Showing posts with label Fair and Accurate Coverage of the Issue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fair and Accurate Coverage of the Issue. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Document in Question.

The allegations of emails being hacked in Fiji, are being spun heavily by the Fiji media. Concerns of privacy aside, what are the facts of the issue?
Local lawyer, Graham Leung admits to be the author of a document titled " Exposing the Lie" which was circulated to a Public Relations consultant, Matt Wilson for his advice.

Interim Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had summoned the Fiji Times Publisher to address the contents and accuracy of that particular document, in relation to the recent media coverage on allegations of tax evasion, which seemingly appeared to be unfair and unbalanced.

Background on Graham Leung.

Lawyer representing, Ballu Khan regarding the allegations of financing an assassination plot and also represents former Chief Justice, Daniel Fatiaki.
Leung, the Vice-President of LAWASIA was prevented from attending a legal conference in New Zealand, according to an article published by Lawyers Weekly online. Leung was also involved in pressuring LAWASIA President, Mah Weng Kwai to resign from the newly from corruption unit known as FICAC, the resignation was reported in a Fiji Times article.

Background on Matt Wilson.

Former Fiji Times journalist and speech writer for deposed Fiji Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase. Owner of Public Relations firm, Matt Wilson Ltd, Director and Major Shareholder of Communications Fiji Ltd, according to their website.


Fiji Sun article quotes from Telecom Fiji employee regarding the legality of phone tapping.




Phone tapping illegal: Telecom
Last updated 3/20/2008 8:19:52 AM

Any directive to tap into personal telephone lines can only come from the President, says Telecom.

Telecommunication Fiji Limited acting chief executive officer Taito Tabaleka said the permission to tap into any person’s phone calls could only come from Ratu Josefa Iloilo.

Mr Tabaleka said the company did not receive any such order from Ratu Josefa in the recent past to tap into telephone conversations.
“Under the Telecom Act, only the President can order to have a telephone tapped and only under extreme situations like for national security reasons,’’ he said.

“Only then does TFL implement necessary equipment to satisfy the request from the President. “Under the current situation we’d like to confirm that no such order has been received.”

Mr Tabaleka however did not say whether any other organisation in the country had the necessary equipment to tap into and listen to phone conversations. He also did not say if phone conversations were safe.

The revelation came after concerns were raised over the suspected tapping of phones and lines belonging to individuals and organisations.Meanwhile, a media consultant yesterday alleged to have been threatened by a military personnel over an article he had edited.

Matt Wilson, a public affairs and media consultant, said he was threatened by someone he suspected to be from the military over professional editorial services he had provided for a draft article sent to him by Suva lawyer Graham Leung.

In a statement, Mr Wilson said the article critical of the interim regime was similar to countless others he had done in his career. “Mr Leung’s draft contained some forthright comment but I did not think it was particularly strident,’’ he said.
“I have seen more outspoken commentaries on the local situation.

It was for Mr Leung to ensure that the final version was accurate.” Mr Wilson said at about 5.40pm a caller speaking in a loud and aggressive voice demanded to speak to him.

“I asked who was calling and I thought I heard the name ‘Sota’ or ‘Sotia’,’’ he said. “He told me to be careful and to watch out, and said “we know what you are doing”. “He said “we have intercepted your letter to the Fiji Times”.

Then he put the receiver down.” “Of course, there was no letter from me to the Fiji Times. There was a draft article that I believe Mr Leung intended to send to that newspaper.”

Mr Leung had told an overseas journalist that he had also been threatened by someone from the military over that same letter.





In an article on Radio Fiji website, Fiji Times Editor has disputed the recent comments of the Interim Attorney General, regarding the article written by controversial lawyer, Graham Leung.

The excerpt of the Radio Fiji article:

‘Come out with proof’ says newspaper
Monday, March 17, 2008

The Fiji Times has questioned the Attorney-General office to come out with proof of allegations he made last Friday of articles which the newspaper states does not exist.

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika in responding to the AG’s claims at a media conference says it’s unfair of Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to make accusations on non-existent articles.

“To be intimidated over an issue which doesn’t even exist and which is being created by the Interim Attorney General himself I don’t think that’s fair on anyone.

“We have made a current check of our database and nothing existed there, I don’t know where he got the documents from and so it’s actually for him to say where he got the documents from and what is contained in them,” he said.

Rika adds the Attorney-General needs to support his claim against columnist James Bolavucu because as far as he’s concerned Bolavucu has been a regular contributor who lives in the United Kingdom.

On Friday, the AG also claimed that the interim government was reliably informed that Bolavucu was not corresponding from the UK but from Tamavua.




The excerpt of the Fiji Times article:


Military threatened me, Leung tells Radio NZ


Monday, March 17, 2008

SUVA lawyer Grahame Leung yesterday told Radio New Zealand he received a threatening phone call from the military this week.

Mr Leung told Radio NZ the threatening call he received was over an article he was writing for The Fiji Times, criticising the interim Government. He is representing New Zealander Ballu Khan who is charged with conspiring to kill interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and some other interim Government members. Mr Leung could not be reached for a comment on the issue yesterday.

However, New Zealand lawyer Peter Williams, QC, who is also representing Mr Khan told Radio NZ he was worried for Mr Leung, given the number of incidents in which people had died or were beaten while in custody.

Mr Williams said there was the potential for violence, as there seemed to be a lack of control and restraint in Fiji at present. When asked yesterday if police had received any complaints from Mr Leung on the issue, assistant police spokesman Corporal Josaia Weicavu said they had not.

On Thursday last week, interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had summoned The Fiji Times Publisher Evan Hannah to his office.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said in a press conference the same afternoon that the meeting was to discuss the possible publication of certain articles that the Prime Minister's Office had received on Thursday afternoon. He said the PM's Office received a couple of articles from within The Fiji Times that apparently were going to be printed as an opinion piece.

[Sayed-Khaiyum] said the interim Government believed the articles contained factual inaccuracies, was highly emotive and discussed matters that were in court.

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Netani Rika said Mr Sayed-Khaiyum had done himself, the media and country a great disservice by trying to create a situation that did not exist.

Mr Rika said perhaps Mr Sayed-Khaiyum should make known everything that he said to the publisher during their meeting.


Leung ratchets up his paranoia by another notch stating in a Fiji Village article that his emails are being hacked and phones tapped. That allegation was also covered by Radio Fiji article. The excerpt:

Leung believes ‘phone’s being tapped’
Tuesday, March 18, 2008


Suva lawyer Graham Leung believes his phone lines could be tapped. Leung had reportedly claimed he was being threatened last week for an article, which a local daily never published.

Speaking to Radio Australia, he says an overseas journalist had told him his phone was giving a lot of echo during the course of an interview.

“You can call it if you like a sixth sense, I do feel that my communication has been intercepted”.

Pacific Beat had asked the Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum if there’s email hacking or phone tapping activity going on. “Absolutely, I have never authorized anybody to tap phones or hack into emails.

“The point is its unfortunate it appears to me that if a certain group of people in Fiji makes an allegation, suddenly it becomes the truth and not the allegation,” he said.


Fiji Times article amplifies Leung's anger over the claims of hacked emails.

The excerpt:

Breach angers lawyer Leung

Thursday, March 20, 2008

SUVA lawyer Graham Leung is almost certain his office computers have been hacked after a series of electronic correspondence were intercepted by parties other than the intended recipient.

He said several weeks ago, an email by one of his colleagues (at Howards Lawyers) to someone in New Zealand was leaked.

"A list of cases that were sent to me from my New Zealand lawyer who I am assisting with the Chief Justice's case before a Tribunal, found its way into the hands of third parties unconnected with the case," said Mr Leung.

"The final evidence was when a media consultant whom I emailed a draft copy of an article I am researching, received a phone call last Friday about the same time as I did and was told 'Be careful, watch out. We know what you are doing. We have intercepted a letter to The Fiji Times'."

He confirmed yesterday the number recorded on the caller ID of his land telephone line was from the Queen Elizabeth Barracks 3385222 - although the caller did not identify himself.

Calls to the military's media cell yesterday afternoon were unanswered.

At a press conference last week, interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said the Prime Minister's Office received a couple of articles that were written as an opinion piece and was to be published by this newspaper. This is the same article Mr Leung was compiling but which had not been released to The Fiji Times.

Mr Leung said with the availability of modern satellites, spying on people thousands of miles away and computer hacking would be quite easy.

But, he said, his article that was in the interim Government's possession, could not be said to be stolen as there were no laws to criminalise hacking or unauthorised interference with computers and receipt of this information.

"But in many countries, the person or persons who hacked my computer would have committed a crime by what they did," he said.

"In any event, my legal right to privacy has been violated. I can't understand the fuss about the article. Like any other citizen, I have a right to freedom of conscience and expression. I am entitled to enjoy those rights because they are in the Constitution," he said.


Perhaps Leung should realize, that everyone's electronic communications are routinely sucked up by global intercepts.
These electronic intercepts are done globally and vacuums up tera bytes of data in the program known as Echelon, which actually makes Leung's unfounded allegations appear dwarfish in comparison.


The super network of electron filters is run by NSA and the organization is perhaps the biggest consumer of resources in all of America's Government agencies.

One thing is for sure, the proposed retroactive immunity for Telecom companies was rejected in the Democratic controlled House, according to a New York Times article. The US President has vowed to veto any legislation that omits Telecom immunity.

An interesting letter appears in the Fiji Times Voice of the People column in response to an earlier Fiji Times article regarding the allegations of local lawyer, Graham Leung.


The excerpt of the Letter:

Biased Report

Your article about Mr Leung's report of military harassment to Radio New Zealand is in itself a patently biased piece of reporting.

Mr Leung's report is just that it is nothing more than a claim, yet you jump from that to report instances of abuse in custody which Mr Leung is not and then go on to refer to the Attorney-General's attempts to pre-empt the publication of inaccurate and possibly contemptuous articles.

There is nothing of substance in the article whatsoever.

Mr Leung does not state what threats were made to him, the Attorney-General does not disclose the nature of the articles he is concerned about. Yet you seem to link all these nebulous events to create a web of political unrest and violence that doesn't exist and which defies logic.

K. Madigan
Hong Kong










Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine




Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Fiji TV: Fuzzy & Misleading Reporting.

In the wake of the Russell Hunter story, which some circles in the Fiji media have labeled 'intimidation' or a 'threat to media freedom'. Hunter was interviewed by Radio NZ podcast.


Fiji media should be made aware of the legal precedent in a 1919 US Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States.

The ruling:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.


Another side to the media's coverage of the story was lamented in a posting by Oceanic blogger and IT developer, Jonathan Seagal who is subsequently crying foul after being interviewed by Fiji TV. Seagal claims that the interview was sliced and diced to show a different story from what he told.

I received a call yesterday afternoon from a reporter at FijiTV. She wanted to ask me questions about email security as it related to this news story. I answered her questions but then she asked whether they could film me on camera. I told her I wasn't comfortable with that given the current environment but she insisted that this was completely non-political. Stupidly, I relented.

She came over and asked me some initial questions about email security and how someone could gain access to other people's email. I said some things about how people inside a company can have access, how Internet providers can have access, etc...

The conversation then seemed to shift over to these email documents which, if FijiTV is to be believed, were at the center of this deportation story.

Next thing I know, I'm being asked about these documents and if they were genuine.

Of course, I had no idea if they were genuine at all and said that repeatedly. The reporter asked questions like "but its certainly possible these printed emails were fabricated, right?" The way it was presented on air though is demonstrated below [posted youtube video]:



"Segal SAYS they could be fabricated." is really quite different from "Segal AGREED they could be fabricated." The latter alludes to someone else coming up with that ridiculous notion.

I've experienced this before with FijiTV. Yeah, I know I'm the one who opened my mouth at the end of the day. I've been quoted before in print many times and never run into the kind of editing FijiTV tends to do.




Rizwan Dean, another blogger with IT background, whose latest posting lashes out at Fiji TV for their shameful editing process as well using other respected people as a proxy for their gutter reporting. Rizwan further lampoons the 5 day turn around for addressing complaints, in a lame response from Fiji TV CEO Mesake Nawari to Seagal.

I've noticed that whenever FijiTV wants to air something controversial which they know will land them in hot water, they get other people to do it so they can shift the blame.

Its a little sad that they used an unsuspecting IT Professional to do their dirty work and then twisted his professional opinion and almost made it sound like a political one. This is fairly common with the rest of the media industry in Fiji and it perhaps explains why people really don't believe anything thats published these days or are just tired of reading[...]
Fiji's media are always harping on about media freedom and the right of the press to report what they feel is important - perhaps they need to realize that media freedom is not simply about reporting rubbish and forgetting the real issues and the true side of a story.








Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine




Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Drive By Journalism - A Case in Fiji.


The recent deportation of Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter was covered in a posting in David Robie's blog Cafe Pacific.
A prequel to the media's relationship with the state was summed up in a factual expose published by RMIT's 'The Fifth Estate' written by Crystal Ja.

Entrenched pundits have labeled this as a crackdown on media freedom. However, a previous SiFM posting "Fiji Media and Ethical Deviations" identifies a similar track record of slantness.


David Robie's take on the Fiji Time's role in pre-2000 coup had said
"The Fiji Times, [...] raged a relentless campaign against the Chaudhry government not long after its election in 1999. In spite of its claims to the contrary, that [Fiji Times] treated all governments of the day similarly, the newspaper was blatantly agnostic," Robie claimed, adding that the "newspaper's reporting was spearheaded by a journalist with close ties with opposition indigenous nationalists."


The journalist identified by Robie, as spearheading the 'agnostic' perception could be no one other than former Fiji Times Editor, Samisoni Kakaivalu; who now is employed by Fiji Sun.

It certainly not surprising that Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter had re-united with Kakaivalu at Fiji Sun (both formerly employed by Fiji Times) and coalesced their ulterior motives into syndicated opinions, the corner stone of"drive-by journalism". Fiji Sun with the dubious duo at the helm had released the tax records of Interim Finance Minster, Mahendra Chaudhry according to an article published by "The Australian". Both Hunter and Kakaivalu had conspired in a similar scenario demonstrated in the Fiji Times coverage of Chaudhry soon after his water-shed election win in 1999.

"The Fiji Times, the country's largest daily newspaper and the only foreign-owned one, has apologised over a business "fat cats" story in its long-running dispute with Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry over media accuracy and professionalism. "


Fiji Media Council's Chairman, Daryl Tarte defended the media and stated in a Fiji Times article that "The media's task in any society is to reflect the opinion of the people of the nation, said Fiji Media Council chairman Daryl Tarte".

Indeed, Tarte's defense of the media cartel was predictable, however the comments begged the question of whether the opinion of the nation was accurately documented and also does that opinion come before or after the media's reflection. In a nutshell, which comes first "the media reflection" or "the nation's opinion"?




Despite the Fiji Times editorial of Weds. Feb 27th 2008, which deplored the deportation of Fiji Sun's publisher, Russell Hunter; was the Fiji Times equally, less or more deplored when the Fiji TV news studio was ransacked in post 2000 coup, covered by an article by International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX)website.

The excerpt of the FT editorial:

We are no threat

FT EDITORIAL COMMENT
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

THE deportation of Fiji Sun Publisher Russel Hunter as a security risk to this nation is deplorable.

And his treatment as a human being was reprehensible. Taken from his home under the cover of darkness, he was driven to Nadi without being given time to change or say a word of farewell to his wife Martha and their daughters.

His cell phone removed, Mr Hunter was placed on a flight to Australia with but $20 in his pocket. To add salt to the wound, he was made to stand with his face to the wall in the Nadi International Airport, watched by officials who claimed to be Immigration Department officers. Of course, hundreds of tourists and airport staff witnessed this indignation. Even convicted fraudster Peter Foster was treated better than Mr Hunter.

Is this how low we have stooped as a nation, that someone accused of committing a crime against the State is not even treated with basic dignity?

And has justice been removed to the extent that officials refused to acknowledge a High Court injunction stopping the Immigration Department from deporting the Australian national?

Since when have our citizens or indeed visitors to this country been bundled away at night without the right to defend themselves before a magistrate or judge.

In removing the publisher of a newspaper, and given the tone of the interim Prime Minister in his attack on the press corps on Sunday, it is safe to assume this is an act of intimidation.

The Police Commissioner joined the fray on Monday, warning those who continued to speak out against the regime could face charges of incitement. These statements contradict Commodore Bainimaramas reassurances in the past, and again yesterday, that his administration will uphold media freedom.

A truly democratic Fiji can only come about by allowing the people to make their views known through a free, vibrant media. By stifling debate, no government will ever have a true reading of the political temperature of the nation.

The media raises the concerns of the people and points the government towards their concerns and the issues they want addressed.

Neither this newspaper, nor any media organisation in this country wants to run the nation. We merely have the nation at heart and bring together the beliefs of the government, its supporters and detractors, for all to see.

Today, we echo the words of Kenyan publisher George Githii: For governments which fear newspapers, there is one consolation: We have known many instances when governments have taken over newspapers, but we have not known a single newspaper which has taken over a government.


Although, Fiji Times Editorial hides behind the veneer of Githii's words "[...]we have not known a single newspaper which has taken over a government" which is correct in the literal context. However, a newspaper may facilitate over taking a government by preying on stimuli that can agitate a population, as seen in the recent Fiji Times coverage of the Krishnamurthi proposal for de-reserving native land.

Fiji Times coverage of Mahendra Chaudhary after his 1999 election, has been far from from impartial or objective according to Pacific Media Watch (PMW)article.

The excerpt of PMW article:

#

SUVA, Fiji Islands (PMW): The Fiji Times, the country's oldest and major daily newspaper, has accused the Government of "conducting a vendetta" against it following a bitter personal attack in Parliament against its acting editor and two journalists.

On 24 November 1999, a parliamentary backbencher from the ruling Fiji Labour Party, Muthu Swamy, made allegations in the House of Representatives over the personal and professional integrity of the three journalists.

"The Fiji Times often talks about the conduct of politicians and civil servants but not about its own staff," Swamy said, according to the newspaper's full page coverage of the affair on Nov 25.

Taking advantage of parliamentary privilege, Swamy took a long-running Government attack on the Fiji news media to a new level by citing the three local journalists:

# Political reporter Margaret Wise - who has been previously accused by Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry of anti-government bias in her reporting - for being "charged with [being] drunk and disorderly and locked up in a police cell for 11 and a half hours".

# Reporter Matelita Ragogo for being "arrested and charged by police for drunk and disorderly behaviour".

# Acting editor Netani Rika - known for a trenchant weekly satirical column about politics and politicians - for alleged "involvement in the embezzlement of funds" at a local branch of an international bank.

Swamy also showed pictures in Parliament of Wise sleeping in a shared hotel room with a male colleague at a media convention in Vanuatu in 1996. A separate news story in the Fiji Times reported allegations that the photographs had been stolen from the flat of Hemant Vimal Sharma, editor of Shanti Dut, a Hindi-language sister newspaper to the Times.

Sharma's flatmate, Assistant Information Minister Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi, reportedly also denied possession of the photographs.

Another daily, the Fiji Sun, in an editorial on Nov 25 condemned the use of Parliament as a "battle ground" instead of a debating chamber in the attack on individual journalists.

"The Government and the media have been at loggerheads for some time now," the paper said.

"Both sides are invoking privileges - the Government its parliamentary right and the media its freedom of speech licence.

"It is a question of rights. Is it not also a question of responsibilities and duties?"

Alan Robinson, publisher of the Fiji Times, owned by the Rupert Murdoch News Ltd group, was quoted by his newspaper as describing the remarks in Parliament as a disgrace to the House and to Fiji.

Robinson challenged Swamy to repeat his claims outside Parliament where he did not have legal protection from prosecution. "We can stand his attack on the Fiji Times, baseless though it is. But when he uses his position to attack individuals, it is time to draw the line," [Robinson] said.

"We challenge Mr Swamy to repeat his disgusting attack without hiding behind the skirts of parliamentary privilege. It should now be clear to all that the Government, its ministers and backbenchers are conducting a vendetta against the Fiji Times. We'd like to know why."

In an editorial headlined "Only a coward will hide", the Fiji Times claimed Swamy had "savagely abused the ancient (and very necessary) privilege of Parliament to attack three individual journalists".

The paper confirmed that reporter Ragogo had been charged with being drunk and disorderly, but said the charge had been withdrawn; political reporter Wise "after being harassed by a taxi driver" had been charged with damage of his vehicle not with being drunk and disorderly; and added that Swamy "cannot support [the embezzlement] allegation" against Rika.

"This newspaper will continue to cover the news as best it can - without hiding behind the protection of any legal privileges," the Fiji Times said.

"As for Mr Swamy and his faceless manipulators, we now publicly challenge them to repeat those allegations outside Parliament and face the consequences - or withdraw and apologise. To do otherwise will be the act of a coward."
+++niuswire



A second article published in 2000 by PMW regarding the Fiji Times slanted coverage.

The excerpt:


SUVA, Fiji Islands (PMW): The Fiji Times, the country's largest daily newspaper and the only foreign-owned one, has apologised over a business "fat cats" story in its long-running dispute with Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry over media accuracy and professionalism.

In a report on 18 January 2000, the newspaper cited the front page story published the previous day headlined Share wealth, PM warns businesses", which quoted Chaudhry as saying: "The fat cats must learn to share".

Commenting in an editorial headlined "Why Robin Hood won't do", the Fiji Times attacked the prime minister over the corpulent fat cats statement, saying:

"Mr Chaudhry appears to view the problem in terms of profit versus poverty. It's a 1950s view of the world that has in the past spawned government policies in many countries that aimed to alleviate poverty.

"All of them ultimately failed. Hammering the private sector will not assist the poor."

But on Jan 18, the newspaper admitted that Chaudhry did not use those words: "The fat cats must learn to share".

"The phrase was intended to sum up his overall message and the quotation marks were mistakenly added during the sub-editing process," the paper explained.

"The Fiji Times regrets and apologises for the error."

In its news report, the Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd-owned newspaper said: "The Government has hit out at the Fiji Times report of Prime Minister Chaudhry's speech to the business community last week.

"The Ministry for Information said the Fiji Times front page report quoting the prime minister as describing the businessmen as fat cats who must learn to share was a fabrication.

"'This is the sort of irresponsible journalism that the Government has been complaining about. Mr Chaudhry did not make a generalised statement accusing the business community of wallowing in wealth.'

"The statement said that this was part of what Mr Chaudhry actually said:

"'I want to underscore [World Bank director] Mr [James] Wolfensohn's social message to those in the business sector who decry every move to help the poor, to help more people earn a decent livelihood for themselves.

"'These are people who already have plenty, they are wallowing in wealth and yet they begrudge a slight decline in their projects so others may live decent lives and eat two meals a day."'

In Chaudhry's original speech, he highlighted that more than 70 per cent of the national wealth in the Fiji Islands was concentrated in the hands of just 10 per cent of the population.

In recent months, the Fiji Times and the Government have been engaged in a war of words. Prime Minister Chaudhry and some ministers have accused the newspaper of lack of professionalism and of being biased against the Fiji Labour Party-led coalition Government while the newspaper has in turn accused the government of waging a vendetta against it.

The Fiji Times is currently seeking a judicial review of a Government decision to bar renewal of the work permit of the paper's editor-in-chief Russell Hunter, a Scottish-born career journalist in the Murdoch publishing group.

# In a letter to Pacific Media Watch (Jan 21), Fiji Times editor-in-chief Russell Hunter said he was "baffled" over the PMW report over the "fat cats" quote affair. His letter said:

Firstly The Fiji Times absolutely did not apologise for the "fat cats" story. We apologised for presenting a paraphrased report as a direct quote. We have no intention of apologising for the story and haven't been asked to.

Secondly, our editorial did not attack the PM over any "corpulent fats cats story" as you report. It did not do so for the very simple reason that the editorial was written in the full knowledge that Mr Chaudhry did not use those words. As was publicly explained, the quote marks were added in error.

In fact, the editorial stated that even the most corpulent of fat cats would agree with the PM's position.

Secondly (sic), you proceed to give great space to the Ministry of Information's statement without revealing to your readers that we published it, or that we published the apology and correction without being asked to.

Your highly selective quotation from our editorial gives, to put it mildly, a distorted view of what was actually said, while quoting (almost) in full the ministry's response.

That's a pity as many people outside the region depend on PMW for a balanced view of what's going on. They certainly didn't get that from this story.

Lastly, if being a News Ltd employee for six years of my 31 in this industry makes me "a career journalist in the Murdoch publishing group" that's fine by me. Others might differ.

# Pacific Media Watch's reply:

We are quite satisfied that this is a balanced and accurate report, and has indeed been parallelled by other news sources quite independently (see Prime Minister gets apology and other links above).

Our report made it clear that the apology was over the phrase referring to "fat cats" and we quoted extensively from the Fiji Times newspaper's own two reports (page 3, Jan 18) as indicated in the sourcing and attribution. The Fiji Times' error was fundamental to the original front page story on Jan 17. We identified the Ministry of Information statement as such and stated that it was being quoted by the Fiji Times. What we published of the statement was in the context of the ongoing media controversy in Fiji.

Also, the Fiji Times' own website, maintained by Fiji Village, did not publish the denial by the Fiji government, or the paper's apology, in its Jan 18 online edition (as had been published in the print edition), even though the original "fat cats" report was published on line the previous day. An unfortunate omission.

# On January 30, Fiji's Sunday Post reported that Chaudhry was suing Fiji Times publisher Alan Robinson, editor Samisoni Kakaivalu and reporter Seema Sharma for alleged defamation over the "fat cats" story.


+++niuswire
30 January 2000






Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine




Friday, February 15, 2008

Fiji: Native Land De-reservation Proposal- A Bridge to the Future Or A Bridge Too Far?

The issue of de-reserving native land in Fiji seems to be blown out of proportion by the use of negative connotations framed by the local media in Fiji, underscored by the article in Fiji Times.





Deregister plan

UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Thursday, February 14, 2008

There are moves by the interim Government to de-reserve native reserve land. This follows instructions from Finance Ministry permanent secretary for Sugar Peni Sikivou to the Native Land Trust Board last month to consider a proposal to de-reserve land by a consultant from India.

The cover letter of the report states the NLTB needed to consider a proposal by sugar expert Dr Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the sugar industry and to have a reply by January 18.

The paper provides recommendations to use de-reserved land for lots of 40 to 400 hectares to be created and leased to individuals or companies that undertake commercial farming. The report was compiled in November last year and submitted to interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

Mr Sikivou refused to comment on the report, saying he was busy in a meeting yesterday. Mr Chaudhry was unavailable for comment.

Dr Krishnamurthi said in the report it was well known that Fijians did not have enough incentives for farming. "They had their own serious social problems that were ignored and that the laws governing their inheritance was of sharing and not lineage inheritance," he said.

Dr Krishnamurthi said the share of the proceeds from Fijian land was negligible and of no value. He said Fijians had a lack of security and could not finance their land.

"In effect, neither the successive governments nor the NLTB or chiefs ever contributed to the welfare of the indigenous Fijians, leaving the landowners poor in standards of living," he said.

"The Fijianisation program did not yield the desired results because of the lack of leadership."
But these statements have angered chiefs who will not allow an outsider to suggest the de-reservation of their land.

Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini said the interim administration needed to consult landowners honestly about its intentions. He said there was no way he was willing to deregister land for sugar cane as the returns were low. Native reserve land is established under the Native Lands Trust Act. This land is set aside in certain areas for the use of landowners known as ikovukovu. It is to ensure there is always sufficient land for the landowners to use.

Burebasaga confederacy paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa said the regime had no right to make a unilateral decision on land that was collectively owned by Fijian landowning units.

"The regime cannot bulldoze their agenda on the people. The landowners must be consulted as the asset belongs to them," she said.

Komai Nausori Ratu Meli Balenaivalu said he would not give any land for such purposes because it was owned by the past, present and future generations. "I am shocked to hear the regime is pursuing to de-register land without consulting landowners when native land is a sensitive issue Fijians value close to their hearts," he said.

Bau chief Adi Samanunu Cakobau said she was concerned about the move in her capacity as a Fijian chief.

"This is news to me and as a chief I am concerned," she said.



Fiji Times Editorial also fails to point out the distinctions between the Lands Use Commission and the De-reserving Proposal.

The excerpt:

Give them a fair hearing

Friday, February 15, 2008

THE interim administration might mean well by commissioning a report which proposes the deregulation of native reserves. But it has failed, as many governments have failed in the past, to involve the most important stakeholders of all from the very beginning of the project. This single move has the potential to derail plans.

Any dealing with the land strikes at the heart of even the most moderate Fijian. That is why it is very important that every dealing any government has pertaining to land, must involve discussions with the landowners.

They must know exactly why the report was commissioned and what the proposals in the document will mean to individual mataqali. In the present political climate, it becomes even more important for the authorities to assuage the fears and distrust of the indigenous people.


"Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole"


Already, the tone of discussions in the villages, in homes and around the yaqona bowl has taken on an alarming slant. This is because the people who own the land do not know or fail to fully comprehend what is happening.

Force will not work, neither will the gubernatorial approach. Involve the landowners now, show them the benefits that new land legislation will bring. The way to the landowner's heart and mind is increasingly through the pocket. An equitable return and security is what the landowner wants and deserves.

What government should aim to achieve, however, is to make the indigenous people less reliant on handouts such as the Agriculture Scam or, to some extent, lease payments. As the Krishnamurthi Report points out, Fijians do not have enough incentive for farming and returns from indigenous land are meagre, at best.

It goes further to say that successive governments, the Native Land Trust Board and the chiefs have not done enough for the welfare of the people. The Fijian must be allowed to play a more active role in the use of indigenous land and reap maximum returns.




This means the indigenous people must run the business be it a farm or backpacker resort themselves. The NLTB should provide funding, training and administrative support for these ventures.

It is time for the Fijian to destroy the myth that the indigenous people are lazy and cannot run farms or successful businesses.


The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come."

If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."
(Niko Naiwaikula: Fiji Times Weds. February 13, 2008)




The story took on its own life when, many commentators ill-informed of the two different aspects of the Lands Use Commission and the "Krishnamurthi" Report, which some labeled as a land grab because it proposes (the key word) to de-reserve native land tracts in Fiji.

Some of the comments are from the usual instigators, who continue to broad side the proposal of de-reserving native land in Fiji, as if it was signed, sealed and delivered. Most importantly, most of scathing of comments come from entrenched Chieftains from the North-East sector, who view this proposal as a 'coup de grace' to their spheres of influence, which indirectly affects their future political aspirations.

Among the notables, the convicted Paramount Chief of Cakaudrove and former Minister for Fijian Affairs, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu whose comments appeared in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:


Touch not, Tui Cakau sounds warning on de-reservation

Saturday, February 16, 2008

THE Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, has warned the Native Land Trust Board against steps to de-reserve native land until the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Agreement is resolved.

Speaking from Taveuni yesterday, Ratu Naiqama expressed concern and urged the NLTB, interim Prime Minister and the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, to reconsider any effort to de-reserve land.

"They should not make any hasty decision here. Precedents of reserve land being de-reserved which fell in the ambits of ALTO (Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Ordinance). A classic example was Korovuto in Nadi and NLTB has records to prove my point. They should not shy away from history. Tenants of reserve land have now been taken over by ALTO in the 1970s," Ratu Naiqama said.

He said de-reservation of land was here to stay but changes would only come about if it had the numbers in the House of Representatives.

Ratu Naiqama who was Fijian Affairs Minister in the ousted SDL government and held a managerial post at NLTB, said there was no guarantee landowners would not lose their land, given the history of landowner losses under ALTO.

"Why are they trying to touch reserve land when ALTA has not been resolved? Is this another way of hoodwinking Fijians as they did during Mahendra Chaudhry's one-year reign as prime minister?

"In all this, landowners will be the ultimate losers," he said.


This issue of land solutions has seemingly prompted the ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase and other SDL patrons, who continue to issue their dime's worth, as demonstrated in a Fiji Times article.
Qarase like other politicians with ulterior motives, unapologetically gravitate to the limelight like a baby in a christening, a bride at a wedding and a corpse in a funeral; all rolled into one.

The excerpt of the FT article:


Qarase condemns plan as land grab

Sunday, February 17, 2008

OUSTED Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase has labeled a move to dereserve native land as a "land-grab" by Mahendra Chaudhry.

"I believe that it is an initiative by the interim Minister for Finance, Mahendra Chaudhry and he is just using the consultant from India, Dr Krishnamurthi", Mr Qarase said. "This is nothing less than a grab for land for Mr Chaudhry and his followers," [Qarase] said.

Mr Qarase added there are 600,000 hectares of land already used for cane farming and that was more than enough for cane production. He [further] added the optimum level of cane production for farmers is from four to five million tones a year.

"The problem is the low production. At the moment, Fiji is producing around 50 tones of cane per hectare, but that needs to be increased to 70 or 80 tones in order to meet the optimum target level," Mr Qarase said.

Mr Qarase added if the proposal to de-reserve native land goes ahead, the interim Government would be treading on dangerous ground.

"Land to the Fijian is part of their soul, heart, culture and tradition."



Other even keeled commentators like the former NLTB lawyer, Niko Nawaikula has urged that landowners should be fully consulted in the matter according to a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:


Inform landowners properly: Nawaikula

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Update: 11:18AM A FORMER lawyer for the Native Lands Trust Board said landowners should be informed fully why their land was to be dereserved.

Niko Nawaikula, the deposed Deputy Speaker of the House of representatives, former secretary of the NLTB and lawyer said getting approval or consent for dereservation was not a problem.

Replying to a consultancy report from Dr Krishnamurthi of Sakhti consultancy in India prepared for interim Finance and Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, Mr Nawaikula said the important part was to inform landowners properly what they were derserving the land for.

"It took the late Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna 20 years of extensive consultation and planning to dereserve native land," Mr Nawaikula said.

"The reasons for dereserving that land was to ensure the native landowners had enough land for their own use in years to come. If you want to de-reserve that then you will have to evaluate the number of mataqali members compared to land available. So many times the NLTB has for invalid reasons been dereserving native land for its own purpose without informing the landowners what for."

Mr Nawaikula said for dereservation one needed 50 per cent of mataqali to give their handwritten consent.

On de-reserving land for sugar, Mr Nawaikula said from a landowners point of view they should be trained in the industry and farming and have an equitable share in the Fiji Sugar Corporation.



A chief from the Vuda and former diplomat and politician highlighted the sensitivity of the subject and urges for an extensive consultative process that should be presented to the grassroots and the layers above or beyond, according to a Fiji Times article.
The stark difference in rhetoric between the Western and Eastern Chieftains has been such a contrast. Easterners (including parts of the North) reject the proposal outright, even though most have not even read the report. Some westerners can be more approachable and may take the time to consider the pros and cons.

The excerpt of the FT article:


Dereservation 'too sensitive'

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Former diplomat and landowner Ratu Tevita Momoedonu believes that dereservation of native land was a sensitive issue that would stir up the emotions of indigenous Fijians.

Ratu Tevita said that it would invite all sorts of problems. He said that the land was a sensitive issue for the Fijian people, so any plans to do anything to it should be considered carefully. Ratu Tevita said extensive consultation should be done with the landowners.

"If anyone wants to touch the land that is reserved for the Fijians, they must make their intentions very clear and consult the whole Fijian system from the village level right up to the provincial level," he said.

Ratu Tevita said landowners must be consulted and made aware of what the land would be used for.

"This is a very sensitive issue that will surely stir up the emotions of the Fijians. They just can't impose it from the top, it is dangerous." Ratu Tevita, like other chiefs, has expressed his concern on the proposal for native land to be dereserved to help boost the ailing sugar industry.

The nationalist Taukei Movement western branch assistant secretary Isikeli Uluikavoro Qoro said: "It is too sensitive to the Fijians. Please leave the native reserve land alone."



" People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use ". (M. Chaudhry Fiji Times Sun. Feb 17th 2008)

"This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators". (Krishanmurthi report- Fiji Live Feb. 18th 2008)



Despite the chorus of uninformed voices, the Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) spokesman has officially stated that plans for the de-reserving of all native land will not get their approval, according to a Fiji Times article.







The excerpt of FT article:



NLTB no to native land proposal

UNAISI RATUBALAVU
Saturday, February 16, 2008

THE Native Land Trust Board has made it clear it will not agree to de- reserve native land.

"The NLTB will never agree to the proposal that all native land be de- reserved because we have to think of the indigenous generation," said NLTB public relations officer Ro Alipate Mataitini. Ro Alipate said even though many landowners might agree to the de- reservation of native land, the NLTB would have the last say on any development proposal.

"If the NLTB thinks the decision by the landowners will not benefit them in the long term, the process will not go ahead unless the NLTB is satisfied it will be in the long-term interests of the landowners and their descendants.

"This is important information since people must not think that just by getting the majority of landowners to approve de-reservation that it will automatically happen," he said.

About 37 per cent of native land is set aside as reserves from the total 87.75 per cent of native land in Fiji. Freehold land is about 6 per cent, state land is about 4 per cent and land for Rotumans is about 0.24 per cent, NLTB statistics say.

According to Dr Krishnamurthi, the first major step was to de-reserve all native land. "It is obvious that the 4.0 hectare farms are uneconomical, thus lots of 40 to 400 hectares be created and leased to one individual or company without affecting land ownership," Dr Krishnamurthi recommended.

He said ownership would be vested on the title holder and investments would be by the lessee at a lease period of 75 years or more.



However, a segment of the Krishnamurthi report, according to a Fiji Live article actually identifies the reason for the lack of social mobility in Fijians, stems from the neglect of the Native Lands Trust Board(NLTB), successive Fijian Governments and the influence of Chiefs.

The excerpt of the FL article:


NLTB, Govts, chiefs accused of neglect
18 FEB 2008
The controversial Krishnamurthi report has accused the administrator of native lands, the Native Land Trust Board, successive Fiji governments and Fijian chiefs for neglecting to contribute to the welfare of indigenous Fijian people.

It highlighted that members of the mataqali (clan) had to lease their own land from NLTB, and that the board was very slow in facilitating processes including disbursing monies due to land owners.

Large amounts are still outstanding, the report alleges. “The land owners remained poor with poor standards of living,” the report stated. The NLTB is expected to reply later to these accusations.

The report by consultant M Krishnamurthi on the rehabilitation of the Fiji sugar industry recommends de-reserving land for lots of 40 to 400ha to be created and leased to one individual or company to undertake commercial sugarcane farming.

Native land comprises almost 90 per cent of the Fiji land mass. The interim Government is considering the proposal in order to revamp the ailing sugar industry.

At least two chiefs have spoken strongly against the idea – Nadroga high chief Na Ka Levu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu and Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa.

The report goes on to say that the major cause of productivity decline for sugar is land reservations for landowners. It said while the concept was good the practice of it did not fit any logic, that is, the land owner had to lease from the NLTB his own land and pay rentals.

“This is still a serious anomaly. NLTB administers the land and members of the mataqali have to lease the land from the administrators.”

The report claimed that it was found that NLTB was and is very slow in facilitating processes. According to the report, the share of land proceeds to Fijians were negligible and hence of no value. Thus the cropping area fell down to some 60,000 ha with an average of 25mt per ha, it maintains.

But a University of the South Pacific academic Professor Biman Chand Prasad has described the 12-page Krishnamurthi Report proposal as poorly written and lacking depth and discussion of the changed conditions that the sugar industry is operating in at present.

Professor Prasad says the report was misleading in saying that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.

“The report fails to refer to the many studies on the efficiency of sugarcane farming that have identified several factors which have led to the declining sugarcane yields. These include poor farming practices, rising costs of labour and farm implements and poor extension services to name a few.”

While uncertainty of tenure contributes to lower productivity, it is misleading to say that the major cause of productivity decline is land reservations for landowners.
“On the contrary, many of the leases which were not renewed since 1997 have been renewed and leased to new tenants. For example between 1997 and 2003 about 5506 leases were renewed.”

According to the report, Dr M Krishnamurthi hails from Fiji where he spent 30 years, of which 18 years was as director of Sugarcane Researches and later Sri Lanka, Thailand, India in establishment of research centres and implementation of highly profitable programmes.


Sadly, some of the most vitriolic objections are being echoed by individuals who conveniently have morphed the land issue into racial overtones, as CCF President alluded to in a Fiji Times article. The except of the FT article:


Yabaki tells chiefs to be sensible

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Update: 1.52pm The Citizens' Constitutional Forum is concerned that the report on the Rehabilitation of the Sugar industry is being manipulated again into a racial issue, over-shadowing the problems.

"The report is revealing the reality that the sugar industry, on which about 200,000 people in Fiji depend, is doomed to collapse unless mechanised and large-scale farming is introduced," CCF Chief Executive Officer, Rev Akuila Yabaki said.

He urged landowners and chiefs to be responsible and to ponder on questions related to what crop could replace sugar and what incentives they could offer to revive the economy in the country if the sugar industry collapsed.


Interim Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry promotes the positive returns for landowners, derived from this de-reservation policy, as published in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of the FT article:


Chaudhry defends land proposal

Sunday, February 17, 2008

INTERIM Sugar Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has defended the proposal to dereserve all native land, saying it was in the best interests of the indigenous community.

Mr Chaudhry said the proposal would lift the Fijian community out of poverty by guaranteeing financial returns for their most treasured asset.

Mr Chaudhry also reassured the indigenous community that dereservation would not result in them losing their land. "The Fijian people own 85 per cent of the land and this proposal would put millions of dollars into the pockets of landowners," Mr Chaudhry said.

"People are moving away from their lands and living in squatter settlements around the country in search of casual labour because they are unable to put their land to good use," he said. "This proposal would result in landowners being given the lease then allowed to hire contractors to work the land while they get financial returns through cooperatives that would be set up for them. "How can we let the Fijian people live a life of indignity and poverty when they own assets worth tens of millions of dollars," [Chaudhry] said.

"We do not want to take the land away from the landowning community but to see that they receive financial returns from their resources," he said.

Mr Chaudhry said the proposal by Dr M Krishnamurti was made in light of the mill upgrades underway that would eventually require an increased cane volume of about four million tones by 2010.

Mr Chaudhry said Mr Krishnamurti had suggested dereservation to bring all available unused cane land into production. He said the proposal was handed over to the Native Lands Trust Board for consideration and the decision was left to the board on whether to go ahead with the initiative.

He claimed some people were trying to "create mischief" by opposing the plan.




Interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama also warns those in Fiji who prey on emotions, not to mislead, confuse and divide the community in an article in Fiji Village.


The excerpt of the FV article:

Interim PM clears govt stance on land issue
Publish date/time: 15/02/2008 [17:11]

The Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama stresses that the interim government has not taken any formal stance on the proposal in relation to the de-reservation of native lands.

In a statement this afternoon, Commodore Bainimarama said the comments which have been made on the report by Indian Consultant Dr. M Krishnamurthi, have as usual, attempted to politicize and sensationalize the land issue by selectively highlighting the recommendations in the report.

Bainimarama said the critics and commentators have just focused on belittling the efforts of the interim government which is committed to exploring the best options available for better utilization of any type of land for the benefit of the landowners foremost, the tenants and the economy as a whole.

He said in this context the interim government has set up the Committee on Better Utilization of Land and its proposals were endorsed by cabinet. However, the Committee was not even aware of Dr. Krishnamurthi's report and as such the report never featured in its deliberations.

The Interim Prime Minister said to set the record straight, the Committee's recommendations and Dr. Krishnamurthi's report are two different matters and should not be confused with governments intentions.

The Commander reveals that the Committee on better utilization of land's recommendations is a direct result of its deliberations with the NLTB and the relevance, viability and acceptance or otherwise of the NLTB's proposal for incentives to be offered to landowners.

Commodore Bainimarama states that the interim governments intentions is very clear and through the incentive packages as recommended by the NLTB, landowners should expect more rental income in the future with an increase in native land rentals to 10 percent of unimproved capital value.

He revealed that under the new proposed arrangements, the NLTB will consider waiving the 15% poundage to be charged on the proposed rental subsidy which will ensure maximum benefits are passed on to the landowners. He also revealed that the Committee on Better Utilization of Land has recommended that the term of native leases be increased from 30 to 50 years.

Bainimarama said the need to put in place an attractive incentive package that benefits both landowners and tenants is a pressing national issue that needs to be urgently addressed.

The Committee on Better Utilization of Land consists the Permanent Secretary of Indigenous Affairs Ratu Meli Bainimarama, Permanent Secretary at the Prime Ministers office Pramesh Chand, PS Land Dr. Rohit Kishore, PS for Provincial Development Manasa Vaniqi, Acting Permanent Secretary for Agriculture Dr. Rishard Beyer, Acting Deputy General Manager of NLTB Meli Benuci and Chairman of the Sugar Commission of Fiji John May.

The Interim Prime Minister stresses that the interim government fully recognizes the historical, social and cultural significance, which indigenous Fijians place on their customary land.

He said recognizing this the interim government has come up with a proposal which would accrue more benefits to the landowners, yet fully safeguard their rights to ownership as entrenched in the existing legislations.

Commodore Bainimarama stresses that it is time to put emotions aside and start looking at issues rationally.

The report by the consultant from India, Doctor M Krishnamurti to the Sugar Ministry, has recommended all native land be de-reserved. The native reserve is the land set aside for each mataqali for its planting and to support the landowning unit's needs.

The reserved land is not to be leased out as it is arable land for the mataqali's needs.

Doctor Krishnamurti's report has recommended that the 4 hectare lots for cane farming are uneconomical and 40 to 400 hectare farms are more viable. He also recommends that all investments on the proposed farms be carried out by the lessee and the lease terms be a minimum of 75 years.


Clearly the blog postings by Fijian Custom Culture and Solivakasama apparently fit that description of "preying on emotions".

While a blog posting by Babasiga discuss the report in a intelligent manner and in another post offers some comparisons to the island of Mauritius and the aspect of the declining sugar industry.






Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine