#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: 2011-11-27

Make Your Vote Count

Make Your Vote Count

Saturday, December 3, 2011

FNPF Transition Decree: last nail in the FNPF coffin

By Dr Wadan Narsey

The illegal President has signed the unlawful “Fiji National Provident Fund Transition Decree” which trashes lawful contracts between FNPF and pensioners, takes away their basic human rights to personal property, and removes their basic human right to take their just FNPF grievances to court (while it shamelessly claims that no one’s human rights are adversely affected by this Decree).

The FNPF Transition Decree claims in Part 2, that:
“the principal object of this Part is to ensure that the arrangements for the provision of annuities by the Board are sustainable, non-discriminatory, and do not involve cross subsidy of one group (pensioners and annuitants) by another (FNPF members).”


Such phrases are also in the draft FNPF Act, and the drafters have no idea (or they don’t care) how internally inconsistent all these phrases are even within their Decrees (elaborated below).


The Decree makes a pathetic attempt to justify itself by referring to IMF, World Bank, ILO and “actuarial experts” who we know all recommended reductions of future annuities, but none recommended the breaking of lawful contracts and basic human rights to property nor of denying recourse to justice for existing pensioners. 


These agencies need to be publicly challenged as to whether they lend their support to this unlawful Decree which undermines laws of contracts and fundamental human rights of pensioners in Fiji.


The Decree has five Parts:
Part 2:  Terminates the current pensioners’ claims
Part 3:  Share investment scheme (not commented on here)
Part 4:  Protections (what a farce).
Part 5:  Regulations (not commented here)
Part 2:  Trashing lawful contracts


Despite the FNPF CEO’s strange claim that pensioners do not have a “contract” but an “agreement”, the facts all suggest that pensioners do have lawful contracts approved by the elected Fiji Parliament:
I remind again, Article 4 of the FNPF Act states that the FNPF Board shall be a body corporate and shall, by the name of "The Fiji National Provident Fund Board", have perpetual succession and a common seal .... The Board may sue and be sued in its corporate name and may enter into contracts.
(a) the contracts were freely offered by a corporate body, FNPF, on the OP-9 form all of which were signed by pensioners and accepted by FNPF.
(b) On Form 9-OP, the FNPF informed the retiree that if he chooses to take the pension options, he will receive exactly this or that annuity (annual sum of money in dollars, and exactly this or that precise percentage of his final balance) payable for his lifetime (single pension) and the lifetime of his last surviving partner (in the case of the lower double pension). The FNPF warned pensioners “Once you have made your choice it is final and cannot afterwards be changed or revoked.”    The pensioners had entered a legal contract which could not be changed by them.


But the FNPF and the Military Regime clearly think that they can do whatever they want.


Part 4: Protections: Stealing pensioners’ lawful property
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says “Everyone has the right to own property” and “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.
Have a laugh if you thought that Part 4  of the Transitional Decree titled “Protections” was about protecting you, the pensioners and your property.


Do you really believe Subsection 11 (2) of the Transition Decree which brazenly claims “the relevant provisions are not to be taken to provide for a deprivation of property of anyone”.  What a farce. 


By all relevant criteria, the current pensioners’ FNPF annuities are real financial property, guaranteed by a lawful contract guaranteed by elected Fiji parliaments.  Yet for virtually everyone currently receiving more than $300 per month, their entitlements are going to be drastically reduced – by between 30% and 54% of their lawful property. i.e.


The total loss to existing pensioners, in present value terms, will amount to more than $150 to $200 millions in aggregate (I roughly estimate).


Given that Australia and NZ do not recognize the Military Regime or its unlawful decrees, FNPF pensioners who are being adversely harmed might think about suing FNPF in Australia or NZ where FNPF has investments.


Part 4 “Protections”: Denying Human Rights of Access to Justice
Clause 11 of the Regime’s Transition Decree shamelessly states the following, straight out of Animal Farm: (1) “The relevant provisions are not to be taken to be inconsistent with a human right or a similar right of any person”.  What a farce. i.e. the Military Decree assures you, in legal gobble-de-gook, that your human rights are not being harmed.  What a farce.


Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states  “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”.


Article 10 of the UDHR “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations...”.


But Subsection (3) of Part 4  of the Regime’s Transition Decree states:  “No court, tribunal, or other adjudicating body has jurisdiction or power to accept, hear, determine or in any other way entertain any challenge by any person, or to grant any remedy or relief to any person in respect of” (a and b) the validity of the Decree and (c) “any loss or damage suffered by any person...” as a result of the provisions in the Decree.
(4) states if there is any relevant claim before any court, “the presiding judicial officer, without hearing or in any way determining the proceeding of the application, shall immediately transfer the application to the Chief Registrar of the High Court for the termination of the proceeding or the application...” and “a certificate to that effect shall be issued by the Chief Registrar of the High Court”.
(5) states if any relevant proceeding has already been started but not determined, that proceeding is also terminated.
(6) in case some brave judge thinks otherwise, the Transition Decree sternly warns that any court that is currently hearing  such a proceeding, “must, on application by the Attorney-General ... issue a certificate to the effect that the proceedings .... have been wholly terminated..”.
And under (7) Such terminating certificates cannot be challenged in court.


Bottom line:  the judiciary will not be allowed to hear your case, even though it involves a lawful legal contract entered into between FNPF and pensioners (backed by elected Fiji Parliaments), your basic human right to personal property, and your human right to go to court with your just grievances.


Tough luck for the Burness/Shameem case, eh?
The very fact that this Military Decree stops all legal challenges is clear evidence that the Regime knows that the FNPF case will not stand up in court. 


Why else would they have Part 4 in this Decree, alleging “Protections” – yeah, protection of the Military Regime against legal action. So much for the separation of the judiciary from the State.


Part 2 of Decree:  False claim Number 1
Part 2 of the FNPF Transition Decree claims that the lumps sums the pensioners left in the Fund and the investment income thereupon (allegedly amounting to $310 million), cannot meet the present value of the future liabilities owed to current pensioners ($565 million). 


This statement totally ignores that:
(a) there was a Pension Buffer Fund specifically set up for this very purpose by the Fiji Parliament;
(b) that Pension Buffer Fund (which had lump sums paid into it and pensions paid out) was not credited with the interest which it was entitled to,
(c) that this Pension Buffer Fund would have accumulated to more than $850 million by now- ie $300 millions more than the $565 million that is admitted (for the first time), to be the present value of liabilities to current pensioners.


Part 2 of Decree:  False Claim 2:  the Board will be non-discriminatory.
Part 2 of the Transition Decree claims that the FNPF Board will be “non-discriminatory”. Yet Clause 8 (titled “Top ups”) is all about arbitrarily discriminating between different classes of retirees- whether they are currently receiving less than $100 per month, receiving between $100 ands $300 per month, and more than $300 per month.


Subsection 8 (2) states that for those pensioners currently receiving less than $100 per month, and who wish to convert their lump sum to the new annuities offered which will of course be less than $100 per month,  the Board will arbitrarily offer $100 per month. i.e the FNPF now will become a welfare organization, (with whose permission?) subsidizing current low annuity pensioners at other pensioners’ expense.  So cross-subsidization will continue, whatever the Decree claims.


I will also bet you, that the over-paid drafters of this Military Decree have never thought about those retirees who might currently have an annuity less than $100 per month, only because they took a partial lump sum upon retirement.


Subsection 8 (3) states that if any pensioners are currently receiving more than $100 (bad drafting - it should really be stating that if a pensioner is receiving between $100 and $300 per month) and they leave all their lump sum entitlement with the Fund and take the new annuities being offered, then they will receive either their current annuity or $300, whichever is the lesser.
i.e. those pensioners currently receiving between $100 per month and $300 per month will be left alone.


Subsection 8 (4) then states amazingly, that if you  are currently receiving more than $300, ands leave all your lump sum entitlement with FNPF and take the new annuity rates that apply to you, then you will arbitrarily have your lump sum increased by $10,000 or 25% of your existing lump sum, whichever is less.


Why are they giving this small “bonus” lump sum option rather than just raising the annuity rates?  Because they want future retirees to receive the lower annuities.


They will give a small lolly to existing pensioners, whose contracts they know they are breaking. So for any particular retirement age in the past, pensioners will lose a higher proportion of their annuity, the higher was the lump sum they left in the Fund:  i.e. the more you trusted the Fund, the bigger is the percentage you will be losing. 


For a lump sum of $100,000 you will lose 36% if you have just retired, the loss increasing to 50% if you are age 66,  and then decreasing to 46% if you are about 72 years old now.


How astonishing for a Decree that claims that the FNPF will be non-discriminating! This Transition Decree, contrary to its claims, is discriminating between all kinds of retirees, discriminating by age and by lump sum originally left in the Fund.


The Military Regime and the FNPF Board have set themselves up as redistributing agencies between pensioners or all kinds.


And how do they intend to make sure that future pensioners and future contributors are not discriminated between? Aaaah. You do not need to be an Albert Einstein to figure this out, do you?  Just as they allegedly eliminated discrimination between past pensioners and current contributors.


What of the future?
Many current and future pensioners are asking what they should do. Should they take the lump sum being offered, or the new annuity rates? Sorry, but all current and future pensioners have to answer this question themselves.


But there is a quiz in the previous article which current pensioners can rack their delicate or tired brains over, if that’s any help.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Fiji refuses again to take part in corruption survey

Transparency International has released its list of Corruption Perceptions Index and surprise, surprise Fiji is again not on the list.

The index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption worldwide with 183 countries taking part this year.

The five countries perceived as having the least corruption are New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Singapore.

The five seen as most corrupt are: Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Somalia.

Transparency International told Coupfourpointfive its  Corruption Perceptions Index is put together with the help of a number of surveys, all carried out by different organisations.

It told us Fiji has refused to participate now in three surveys since the 2006 coup.

The last time it took part was in 2005 when it ranked 55 out of 158 countries.

In this survey, Fiji's best friend China is ranked 75 out of 183.

Samoa came in at 69,  Tonga 95, Papua New Guinea 154, and Solomon Islands 120.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Fiji ailments indicative of political turmoil

The unhealthy malaise continues.
The Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Health, Dr Sala Saketa, was sacked just after the 2012 budget was announced last week.

The PSC Chair Josefa Seruilagilagi has tried to band aid the controversy by saying the budget requires a new direction and management style. More specifically, there will be reforms and a new focus is needed. Questions, however, continue to be asked about Saketa's termination.

A report has meanwhile revealed that life expectancy has gone from 72.9 years to 67.8 years, according to a Fiji Islands Health System Review by the Asia Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Polices.

In an interview with Radio Australia's Pacific Beat, the co-author of the report Professor Graham Roberts, says Fiji has been going through hard times since 1987, when the country started going into political turmoil. 

Roberts told Pacific Beat there is a premature adult mortality going on. "There are quite high rates of cardiac mortality. I'm not quite sure what this is related to, potentially lifestyle, but also there may have been some epidemics in the past of rheumatic fever that are playing out at this time. So yes, there has been a change. There has been a decline in other indicators as well and I think all of which indicates the hard times that Fiji's been going through.

"... I'd suggest that it's most easily understood by as I said the hard times that Fiji has been going through and the transitions, there are numerous transitions that are going on in relation to health, including dietary and cultural behaviours and risk factors and there's complicated explanations for these things, it's not singular, so there's no single factor."


The Ministry of Education is also working on a draft policy on HIV and AIDS for schools. A spokesperson says Fiji has 366 positive HIV cases - 12 up from 1989. 97.18 per cent are in the 0 to 49 age group and 52 per cent of the young people are in the 10 to 29 age group, up 4 per cent from 2009.


Fiji life expectancy cut short by political turmoil: academic http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201111/3380489.htm?desktop 

PSC to advertise health position
http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5255:psc-to-advertise-ps-health-position&catid=71:press-releases&Itemid=155 

Draft school policy HIV and Aids
http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5260:draft-school-policy-for-hiv-and-aids&catid=71:press-releases&Itemid=155

Aussie review uses China fear factor to ply Fiji re-engagement theory again

FACE OF CHINA: Some of the thousands of tourists visiting Fiji these days.pic MINFO



A new report on an old fear from Australia: the rising Chinese influence in the region and suggestions the US appears to doubt Australia can deliver on South Pacific issues.


Our New Abroad, Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism is written by the ubiquitous Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin, for the Australian Strategic Policies Institute.

Singing from a familiar colonial hymn, Herr and Bergin again urge Australia re-gather the threads of regional leadership and re-engage with Fiji, one of the Pacific nations providing a gateway for China to the region.


Here is the executive summary for the review. The full report is available at the link at the end of the story:

The Pacific islands region has been undergoing a substantial and dynamic change in its geopolitics, with profound consequences for Australia. The changing tectonics of the Asian century, the dramatic rise of China and a bitter intra-regional dispute with Fiji are amongst the most visible developments.

Although Australia is the largest donor in the region as well as its most influential political actor, these geopolitical shifts have raised serious questions about the contemporary effectiveness of our regional relationships.

The Pacific islands region is full of contradictions—vast, yet small; weak, yet influential; important, yet frequently ignored. Its geopolitical characteristics are so diverse that commonalties can be difficult to find. Nevertheless, for more than six decades, Australia has devoted considerable resources to creating and supporting a regional system to express the Pacific islands’ common interests.

Historically, the success of the regional approach can’t be questioned. Regional relationships contributed significantly to the Pacific islands’ peaceful transition to independence. Their collective action has been responsible for significant achievements in the postcolonial rough and tumble of resource diplomacy.

Australia isn’t a member of the Pacific islands region by virtue of its geographic boundaries, but the decision-making scope of the Pacific Islands Forum makes us the largest and most influential member of the regional family. This dichotomy has produced a ‘bifocal’ view of Pacific islands regionalism that was occasionally controversial but generally regarded as an important source of strength.

The intimacy that Australia enjoys through the regional system hasn’t been negotiated through treaties. It’s been built by friendship and maintained by mutual respect. Our regional ties provide the most important measure of the warmth of the overall relationship that Australia has with the Pacific islands.

Some critics have maintained that Australia’s privileged regional position has tended to be more that of an outsider, rather than an insider. Some of this criticism is due to changes in the way our neighbours have viewed their place in the world. Other criticisms are based on perceptions that Australian interests have altered.

Over the two decades since the end of the Cold War, the concept of political alignment has lost its cogency, diminishing the perceived security benefits of alignment both for the Pacific islands and for their Western supporters.

Greater exposure to non‑aligned interests, coupled with global changes outside the region, especially the rise of China as a global economic power, has offered the Islands new models for development as well as outlets for their national economies.

Island concerns over Australia’s bifocal regional perspectives stem in part from a perception that Australia is a key driver behind current integration processes. Critics have raised doubts about Australia’s motivation for seeking closer regional relations through the Pacific Plan and PACER Plus.1

Yet today regional security demands more effective collective action to meet the traditional and non-traditional security threats facing the Pacific islands. The regional system has been increasingly occupied with assisting the islands to meet the obligations of statehood, such as domestic stability, law and order, and the protection of state jurisdiction (especially after the declaration of exclusive economic zones).

The erosion in Australia’s standing in Pacific regional affairs can be seen in rising sub‑regionalism and faltering support for Australia’s lead on regional initiatives. The islands are displaying an increasingly independent fascination with Asia. They’re broadening unconventional diplomatic ties and preferring regional representation at the United Nations that excludes Australia.

Thus, the coherence and robustness of the regional system are being tested at a time when it is divided as never before, as regional organisations adapt to a new and diversified security environment.

The recent Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland clearly demonstrated the value of the privileged position Australia enjoys in regional affairs. The US sought and secured observer status for its three territories, as France had done for its territories several years earlier, but neither is eligible for full membership in its own right.

Moreover, new interests rumoured to be seeking admission as Post-Forum Dialogue partners included Israel, Turkey, Germany, Russia, Cuba, Spain and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, the numbers are so great that this arrangement will have to be more formalised to cope.

There can be no doubt that effective regional relationships remain an important soft power asset for Australia. The trust that has come with being an accepted member of the regional family contributes enormously to maintaining that asset.

The Australian Government’s recently announced ‘Asian Century’ white paper review should find, as this review has, that Asia–Pacific linkages can add value to Australia’s regional ties with the Pacific islands.

The new Asian interests in the islands pose significant challenges and even risks to the region. Our island neighbours are encouraging and extending these interests through their ‘look North’ policies. Cultivating these connections could ultimately advantage our own Asian ambitions.

Conversely, attempting to use Pacific regional agencies to curtail our neighbours’ emerging Asian ties would damage both our national interests and those of Western allies grappling with related developments, especially in the Western Pacific.

This report finds five areas where Australia can contribute to its own standing in the regional family while advancing regional security.

Traditional security concerns can be addressed by improving the institutional reach and capacity of the existing regional structures. More extra-regional interests—both traditional (France and the US) and new (China)—should be included.

Australia’s regional posture can be enhanced. Our privileged position in the Pacific islands regional structure needs to adjust to address recent changes. Engaging more closely with sub‑regional developments and repairing the regional relationship with Fiji are two of the highest priorities.

Non‑traditional threats to security are more significant in this region than anywhere else because of the extreme vulnerability of most regional states:


Economic development remains the primary non‑traditional source of threat to their stability and sovereignty. Amid increasing concerns about food and energy security, labour mobility and disaster recovery work are areas for development. 


Heightened concerns about education and health are having a regional and sub‑regional impact on national development.

Finally, Australia needs to build a more effective national base for Pacific islands policy. The Pacific islands have slipped from Australian public consciousness in recent decades, reducing the personal base we need to understand our regional family.









Our New Abroad, Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=319&pubtype=-1

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

FNPF Draft Decree 2011: Regime taking total control

Dr Wadan Narsey

The illegal Military Regime is now passing around a Draft FNPF 2011 Decree, for comments from selected people.

The Draft Decree has references to “codes of conduct” “transparency” “duty” to FNPF Members, duty to become a whistle-blower who will be protected, etc., etc., etc.

But quietly put in all the sections to do with the real control of the money flows, are  clauses which ensure that the “Government of the Day” and FNPF Board can do virtually anything they want to, with the life savings of the workers of Fiji.

The 7 member Board will be all appointed by the Minister.  There will be no direct representatives of FNPF contributors, or FNPF pensioners or  employees or  employers.

The Board will not be Trustees but shall “own” all the assets of the Fund and be free to do whatever they want, establish whatever policies and procedures they want.

Sorry, that’s not strictly correct: the Board will have to implement whatever is required through “a written law” (yet to be written). By whom, did you ask? Ha ha ha.

The annuity (pension rate) to be paid from the Retirement Income Fund will be reduced to 8.7% single pension rate if you retire at 55 but the rate will slowly rise if you retire later- going up to 12.3% if you retire at 70.

The Board will also be given the powers to vary the annuity as and when they see fit (i.e. no need for elected Parliaments), with frequent advice from actuarial experts (who are how so fortunately guaranteed regular incomes from the FNPF).

And if the “Retirement Fund” makes a “surplus” (why on earth should it?) then the surplus goes to the General Fund, where the Board can dispose of any amount, as they wish.

Stuck somewhere is also a statement that the Board must ensure equity not just between different classes of fund contributors, but also between annuity receivers (i.e. pensioners) and current contributors.  i.e. this is the clause that will be used to reduce existing pensions, no doubt once the new Board has all the new “powers”.

Promontory had recommended there be a separate Retirement Income Fund solely to pay for the annuities, and the General Fund which would manage the workers savings as they came in.  This made sense for the future.

But the Draft FNPF 2011 decree also recommends (Clauses 86, 87 and 88) the setting up of a strange undefined “Supplementary Fund”.

Read closely the Draft Decree about how this “Supplementary Fund” is to be set up (where the money is to come from), and how the funds are to be used, including, a reference to “a written law” (yet to be written).

Pensioner might ask themselves:  if this Military Regime can trash already existing contracts between the elected Fiji Parliament and pensioners, why won’t it trash any future contract with future pensioners, allegedly governed by the Draft FNPF 2011 Decree?  Indeed, who can trust this Military Regime to keep any contract?

Quiz for pensioners:  will the FNPF 2011 Decree change anything at all at FNPF?

The current FNPF Board and Management has been appointed by the same Military Regime that is drafting this FNPF decree.  Answer “Yes” or “No” to the following questions:   

Anyone answering “Don’t know” to any of these questions, go back and bury your head in the sand.  Don’t bother answering question 20.

1. Is the primary concern of the current FNPF Board and Management your interests?

2. Is the current FNPF management giving you  all the relevant data and Reports you need to make your own assessments?

3. Will the FNPF Board and Management give you the Consultants’ Original Draft      Legislation on the FNPF 2011 Decree, so you can compare and ascertain what Khaiyum and his lawyer mates have made changes to the original draft?

4. Have Bainimarama and Khaiyum been really up-front and honest in giving you all the reports on the misuse of FNPF funds by the FNPF Board members?

5. Have the FNPF Management got expert legal advice that all that pensioners have with FNPF is an “agreement”, not a “contract”?

6. Has the Reserve Bank of Fiji been successful at restraining the irresponsible lending and investments by the FNPF, and looking after the legitimate interests of FNPF members such as its foreign investments?

7. Is the Reserve Bank going to recommend that the FNPF Board has majority members directly elected by FNPF contributors and pensioners?

8. Has this FNPF restructuring anything to do with the alleged reasons for the coup: removing corruption, bringing racial equality, one man-one vote?

9. Have the FNPF contributors and pensioners asked Bainimarama and Khaiyum to do all this drastic restructuring with their pension fund?

10.  Are Bainimarama and Khaiyum  restructuring FNPF because they care about            workers and pensioners?

11.  Is the FNPF a welfare organization where those receiving less than $100 per month will be “topped up” at the expense of the pensioners whose pensions have been cut?

12. Is the return of 8.7% on your lifetime savings a FANTASTIC RETURN, with inflation running at more than 5%, and likely to rise even more with the irresponsible increased government expenditures on salaries, without any real growth of the economy?

13. Will the jovial illegal President of Fiji sign the FNPF 2011 Decree?

14. Will the jovial illegal Presidents’ mates continue to happily socialize with him at       the Defence Club and Fiji Golf Club, and parties organized by embassies, international and CROP organisatons, universities, NGOs, etc etc?

15. Can you question anyone in power about your FNPF pensions and Fund? Illegal President? Illegal Prime Minister? Illegal Attorney General?

16. Can you freely discuss the Draft FNPF Decree publicly in Fiji?

17.  Does the Military Regime really believe in the Charter principles of    accountability and transparency?  (What? You have not read the Charter yet? Oh dear.)

18. Does the Draft FNPF Decree indicate that the Bainimarama/Khaiyum Regime will give up control of Fiji, FNPF, etc after the free and fair one-man-one-vote “elections” in 2014? (hee hee hee).

19. Will Fiji workers now have to work much harder in order to save for their retirement?

(If you don’t know this answer, read George Orwell’s Animal Farm- available free on the internet- and note especially what Napoleon, Squealer, and Raven did after they took over the farm allegedly for the welfare of the farm animals.  (Who do Napoleon, Squealer and Raven remind you of?  Of dear, what a tough question.)

20Will Fiji’s smart lawyers and accountants and even former FNPF management rush up to analyze the Draft FNPF Decree so as to enlighten the ignorant FNPF contributors and pensioners?

21. Is it “time out” for those who have been bashing their heads against the wall for the last decade, with little support from FNPF members who slumbered? 

FNPF Decree 2011A
http://www.mediafire.com/?5qddopboi3e1obl 


FNPF Decree 2011B

FNPF Decree 2011C
http://www.mediafire.com/?lrlq7kor26vflxm 

FNPF Decree 2011D
http://www.mediafire.com/?wv4c39br8efityr 

FNPF Decree 2011E
http://www.mediafire.com/?bb9h2puvddrbzlv


FNPF Decree 2011F
http://www.mediafire.com/?n9x7o0ub8o9pk6d 

FNPF Decree 2011G
http://www.mediafire.com/?r3q7o53c38lmto4 

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

VRF charges said to be at heart of DPP sacking

Christopher Pryde
The regime has predictably blamed former director of public prosecutions Ayesha Jinasena for having to sack her.

The illegal prime minister Frank Bainimarama has even told FBC the Fiji police had no faith in her work and that "many serious offenders walked away with very light penalties and some were lucky with their cases dismissed in court."

Frank Bainimarama
Jinasena was sacked last Thursday with sources saying she had been objecting to the influence being exerted by illegal attorney general Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and his sidekick Nazhat Shameem. 

Sources claim the fall-out came when Jinasena called the allegation and charges made against Sri Lankan born Kiwi Jagath Karunaratne and others 'silly and 'stupid'.

The regime, especially CID, want to lay further charges and convict the graffiti suspects but according to sources close  to VRF, Jinasena was dismissive of the idea for lack of evidence.

Sources also claim the Sri Lankan judges and lawyers are coming together now to go against the influence of the AG and others, "even if they have to leave their jobs and country as a result." 

It's also being said many other local judges and lawyers are also supporting them and calling for the Fiji law association to declare their dissatisfaction with the regime interfering with ongoing cases. 

The case of the graffiti suspects was postponed this week without a proper reason been given with sources now claiming, too, that the chief justice Usaia Ratuveli wants to boycott the hearing because he keeps getting calls from Khaiyum inquiring about the case.


In an exclusive interview with FBC News, though, Bainimarama says Jinasena was sacked because she was performing poorly, the same thing the regime has said about other Sri Lankan judiciary who've left.

Bainimarama insists Christopher Pryde has been appointed as Jinasena's replacement to strengthen the work of the office of the DPP. 

He says many serious offenders have walked away with very light penalties and some were lucky their cases were dismissed in court.
Police had no faith in DPP:PM
http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=41736

Two appear for sedition
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=187129

Minfo release on Pryde's appointment
http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5242:president-appoints-pryde-as-new-director-of-public-prosecutions&catid=71:press-releases&Itemid=155

Monday, November 28, 2011

Letter accuses Sanatan Dharam top executives of harrassing members

 Dewan Chand Maharaj (far left) is a member of the People's Charter
Vijendra Prakash, sacked Suva city Council administrator
Claims Dewan Chand likes to bake his cake and eat it too
Sanatan Dharam followers during their 2011 Annual Convention
Allegations of harassment have surfaced against the National President of the Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha, Dewan Chand Maharaj, and his Secretary Vijendra Prakash.

In August this year Coupfourpointfive was told by Sanatan members that the two are key supporters of the regime and have been using the regime to endorse their actions.

During that month the regime announced that Hindus would have to apply for a permit from the regime for small gatherings to observe religious festivals at home.

A letter was sent to Coupfourpointfive to show how Maharaj and Prakash had been taking advantage of the situation by telling Hindus that unless they were members of a mandali that is affiliated to the Sanatan Dharam, they would not be allowed to celebrate any religious festival at home. 


Claims have now surfaced that the Sanatan Hindu population is being fragmented under the two's leadership.This blog has been told they act like dictators and have used their connections with the regime to take people who have been members of the Sanatan Dharam for more than 25 years, in for questioning for disrupting peace and harmony in 
the Sanatan Hindu population.

Dewan Maharaj is said to threaten people with this scary fact: he is closely related to the illegal PM and AG and he sits in the Peoples Charter and has many "connections" to fix up anyone who goes against him.

He is also accused of using his money, power and affiliation with the regime to scare innocent pundits and individuals.

Several Sanatan branches have either chosen to shut down or been dissolved by Maharaj and Prakash: among them are Lautoka, Seqaqa, Ba, Nadi, Lautoka, Nadroga and Nabua.


 


A Sanatan member who wishes to remain annonymous for sent this letter addressed to Maharaj and Prakash:


AS A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTOR AND DONOR TO SANATAN DHARAM PRATINIDHI SABHA I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM THE DON DIWAN MAHARAJ HOW MUCH MONEY IS HE MAKING BY DOING CALENDAR, NEWSLETTER AND OTHER PRINTING FOR SANATAN BODY? I UNDERSTAND SOME PEOPLE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE AND EeRE REMOVED "SYSTEMATICALLY" BY DIWAN AND VIJEN???

MR DIWAN MAHARAJ, IF YOU HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH MONEY AS DONATION TO SANATAN BODY (AS YOU ALWAYS BOAST) THEN YOU HAVE ALSO EARNED VERY HANDSOME PROFITS THROUGH YOUR QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS. YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES OF MANAGING PUBLIC FUNDS?

I ALSO UNDERSTAND NO PRINTING QUOTATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM ANY OTHER PRINTING COMPANY. IF THIS IS TRUE, THEN THIS IS MISHANDLING OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR WHICH DIWAN SHOULD RESIGN WITH HIS BLACK GUARD DOG VIJEN.

WE ARE AWARE THAT SANATAN BODY SUED VUNIMONO HIGH SCHOOL TO FORCEFULLY TAKEN AWAY THEIR PROPERTY (TYPICAL !!!). FOR THIS THEY PAID ABOUT $20,000 OF LEGAL FEES TO IQBAL KHAN. THIS MONEY IS FROM OUR POOR MANDALI PEOPLE. NOW DIWAN AND VIJEN HAVE LOST THE CASE AND THIS CASE WAS STARTED BY VIJEN. SHOULD VIJEN PAY THIS MONEY BACK TO SANATAN FIJI FROM POCKETS? THEY MUST REPAY IT BACK.
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL SANATAN FIJI SPEND IN THE ILLEGAL TAKEOVER OF NASEA RAM MANDIR?

DISSOLVED BRANCHES BECAUSE THEY SPOKE THE TRUTH AGAINST THE ABOVE ARE: BA, SEQAQA, LAUTOKA...(SOON NADI, NADROGA, NAVUA AND NABUA).

MR. ASHOK BALGOVIND>> HOW MUCH DO YOU RAKE FROM SANATAN? YOU DO ALL THE DRAUGHTING AND PLANNING (MANY FAILED RECENTLY) AND HAVE THEY TAKEN THE QUOTATIONS FROM ANY 3RD PARTY OR YOU JUST DID THE JOB? 

IN THE RAM LEELA GOING ON NOW HOW MUCH MONEY WILL SANATAN BODY MAKE? WHO WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE? YOU REALLY DO NOT NEED A RAVAN CHARACTER IN THIS RAM LEELA BECAUSE VIJENDRA WILL DO THE JOB.....

PLEASE ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WITH EVIDENCE.