#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: Bainimarama: "I am a Nationalist"

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Bainimarama: "I am a Nationalist"

"I am a nationalist, Fiji for the Fijians, for, even Indians", proclaimed Fiji's dictator Frank Bainimarama last week during an interview with the Fiji Sun.

On page 4 of the Fiji Sun of October the 13th, the interim prime minister, while attacking Australia, said the regime was not going to be dictated to by anyone from outside, on what needed to be done in Fiji.

The army commander repeated his earlier belief about the need for electoral reforms, again blaming Laisenia Qarase and the SDL for causing Fiji's current problems. But he failed to specify what exactly those current problems are since his regime has been in power for almost three years now and one would think well able to fix some of those issues.

Bainimarama's comment that 'Fiji is for the Fijians', would also seemingly negate the principle in the Peoples Charter, which has adopted the term 'Fijian' as the common name for all Fiji citizens.
 

The Commodore is only the second  leader in Fiji's turbulent history to ever call himself a 'nationalist.'  

The other was the late Sakeasi Butadroka, the leader of the Nationalist Party, who initially wanted Indians to be repatriated to India but who later on said they could stay on but as vulagis (visitors).


35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure Frank really meant to come across in that way.

But you still have to wonder with all the well-known current and former nationalists who have now accepted appointments in his Regime (Vunibobo, Kubuabola, Ah Koy, ... etc.)

That looks somewhat suspicious in the light of the expectation that it is now mainly Fijians who will benefit from the Regime's forthcoming Sugar Industry Restructure into large-holder, mechanized farming.

And when you look at all of it in the light of the fact that Frank will say or do ANYTHING to get what he wants (ie. no strong ideological foundation or motivation), then you really have to say that anything is possible depending on who happens to be his closest advisors at the time, or who he happens to be pitching his spiel to right then.

Anonymous said...

Kemudou, this is one of the longest bows I've ever seen drawn on this site.

Frank is a Butadroka style nationalist on the basis of reported comments to one Fiji newspaper?

One interview (The Sun!) and Frank is unmasked as a rabid member of the Taukei Movement?

Come on, you guys can do a lot better than this.

Hit him with something big if you want to hit him at all.

This is like being mauled by a dead sheep.

mark manning said...

I would describe Frank more as a NAZI !

Anonymous said...

Bad choice of words PM. Too much grog with the real nationalists, Vunibobo Mataitoga and Kubuabola. Did you mean that you were a patriot?

Anonymous said...

He didnt mean to let the cat out of the bag. He cant control what comes out of his mouth. 'Kemudou' annonymous, 'It is what comes out of a man that makes hin Sin', and he's got a lot in there.
It will be proclaimed on the rooftop, 'brother'.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:52

You're right - one interview in one Newspaper doesn't really amount to much.

But it still trumps anything that comes out of Frank's mouth, which is just about always some attempt at propaganda manipulation.

In the end though, Frank just might have the edge on this one, since he could always plead "stupidity" as a very credible reason for this particular faux pas. No one would be able to argue with that.

Son of Fiji said...

I think people should find out what nationalist means before opening their mouths and letting us know what they think it means.
Otherwise they'll just end up making a big deal about their own ignorance.

Nationalist definition

VII Generation said...

One would suspect that the use of the word 'Fijian' is going to be contentious or ambiguous for quite sometime. But, some of us have always considered ourselves 'Fijian' and some of us have taken care to be 'vulagi': not to give gratuitous offence. That was never considered by rabid nationalists. That lack of consideration was regrettable bordering on the unpardonable. "Language matters" (US President Barack Obama)

Anonymous said...

It is really not surprising coming from Frank! What do you expect when he is associating with proven extreme Nationalists like Inoke Kubuabola?

The truth is slowly but surely coming out.

Anonymous said...

Proclaiming himself a Nationalist does make him a Taukei.

We have real issues on this matter?

His attempts at dismantling traditional Taukei institutions such as the GCC & insulting its leaders is something that tears at the very fabric of who and what we are - being just one.

Fact that he's little more than a common thief surrounded by greedy and incompetent oppurtunist is another.

Anonymous said...

Please do not compliment the man with the term Taukei.

Confused would be the only complimentary term that might apply...

Anonymous said...

@ Correction - should read.

Proclaiming himself a nationlist does NOT make him a Taukei.

While I'm here.

Fact thats he's forced his own & Viti's highest ranking Ratu into exile in the Solomon's has also not gone un noticed - or been forgotton.

Beware the Bauan memory?

Corruption Fighter said...

@ first Anonymous

You're probably right, our dumb dictator "didn't mean to come across this way" . He never does mean to come across the way he does. He's just too dumb to control the way he comes across.

@ second Anonymous you say it's a long bow to compare Bainimarama to Butadroka, well just take time to look at who he has in his ministry or who he has appointed to important jobs.

How about Inoke Kubuabola, Jim Ah Koy, Berenado Vunibobo, Filipe Bole and Taufa Vakatale? All Rabuka followers, some vicious Taukei extremist types, they show that the comparison with Butadroka is not far fetched.

If it suits Frank he'll turn on any group that gets in his way.

Anyone who can't see this is letting their hatred of Qarase or the SDL get in the way of obvious facts.

Anonymous said...

I just don't get the logic here.

Yes, we all know that the regime includes senior figures once identified with the extreme nationalist cause.

But isn't it possible they've had a change of heart if they've joined forces with Frank? It wouldn't be the first time in Fiji politics that someone's done a backflip. What about Sitiveni Rabuka or other 1987 figures like Ratu Meli Vesikula?

Surely actions speak louder than words. The fact is Frank has done the following:

1/ Removed an avowed nationalist government at gunpoint.

2/ Opposed the Qoliqoli Bill and any notion of a change to existing land tenure to strength indigenous land claims.

3/ Opposed the release of George Speight and other "nationalist heroes".

4/ Introduced dual citizenship which will inevitably dilute indigenous domination over time.

When Frank says "Fiji for the Fijians", I think he's using Fijian as a term for everyone. Yes, "even Indians".

And when he says he's a "nationalist", he's also speaking of the notion of upholding the principle of
One Nation, not indigenous Fijian nationalism.

Why mention "Indians" at all if indigenous nationalism is what he meant.

He said nothing else to lend weight to some of the idiocy expressed in these columns.

Anonymous said...

Lets clarify something here?
VB is neither nationalist Taukei or anybodies saviour - merely a common thief & bully surrounded by a cartel of under achieving oppurtunists of similar charactor. No matter what is said now - rest assured - history will not judge them kindly.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 2:41!

Yep - you're right about that one! Their unbelievably dumb and dishonest stuff-ups are all in the books now, indelibly recorded for posterity in academic papers like Fraenkel's and Lal's and Duncan's and Narsey's.

People from that time will look back at ours in astonishment, wondering what all the fuss could have been about, and how things could have been considered to be so bad under our imperfect former democracy, as to warrant going through all this destructive (and ultimately pointless) Charter/Roadmap reform charade.

And just as we wonder today how so many Germans could possibly have abided or supported the Nazis in WW2, so they will wonder how anyone could possibly have been so bitter, or ignorant, or racist, or tunnel-visioned as to have fallen so easily for Frank's blatant and poorly-disguised lies!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:49

Yeah, you're right about Frank's anti-nationalist credentials.

But you're wrong about who he is!

He is just a thug who is pressing the buttons he needs to, in order to get what he wants.

He has just been cultivating this particular anti-nationalist persona over recent years, since that is what he needed to get himself a critical mass of Indian support around his coup.

But before that, his record of "anti-nationalism" is VERY thin on the ground, indeed.

This is the same Frank Bainimarama for example, who stood and cheered with the rest of the Military Council when Qarase presented the original "blueprint" to them in 2000. This is the same Frank Bainimarama who said, in spite of court rulings to the contrary, that Mahen Chaudhry "would never return" as PM after 2000 (a promise which he kept, incidentally). What kind of anti-nationalist would do those things?

Search for any press clippings of Franks anti-nationalist sentiments or opinions before 2000, and you won't find any. You'll have just as hard a time finding credible anecdotes of them, too.

This is also the same Frank Bainimarama who unreservedly co-opts known nationalists into his Government and Cabinet. Without so much as a denunciation of their former politics, or even an expression of regret. This is the same Frank Bainimarama who is currently bringing major "back door" reform to the Sugar Industry that is deliberately aiming to replace outgoing small-holder tenant farmers, with communal landowner large-holding ones!

Here we can see him already trying to set himself up for the day when he will need Fijian political votes more than Indian ones.

And you can bet your bottom dollar he will switch those horses quick as a flash as soon as the Indian population in Fiji falls below the level needed to win a general election. (A direction in which it has been heading unabated both before and after his 2006 coup)

So again, what kind of anti-nationalist is this guy really?

He is, at heart, just a vicious, ruthless, self-centred animal. People like Francis Narayan, and Esala Teleni, and Mahen Chaudhry, and Pita Driti, and Vijendra Prakash, and Parmesh Chand and Robin Nair etc. etc. etc, are all finding out to their chagrin, and their cost!

Maybe you will too, some day soon!

Anonymous said...

Well, he is a vicious animal because he's a cornered one - there is a small difference.

And he's ruthless because he can get away with it and he doesn't have the strength of character necessary to cope with the anger and disappointment of not getting his own way.

And he is self-centered because he just never developed the maturity not to be.

So it is still possible for him to become something else...

Anonymous said...

Frank " a vicious, ruthless, self centred animal"?

Oi, what have we animals done to have him thrown in with us?

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon at 7.03pm.

Spare me Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal as sources of wisdom on what happens in Fiji. Neither are dispassionate observers, however much they purport to be.

Fraenkel is heavily influenced by his indigenous Fijian missus and won't tolerate any deviation from the Qarase line. And Brij Lal can't seem to get over the junking of his beloved 1997 constitution, a racially based document that ought to be a source of shame.

Both are staffers at the Australian National University, a hotbed of anti regime propaganda where one of the research fellows is none other than Frank Bainimarama's old nemesis in the military, Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka.

It's worth remembering all this next time you read anything purporting to be a purely academic treatise on Fiji from the ANU.

Fiji Democracy Now said...

To the Blogger who thinks that actions speak louder than words, we say we couldn't agree more.

But let's look at all our dictator's actions. He opposed the Qoliqoli bill but did nothing when Indian fishermen were forced to pay more for fishing licences than all others.

He removed Qarase, yes, but only because he stood in the way of Frank being PM and probably President in due course. All the talk of Qarase's ethno-nationalist policies was just hot air.

The army is still the most ethnically biased institution in the country and there isn't the slightest hint of change.

As for dual citizenship, it doesn't mean thing without elections.

Wouldn't Frank's token anti-nationalist words mean more if he hadn't given top jobs to avowed nationalists who've shown no signs of repentance? Ask yourself why Frank hasn't made them declare the error of their ways?

Anonymous said...

Fiji Democracy Now...

You're right about some inconsistencies around the periphery of Frank's agenda. But I think this is part of a wider problem; not having an effective strategic planning and PR machine around him to get the spin in sync.

But do you really believe that Frank's multiracial stance is one big con and that he's a closet indigenous supremacist like Buta? Come on.

You can only judge someone on their record. It was Frank who "made" Lai Qarase in the Mafia sense and then unmade him when he pursued a racialist agenda. If he'd wanted the top job himself, why didn't Frank take it in 2000?

Re the army: where's the evidence that the other races in Fiji are clamouring for military jobs in the first place? The FMF is overwhelmingly Fijian coz they love army life and the Indians ( with some notable exceptions like Aziz M ) aren't interested. It's a red herring, this one.

Dual citizenship will mean a lot over time because all races will come and go, have businesses, property and (eventually) votes. This is especially true of Indians. A slow burn, this one.

As for the "avowed nationalists" in Frank's regime, they haven't been doing too much avowing of late.
And they certainly don't look uncomfortable about appearing to be part of an avowedly multiracial government.

As far as I know, only Ratu Meli Vesikula made a big show of repentance after 1987 but that doesn't rule out others having private changes of heart.

One example people tend to forget is Ratu Finau Mara. He was at Rabuka's side in 87 but then went on to repudiate the SVT and join the admirable Jo Kamikamica in the moderate Fijian Association.

The point is backflips in Fiji are common and it's amazing what a tabua, an expression of regret and a few bilos can do. Never underestimate the Fijian capacity for forgiveness.

But you're right, some people have got a lot of explaining to do.

I must say I'd particularly like to see Frank's Foreign Minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, grilled over his apparent backflip coz he was one of the brains behind the 87 coup.

Jim Ah Koy would be another fascinating interview ( Mara, Rabuka, Qarase and now Frank! ) but I guess all that will have to wait till the local media is unmuzzled.

Memo Simpson and Broadbridge: Repentance and Backflips. Now that'd be a good first program on Mai when the censors finally go back to barracks. If you can get them to talk!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:46!

Well you can read the papers yourself. They are all properly referenced and clearly argued. They offer credible analysis of Fiji status quo, and cogent reasons for the conclusions they draw. That does not mean you have to agree with them. But it does mean their positions are properly laid out for peer review and rebuttal.

They are there for all to see now, and they will still be there as historical documents when future generations look back at this time and try to figure out how this whole expensive stuff-up happened in the first place, and then somehow couldn't be solved or recovered from afterward.

That is substantially different from Frank's constantly evolving make-it-up-as-you-go excuses for his coup! (Or for why he is not allowing Fiji to go back to a democratic basis to deal with whatever those excuses are.)

1. Almost 3 years after his coup, Frank still has not been able to convincingly define what is the great problem that he had to take over Fiji to solve;

2. Frank has not been able to specify what were the risks and costs associated with whatever that "problem" is;

3. Frank has not laid out in detail out how his reform program will deal with with the various aspects of this "mystery problem", and;

4. Frank has not been able the convincingly argue why a democratic Parliament could not deal with whatever the problem is.

He has simply made claims and allegations, and then just stuck to them. That is very different to the process of refining a position or argument by debate and reason.

There are some academics like Satya Nandan etc. who support the coup of course. But not one of them has been able to come up with an academic paper to explain the reasoning behind the coup, or the logic of how it proposes to achieve whatever it is that it is trying to achieve. Hell, they haven't even been able to come up with a paper responding to the Lal, Fraenkel, or Duncan papers.

That, as they say in the business, is a "no contest"!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:46!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

We don't even have any academic papers at all justifying the coup. All we have are some lame arguments from Frank along the following lines:-

1. "We need to solve Fiji's coup culture" - which he is trying to "solve" by conducting coups (two now, and counting); Hypocrisy and absurdity don’t get much plainer than that. This is one of the biggest differences between those academic papers, and Frank and Aiyaz's counter-claims. Namely, the papers of Lal et al at least present clear, straightforward arguments (ie. even if you don’t agree with them, you can at least understand them). They can also be easily correlated to real world events. The Fiji that Frank and Aiyaz keep harping on about on the other hand, appears to exist in some kind of fantasy "spin" world where Regime opinions and tunnel-vision carries far more weight than real world facts that others are living through, and can prove either evidentially or experientially.

2. "Fiji needs electoral reform" – well, no problem! Why can't we do that from a properly legal and accountable basis now that the putative leaders of both major communities in Fiji have agreed to such reform in principle?

3. "Fiji needs to undertake major structural reforms (ie. the so-called 'Roadmap') before it can return to democracy in 2014”. But most of those projects and initiative listed in the roadmap are no different to what ANY Government would undertake just as a normal part of their leadership and development responsibilities. So why do we need a coup for that?

4. "Qarase and the SDL are responsible for all the problems that Fiji is facing today!" How so? They have not made any policy decisons for Fiji for nearly 3 years? That is ample time for a macro-economic cycle to start turning around - or at least to show signs of it. So if Qarase's "mistakes" were so bad, and if Frank's "corrections" of them were so worthwhile, that should surely “show up” in some kind of progress for the nation. But in every important respect - economically, socially, legally, developmentally, governancially and politically, Fiji has degenerated substantially and appreciably since 2006. We keep hearing about a turnaround – but we still haven’t seen any. It would appear that Frank's real motivation is not any given "problem" that Qarase may or may not have caused. Rather, it is simply the fact that he just can't stand Qarase. Many can't! Roughly the same number can't stand Frank or Mahen either. But that does not constitute sufficient reason for a coup. The solution to not being able to stomach political opponents is just to "grow up" and live with it like Rush Limbaugh lives with the fact of Barack Obama, or Michael Moore lives with the fact of George W Bush. But you certainly carry out a coup against a whole nation just to pacify your own personal demons!

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 7:46!

Your quip about Fraenkel's wife - are you a racist? What has that got to do with anything? Or are you just attacking that because you are unable to point out anything in his paper that you can prove is to be unfactual?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:07

If track records are so important in judging someone, then why does Frank have no overtly "multi-racial" track record before 2004?

And why did he stand an cheer with the rest of the Military Council in 2000 when Qarase presented his initial "Blueprint" to them? The embryonic Qoliqoli and Land Claims proposals were all in there? Why didn't they stand back in horror and condemn it then?

You obviously have no appreciation of the military's faith, and unapologetic use of, propaganda.

Frank's alleged "track record" is nothing but an artificial construct of propaganda engineering.

If you go back to 2003, Frank was not even attacking the Government about its multi-racial failures. He was attacking them about vague "national security" issues that he purposely wouldn't specify.

Even as late as 2006, he was only occasionally mentioning "racism" in his attacks on Government. His main gripes were: "Truth and Justice" (concerning 2000 rebels being rewarded with seats in Government rather than cells in jail); and then just before the coup, "Clean Up" (alleged widespread SDL corruption)!

It was only in 2007 that he began harping mainly and continuously on about SDL "racism" and the need for multi-racial reform in Fiji.

If you understand the military use of propaganda, you can easily understand this otherwise meandering evolution of coup rationales.

Frank used "National Security" as his tool to get the troops "on side", and to provoke incidents to purge the military of possible opponents.

Once that was done, he then used "Truth and Justice" to try and get Fijians to vote against Qarase. When that failed, he had to change strategies and find a broadly appealing rationale to justify a coup, namely "Clean Up". When that failed to gain significant support amongst "Fijians", he had to switch to something else again. Hence the shift to "Multi-racial Reform" as a vehicle for 1. Consolidating Indian coup support, and 2. As a pacifier against opposition from the international community, particularly the developed nations who could be expected to act on principle.

So no, Frank is not a nationalist. But this shows he's no real multi-racialist at heart either. He has no strong convictions either way. The only thing that really motivates him is self-preservation, and he'll sing any song that will get that for him. So you can look forward to him changing his tune again in future once the Fijian population starts to far outstrip the Indian one.

The Max said...

This is much ado about nothing. Frank's version of nationalism is based on citizenry, not race.

If you guys can't decipher or comprehend that simplest of statement from what Frank said, I just don't know. No wonder there's too many narrowminded viewpoints appearing in your blog. One such case is that of Mark Manning who hasn't lived in Fiji long enough to understand the intricacy and complexity of Fiji's racial politics.

Anonymous said...

The Max!

Oh yeah - I can just see throngs of people getting really patriotic and motivated about the potential privilege of being citizens of a basket-case banana republic that is build on lies and deception, does not stand for anything noble or glorious or honorable or, and is run by a mentally-and-psychologically-challenged, demon-possessed, child, who is surrounded and upheld by bunch of gutless and mindless thugs.

So PUH-LEEZE !! Spare us the insult of expecting that anyone would fall for Frank's pathetic ex poste facto re-inventions of why he committed treason as if it was some kind of normal, well-thought-out and above-board process.

Anonymous said...

Well, there's nothing like an attack on the mortar board brigade to elicit the same long winded diatribe from their kaivata in academia.

The last few posts carry a distinct whiff of Jon Fraenkel and Brij Lal mounting defences of their own positions. But universities being what they are, they don't even need to do it themselves.

When you've achieved the lofty status they have, there's no end to the number of acolytes and toadies hanging on your every word and willing to leap to your defence by proxy.

So there's no academic treatise defending Frank's coup? Surprise, surprise!

When, in the case of the ANU, you've got Stewart Firth, Jon Fraenkel, Brij Lal and Jone Baledrokadroka with a stranglehold on academic thought and expression, why would anyone bother?

These are people who scream blue murder when any academic outside Canberra like Richard Herr or Crosby Walsh dares to dissent from their overweening sense of righteousness.

It's not Jon Fraenkel's Fijian wife that's the real issue here but his lack of balance; the fact that he so passionately attacks Frank Bainimarama for his coup while studiously ignoring the provocation of Laisenia Qarase's racist agenda.

If that gives rise to suspicions that he's unduly influenced by pillow talk at home, Fraenkel has only himself to blame.

If the ANU had any pretension to seriousness, it would conduct an inquiry into the conflicts of interest and unforgivable bias of this gaggle of so called Pacific experts.

But it won't happen because they're all part of Australia Inc, the neighbourhood bully who knows what's best for the rest of us and uses these lackeys to add a veneer of academic respectability to its craven power plays in the region.

mark manning said...

Politics shouldn't have anything to do with race !
It's ideaoligy.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11.07 PM!

You say Frank hasn't been able to convincingly define what problem there was that obliged him to take over in the first place.

He keeps defining it and did so again before his troops yesterday.

It's about eradicating race as a divisive force in all aspects of life in FIJI.

And that's what sets him apart from the SDL government he removed, which put the advancement of one race as its central priority.

I don't think he can be more clear. But it doesn't mean people like you will listen.

Incidentally, he again pledged at the QE Barracks yesterday to adhere to his timetable of an election in 2014.

Can we believe him? Only time will tell. But the more he makes such undertakings, surely the harder it will be for him to renege.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:58,

Well thanks for at least identifying some reason for the coup.

But five issues immediately jump to the fore:

1. If "eliminating racism" is really the reason for the coup then we can see already that it is a failure. You need look no further than comments on the blogs from both sides! Frank's post-coup equivocating hasn't made one lick of difference to the racist attitudes or ethno-centric perceptions of people inside (or outside) Fiji.

At best, he is just confusing the people. At worst, he is merely replacing Fijian prejudice and misconceptions with Indian ones.

Frank's policy measures to address this are based on nothing but guesses and assertions by bitter, lunatic-fringe politicians posing as academics. They are already failing, and are only being kept on life-support by Frank's unapologetic habit of regularaly changing his coup reasons, and his reform goals, every year or so.

And that brings me neatly to my second point - which is I'm glad you have stuck your neck out and plonked for "multi-racial reform" as the alleged reason for the 2006 coup. But that will only be verified if A. Frank sticks to that excuse from now on, and B. He actually achieves something to improves that situation on the ground. By that I do not mean implementing "reforms" - any clown can do that! I mean that the reforms actually work. Not the guns behind the reform giving the appearance that all is calm. I mean the reforms actually changing the way people behave. And forever!

This leads me to the next three points, which were points 2, 3 & 4 from my previous post.

If the coup was about repealing racism, then how bad in quantitative or even qualitative terms, was that racism? What costs did that level of racism exact of the nation of Fiji. And what risks, precisely, did it pose. Please specify so that we can get a better idea of exactly what you guys are talking about.

To give you a guideline, I can, for example, quote you a fairly sound estimate of the economic losses that Fiji will suffer, in real GDP terms, over the ten year period following the 2006 coup.

So can you show me credible figures for the economic and social losses (or risks) that Fiji was suffering from as a result of this allegedly "mortal" racism that was supposedly rampant in pre-coup Fiji?

Can you also explain to me how Frank's reform program will address that "mortal" level of racism? I don't mean just asserting that it will. I mean quoting to me out of sociology or psychology texts as to the known cognitive or cultural constructs that we are dealing with here. And from published clinical studies that demonstrate which measures are known to affect "racism" positively or otherwise?

Finally can you explain to me why a coup and a no-account, high-school-drop-out, social-misfit, lying and manipulating dictator is a better way of overseeing that process than a Parliament that is accountable to the media every day, each other every sitting, and the people every five years?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8.50!

Typical bloody academic. You want quotes from "sociology or psychology texts as to the known cognitive or cultural constructs" to explain the nature of racism in Fiji? Where the hell have you been all these years?

The fact that it's taken a "no account, high school drop out, social misfit, lying and manipulating dictator" to finally try to break the cycle says it all in my book.

What did you academics do?

1/ Demonstrably fail to achieve any real change in racial attitudes in the minds of countless of your students since the USP was founded in 1972. You didn't just fail to persuade the elite of the folly of their mono-cultural mindset , you didn't even try.

2/ In the case of the lamentable Brij Lal, co-authored a national constitution that reinforced racial stereotypes and deprived Fiji of a workable, true democracy based on one man, one vote. Remember, this was after the Indians were no longer the majority race and Fijians had nothing to fear. Good one Brij.

3/ Continually defend, as you are here, a sham parliament that a corrupt government was intent on using as a battering ram against Fiji's minorities. Until the "misfit" stepped in.

That it's taken "a high school drop-out" to embark on a program of racial equality shows just how weak kneed and weak willed you smart arses have proved to be.

No one in Fiji needs one of your "published clinical studies" to know how racism has plagued their daily lives and steadily corroded the fabric of national
life. They LIVE it and want change, not talk and write about it incessantly like you.

One man has stepped forward to say enough is enough and all you can do is heckle from your ivory towers. Pathetic.

Even if he fails because "mortal racism" is so entrenched, history will record that Frank Bainimarama at least took a public stand against racial bigotry.

It's a lot more than most of you have done. Proof conclusive that intellect isn't as important as a sense of moral clarity.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:40!

You ask what "we did" to stop racism at USP? But who asked us to? And what could we have done anyway?

You people have already provided clear proof that racism simply cannot be solved by coups or lies or equivocation. So what did you expect us to do?

The thing is, that racism may have been unpleasant and shameful. But it is not as harmful or as morally objectionable as treason, for example. Or lying. Or holding the entire nation to ransom. Or ordering trained soldiers to conduct psyops against innocent civilians who are only asking for what is rightfully theirs anyway.

You are also confused here about the difference between trying to achieve something, and actually achieving it.

Frank says he is trying to achieve a "race free" Fiji. But he's not achieving it at all. Not even close. He is just doing meatball surgery on a patient who only had a "cold" in the first place

Let me explain this to you another way. If you have $200,000 and are looking to buy a house, and find out that I have a house that I am willing to sell. But then you do a valuation on it and find out my house is only worth $50,000. Would you still just push ahead and buy the house, anyway?

You see, the point there is not whether you get a house or not. It is what value do you get for your money (or trouble).

But here you guys are still prosecuting a coup that is going to cost Fiji more than $7 billion before 2016. But for what? If this is supposedly for the purpose of eliminating racism in Fiji, then you've wasted that money for nothing because you've achieved nothing.

This also highlights the difference between what is important, and what is less so. Here, it is more important to keep your $200k cash, than it is to get a $50k house.

In the same way, it is more important to for Fiji keep free speech, or the rule of law, or democratic accountability, or $7 billion in development growth, than it is to sacrifice these in pursuit of the unrealizable, and less important, goal of trying to keep up "multi-racial" appearances.

This is why I was asking you to name some studies or even some anecdotes that might give us some cause to expect something to come out of your policy initiatives. Because the evidence for that on the ground is a complete bust.

So in the context of your "moral clarity", is it moral to waste $7 billion that could have been used for poverty relief or job creation or infrastructure development on nothing?

Or let me put it another way - when the best academic literature to hand strongly suggests that coups and lies and propaganda manipulation cannot sustainably change racist tendencies. And when actual empirical experience from the post-coup period on the ground also shows that coups and lies and propaganda manipulation do not change normal racist tendencies.

So against that backdrop, would you consider it to be a good example of "moral clarity" for us to just go ahead and destroy $7 billion in lost economic development in pursuit of that unrealizable and extortionate goal anyway?

Anonymous said...

Hey all - I'm looking for phone numbers for anybody above the rank of captain in the FMF. Post them here - key word is "Tiny Banana" - cos he's obviously got one - hehehe