation.
Globally, politicians are now ranked among the least trusted professions — often below the proverbial “snake–oil salesman” or the bald–headed man selling miracle ointments door–to–door.
Fiji is no exception. We have seen how even good people, once elected, can be corrupted — not only by money, but by favours, shortcuts, and compromises that erode integrity.
The recent 138 per cent pay rise for Members of Parliament has only worsened this problem.
It will inevitably attract “dead wood” candidates who see Parliament as a lucrative career rather than a solemn duty.
For a nation of just 930,000 people, the proliferation of assistant ministers is a disgraceful misuse of public resources. If this trend continues, Fiji will slide further into mediocrity.
Against this backdrop, the Fiji Labour Party’s recent call for expressions of interest from qualified citizens (FT 26/08/26) is a welcome development.
Under the leadership of Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP has set the groundwork for a team of candidates with proven expertise in governance, law, health, education, environment, and finance.
This is precisely the kind of leadership search Fiji needs.
Other parties must follow suit. We cannot afford to fill Parliament with individuals who lack the ability to understand the legal system, formulate policy, or contribute meaningfully to national development.
We need candidates who can actively serve in areas that matter — agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, technology, and community welfare.
There are indeed capable people already in Parliament — individuals such as Usamate, Premila, Vijendra, Hem Chand, and others — but their talents are stifled by the paralysis and gridlock of the current governance style. They must be supported, not relegated to mediocre roles.
Mr Nunnink is right. Fiji must ask whether citizens with overseas experience, who have seen how other democracies function, can contribute as MPs.
The Bainimarama era made it difficult for diaspora Fijians to return and serve, but if we are serious about nation–building, we must open the door to all who can help.
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but words alone cannot rebuild a nation.
Fiji needs leaders of integrity, expertise, and vision. The FLP has taken the first step — now it is up to all parties to rise to the challenge.
Dr SUSHIL K SHARMA Lautoka
Hibiscus Festival launched in style
A glorious and colourful gloat procession marked the opening of the 69th Hibiscus Festival, which was officially launched yesterday.
The ‘Mother of All Festivals’ will provide Fijians the opportunity to enjoy a week of festivities and experience Fiji’s rich cultural diversity, featuring multicultural entertainment, amusements and a variety of food.
Ten Queen contestants are competing for the Miss Hibiscus crown.
The queen contestants looked confident as they took part in the float procession.
Fijians made their way to the Capital and stood still as they enjoyed every bit of the float procession.
Differences aside, they cheered as the procession went past them, re-igniting those beautiful memories from previous Hibiscus festivals.
Rajnesh Ishwar Lingam Nadawa, Nasinu
Beyond the clap
AS a spiritual person, Ashneel Jaynesh Prasad took the trouble to go and see for himself in Tokyo how philosophically shallow and jingoistic Baba Bageshwar was with his religious claptrap (FT 29/8/26).
And people were clapping for him!
Like Ashneel, many people around the world have discovered many religious babas in today’s world to have a similar bent like Baba Bageshwar.
But the cult following of Indian self-styled godman and the clapping will continue because many do not possess the critical thinking Ashneel clearly demonstrates.
RAJEND NAIDU Sydney, Australia
Fiji’s overseas missions
FIJI maintains high commissions and embassies in several countries, funded by taxpayers and entrusted with the role of representing our nation overseas.
Yet an important question appears rarely to be asked: Who measures whether these diplomatic missions are actually serving the people?
What performance indicators are set for our ambassadors, high commissioners and their staff? Are response times, public accessibility, call volumes, unanswered inquiries and community engagement ever audited? Are these offices required to report how many people they assist or how many emails and telephone calls they simply ignore?
My experience with the Fiji High Commission in Wellington has been deeply disappointing. Numerous telephone calls went unanswered, while email correspondence was not even acknowledged.
In this digital age, surely it is not unreasonable to expect an automated reply confirming that an email has been received and providing an estimated response time.
If a diplomatic mission cannot answer its telephones or acknowledge correspondence, what practical purpose is it serving for ordinary people?
A high commission is not merely an impressive building with an ambassador, assistants and administrative staff.
It exists to represent Fiji, protect Fiji’s interests and provide accessible assistance to Fijians and others requiring consular or official services.
An overseas mission is, in many respects, the face of Fiji in another country. Its professionalism or lack of it reflects directly upon the Government it represents.
In earlier times, an ambassador carrying the authority of a sovereign was treated as the sovereign’s own representative.
Today, our diplomatic representatives similarly carry Fiji’s name, reputation and authority. When their offices are inaccessible, unresponsive or indifferent, that neglect becomes Fiji’s image abroad.
New Zealand and Australia are especially important because of the large Fijian communities residing in both countries.
People may need assistance concerning passports, immigration documentation, emergencies, bereavements, official verification or other serious matters.
How many people are being inconvenienced or potentially left distressed because they cannot obtain a simple response?
This concern should not be dismissed as one person’s unpleasant experience. If it can happen repeatedly in Wellington, it is reasonable to ask whether similar problems exist at Fiji’s missions elsewhere.
The ministry responsible for foreign affairs should publish clear service standards for every overseas mission, including:
-expected telephone and email response times;
-procedures for handling urgent consular matters;
-the number and nature of public inquiries received;
-community outreach activities conducted;
-complaints received and resolved; and
-whether each mission has met its annual performance targets.
Fiji’s Opposition should also be demanding this information in Parliament. How much does each mission cost the public? What outcomes are being achieved? When was each mission last independently reviewed? Are ambassadors and senior officials assessed on actual performance, or are appointments made and then left largely unquestioned?
Our overseas missions should be proactive. They should conduct community consultations and periodic mobile consular services or roadshows in areas where significant numbers of Fijians live.
They should maintain updated websites, reliable telephone systems and properly monitored email accounts. Most importantly, they should be approachable.
If an ambassador, high commissioner or senior official consistently fails to ensure these most basic standards, that person’s performance should be formally reviewed. Where persistent failure is established, the Government must be prepared to replace the official. Diplomatic titles should never provide immunity from accountability.
Fijian governments and ministers are often quick to publicise achievements and defend their performance. However, official speeches and glowing announcements mean very little when the reality experienced by people on the ground is silence, frustration and neglect. Cheap talk cannot substitute for dependable public service.
Slackness must not be allowed to become embedded in government operations whether inside Fiji or in offices carrying Fiji’s flag overseas. We must examine the entire system from a bird’s-eye view. If we continue looking upward from inside the well, we will see only its walls and never the full picture.
The people deserve to know: Are Fiji’s overseas missions genuinely serving the public, and who will hold them accountable when they do not?
ROBERT R KANT Sydney, Australia
