Dr Wadan Narsey: Shoddy Tebutt Opinion Poll by the Lowy Institute

The interpretations that the Lowy Institute and coup supporters are putting on the recent Tebbutt Research Poll in Fiji would be laughable, if only the long-term consequences of such propaganda were not so tragic for ordinary people of Fiji.

Students of survey methodology should find this “Lowy Institute Poll” extremely interesting, in a perverse kind of way, on how not to conduct, and how not to interpret sensitive opinion polls in a Fiji, dominated by a climate of fear and intimidation.

A number of relevant questions need to be asked:

1. is the poll genuinely representative of the views of Fiji people?

2. could the questions be understood by ordinary Fiji citizens in the time given?

3. could citizens honestly answer, given the climate of fear in Fiji (cf the Charter)

4. why did the Lowy Institute not report all the tables?

5. which tables did the Lowy Institute choose not to release?

6.  Why did the Lowy Institute ignore the political climate of fear in Fiji? 

7. who financed the poll and their interests in Fiji.

8. links between Tebbutt Research and the Bainimarama Regime and functionaries?

1.  The Tebbutt sample was not representative of Fiji but systematically biased.

The experts in the Household Survey Unit of the Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics will tell you that to randomly select and poll even one thousand households from the 180,000 households  throughout Fiji, is extremely difficult.

You would need to use the 2007 Census locations for all the households through Fiji (urban and rural, including the islands) and randomly select a properly stratified sample of 1000 households, a very technical and difficult statistical exercise in a country like Fiji. Secondly, it is a logistical and cost nightmare to train, transport and accommodate interviewers throughout the length  and breadth of Fiji.

No doubt, to save time, effort and money, the Tebbutt Poll restricted itself to urban and peri-urban areas on Viti Levu: Suva, Lami, Nasinu, and Nausori in Central Division, and Nadi, Lautoka, and Ba in the Western Division.

In other words, all households in rural Viti Levu and rural and urban Vanua Levu, and all other islands were left out.

Rural households are the traditional supporters of Qarase and Chaudhry both marginalized by Bainimarama.  In many rural areas, their traditional leaders continue to oppose the Bainimarama Regime: Naitasiri (Takiveikata in gaol); Rewa (Ro Temumu Kepa continues to suffer persecution by the Regime), and Cakaudrove (Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu forced to lie low). 

The ommitted rural households have also fared very badly since 2006, while urban households  have not suffered so much.

The results of the latest poverty analysis shows that, between 2002 and 2009, poverty in rural areas has worsened:  the sugar industry has been decimated and most of the farmers and cane cutters dependent on the sugar industry will not have been polled. 

While the polled urban households generally gained between 2002 and 2009, largely because of their dependence on formal sector employment (with wages and salaries not being cut despite the  economic depression) and large remittance inflows from abroad.

The poll was therefore systematically biased towards favourable responses (even if they were genuinely given) and left out rural responses which would have been more negative.

The Lowy Report tries to create the impression of the poll being very scientific. It claimed (in italics) and my comments (in parentheses) (page 23 of the Report): 

“The sample was stratified by ethnicity (iTaukei, Indo-Fijian, and other ethnicities), gender, age, and location”.

[The statisticians at FIBoS and Australian Bureau of Statistics would laugh at how Tebbutt Poll would have done this incredibly difficult exercise, which even FIBoS struggles with].

“Start points were selected at random, and respondents were selected at random from within the household, to quota.”

 [Start points may have been selected at random, but it is extremely unlikely that the interviewers would have randomly chosen all the next households to interview, until they reached their “quota”. Probably those closest to the man roads.  More laughs]

“Data was post-weighted to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics population estimates (based on the 2006 census)”.

[All the Tebbutt Poll would have done was ensured that the responses were scaled up to the same national proportions of the ethnic groups recorded by the 2007 Census.  But there is absolutely no way that urban responses on Viti Levu can be scaled up to represent possible rural responses throughout Fiji, or both urban and rural Vanua Levu. More laughs from the statisticians if this survey claims to represent all Fiji.]

And the final outrageous statement suggesting great statistical accuracy “at 95% confidence level”:  

“A truly random survey of the sampled population with this sample size, surveyed with 100% response rate, would produce results with a maximum ±3.04% margin of error at 95% confidence level.”

Yes indeed, this might be true IF it was a “truly random sample”.  But it blatantly was not a random sample, instead, systematically biased towards favourable responses given under fear.

The Director of Polling (Fergus Hanson) and Research Consultant (Sol Lebovic) should be hanging their heads in shame that they did not point out all these very serious statistical qualifications that were omitted from the Lowy Report (deliberately or otherwise).  Just as well for Caz Tebbutt that it is not her Report but the “Lowy Report”.

2. The totally unrealistic questions asked

There were some 25 questions in each interview lasting a total of 10 to 15 minutes according to the Lowy Report, or roughly 24 seconds to 36 seconds per question.  Let us just say 30 seconds on average.

But look at the questions below and imagine how they would have been understood by average Fiji persons, in English or, heaven forbid, in Fijian or Hindustani translations.

On average, it would take at least 20 seconds to ask most question (some would take five minutes), leaving 10 seconds for the person to think about and given their answers.

Table 1a: Please rate your feelings towards some countries, with 100 meaning a very warm, favourable feeling, 0 (zero) meaning a very cold, unfavourable feeling, and 50 meaning not particularly warm or cold. You can use any number from zero to 100: the higher the number the more favourable your feelings are toward that country.

There were 14 countries to comment on, in 10 seconds?

Table 1b: Thinking now about the Fiji Government’s relations with governments from other countries, do you personally agree or disagree that it is important for the Fiji government to have a good relationship with the governments of each of the following countries…

Again, 14 countries to choose from:  and what could the answer possibly be except yes to all.

But wait: note the rankings of the countries in Table 1b:  At the top are, in order of popularity:  Australia, NZ, US, and UK.  All countries who have totally disapproved of and acted against the Bainimarama Regime in stopping aid from the EU and getting expelled from the Commonwealth and Forum. 

China and India, the countries that have supported the Bainimarama Regime come only fifth and sixth, while the Melanesian Spearhead Group countries who Bainimarama has been actively courting, come even lower down.

Table 2a: Do you personally agree or disagree with the approach the Australian Government has taken towards the current Government in Fiji in response to the 2006 coup?

Table 2b: Following the 2006 coup, the Australian government imposed travel sanctions against members of the Fiji Government and Military and supported the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth. Which one of the following approaches do you personally think the Australian government should now take?

How on earth could an average Fiji citizen assess such a complex foreign policy measure by Australia, which flummox even academics and Think Tank experts, like Jenny Hayward-Jones.  But hold it. An amazing 36% of Fiji citizens agreed with the sanctions?

Table 3:  Foreign countries should try to pressure for democratic elections in Fiji, OR Foreign countries should allow Fiji to sort out its return to democracy on its own

Table 4A:  Do you personally agree or disagree with Fiji’s suspension from the Commonwealth?

Table 4B: Do you personally agree or disagree with the decision to exclude Fiji from participation in the Commonwealth Games?

What on earth can be the normal reaction of ordinary citizens to any kind of sanctions against one’s country and one’s people?

Table 5: Due to travel sanctions, Fiji’s rugby team might miss out on participating in the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. I am going to read you three statements about this, and please tell me which one you agree with most.

Astonishing for rugby mad Fiji, 37% agreed that the sanctions were necessary.

Table 6A: Do you personally agree or disagree that Fiji currently plays a leadership role in the Pacific?

Table 6B: Thinking back to Fiji’s leadership role say 5 years ago, and comparing that to nowadays, would you personally say that Fiji’s leadership role in the Pacific is now stronger, weaker or about the same?

What on earth is happening?  45% of the respondents said that Fiji’s role in the region was now stronger?

Table 7: Please think now about regional organisations. Overall, which one do you personally think is more important for Fiji…

Only 16% thought that MSG was more important for Fiji, compared to 51% for Forum.

What? The organisation that Bainimarama is most contemptuous of, got four times the approval that the MSG gets?

Table 8: Do you personally think that Australia/New Zealand) should be a member of the Pacific Islands Forum?

Now which Fiji citizen would know about the implications for the Pacific countries of having Australia and NZ as members or not members of the Forum?

Table 9: Do you personally agree or disagree with Fiji’s suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum?

What on earth could be the answer to this from ordinary Fiji citizens?

Table 10: Overall, how good a job do you personally think Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama is doing as Prime Minister?

Wow.  66% approved of his role as Prime Ministers.

Which person in his right mind in Fiji today would dare tell some interviewer from Suva (who could well be an informer for the army) that Bainimarama was not doing a good job?

What does such a question mean, if there are no alternative Prime Ministers given such as Qarase, Chaudhry, Mick Beddoes, Jai Ram Reddy or Madraiwiwi?

Note: Wikileaks has just revealed that John Samy admitted to the US Ambassador before departing for New Zealand that the alleged public approval of the Charter was strongly influenced by the army intimidation. But no public revelations yet.

Table 11: Overall, do you personally think that things in Fiji are going in the right direction or in the wrong direction?

How on earth could this question be interpreted by the average Fiji citizen?  Right direction?  Wrong direction?  With respect to what policy?

Table 12: Overall, would you personally say the government is doing a very good job, a fairly good job, an average job, a fairly poor job or a very poor job of listening to the views of people like yourself?

87% allegedly said this Military Regime is doing a good or average job of listening to the ordinary people?

In a country where the Parliament (of ordinary people’s representatives) has been closed, whose GCC has been shut down,  where sports organisations have been taken over by the Regime; where legitimate gatherings of (some) churches and unions are banned and people prosecuted; where dissidents are taken up to the camp for “questioning”; where a regional university can be financially blackmailed to get rid of questioning academics?

Table 13:  How good a job do you personally think the Government is doing in terms of delivering services in education, health, transport:  More than 69% said good.

Which ordinary citizen being polled will know how much this coup has cost the country in terms of lost incomes and government revenues and services (more than a billion dollars over four years) in return for a few tens of millions thrown at school busfares or squatter housing? 

Which ordinary citizen being polled will know about the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-payers’ funds gone missing and four years of Auditor Generals Report not being released by the same Bainimarama Government?

Table 14: How would you rate what the Government is doing in terms of working on…

More than 80% said good or average for the following (but, the facts say otherwise).

Ending racial inequalities and divisions (worse new)

Improving land ownership laws (nothing doing)

Increasing employment opportunities (worse now)

Improving the economy  (worse now)

Reducing poverty (worse now)

Preparing to draft a new Constitution  ( what’s the hurry- wait another 3 years?)

Making progress towards elections (what’s the hurry? wait another 3 years)

Reforming the electoral system (hey, what’s the hurry? wait another 3 years)

Table 15: Thinking about what effect the new constitution will have, please say whether you personally agree or disagree with the following statements…More than 70% agree:

            Will lead to a better democracy in Fiji

            Will end racial inequalities and divisions in Fiji

            Will end the coup culture in Fiji

Table 16: Please say which one of the three statements comes closest to your own personal views about democracy.

Preferable to any other kind of government 53%

Non-democratic government preferable under some circumstances 25%

Doesn’t matter to someone like me 21%

What on earth will ordinary citizens (or even the experts) say about questions 15 and 16, when they don’t even know that the Charter, Roadmaps etc are all repetitions of whatever is there in the 1997 Constitution, and they have no idea at all of what a genuine democracy is, or that a “non-democratic government” is here a surrogate for an illegal  treasonous military Regime?

Table 17: Do you personally think that the Church and other religious organisations should be involved a lot, a little or not at all in politics?

66% said “Not At All”, obviously thinking only of the Methodists being currently bashed by Bainimarama- not of the Hindus, Catholics and Muslims who politically and actively supported Bainimarama’s 2006 coup and his and John Samy’s Charter charade.

Table 18A: Overall, do you personally approve or disapprove of the RFMF’s role in Fiji at the moment?  68% approved. 

Who in Fiji would dare to tell an interviewer that they disapprove of the army in the current climate?  How much do the ordinary citizens know about how much extra tax-payers funds the military has been illegally swallowing up since 2006, denying them funds for health (shortage of basic medicines at hospitals- buy your own says Neil Dharma) education  and social welfare. 

But hold it.  31% actually said they disapproved, even in this biased sample?  What would the number be without the media censorship, Public Emergency Decree and arbitrary arrests?

Table 18B: Still looking to the future, do you personally agree or disagree that the Republic of Fiji Military Forces should play a permanent role in politics?  53% agree.

Well, well, well. 

Table 19: Since the December 2006 coup, do you personally think the local media

in Fiji has become more reliable and trustworthy, less reliable and trustworthy or is it about the same as before the coup?

In a country which continues to suffer from total media censorship, with one newspaper owned by a totally pro-Bainimarama business (which also has extended its tentacles to  the Fiji Pension Fund and the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority), one newspaper whose owner is in gaol and facing more charges, one radio station run by Aiyaz Khaiyum’s brother, and a television station whose control is about to be taken away from Yasana Holdings (the current majority shareholder), by the Military-controlled Fijian Holdings Limited.  A country where no critical news are allowed about the missing hundreds of millions at FNPF, all kinds of secret under-the-table deals bypassing the tenders board, pensioners’ views on the imminent cutting of their pensions not allowed in the media, or the views of some economists critical of this regime ....

43% of the poll respondents said the media was now more reliable;  31% same; i.e. 74% said the media was the same or more reliable after the 2006 coup.

This must really take the cake as far as the reliability of the Lowy Institute Poll is concerned.   Heh heh heh heh heh heh.  Please pick me up from the floor. 

20.  Importance of human rights:

The right to freely express yourself (no such freedom in Fiji)

The right to freely vote in national elections (no such freedom in Fiji)

The right to a fair trial (no such freedom in Fiji)

The right to a media free from censorship (no such freedom in Fiji)

With no Bainimarama presence hovering over this question, more than 95% of the respondents said yes. 

Yet the Bainimarama Regime has deprived Fiji’s people of all these basic human rights.

What is reported and what is not reported

Earlier Tebbutt Poll reports (for The Fiji Times) usually gave break-downs by ethnicity, age, gender and division.  They consistently showed greater Fijian support for Qarase than for Bainimarama; and that Indo-Fijians showed greater support for Bainimarama- largely because of his rhetoric of racial equality.

Whether that Indo-Fijian support would still be there today in a secret referendum is an interesting question, given that the sugar industry has significantly declined, casual wage earners (mostly Indo-Fijian) have suffered badly because of the stagnating economy, and Indo-Fijian leaders have been marginalised  (a few swallows don’t make a summer).

The detailed ethnic break-downs are not given for every table, however dubious the results.

Were the rural areas to be randomly polled as well, all the results in support of Bainimarama would go down, despite the upward pressure from the “fear factor”.

Clear Lowy Report bias towards Bainimarama

The Report may be easily characterised as portraying the Bainimarama Regime in a good light, not just from the cover picture of a very respectable looking Bainimarama speaking at the United Nations.

The introduction to the Lowy Report alleges that the differences between the Qarase SDL/FLP Govenrment and Bainimarama emerged over the three contentious Bills- Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill, the Qoliqoli Bill and the Land Tribunal Bill.

But more and more evidence is coming out that Bainimarama had been planning the 2006 coup from the time that the Qarase Government wanted him prosecuted for the several deaths in military custody, surcharged for over-spending the military budget in 2004, 2005 and removed as Commander for insubordination. 

Some allegations are now being made by Major Mara that Bainimarama may have initially supported the 2000 coup and the removal of Chaudhry’s Government.

But the Lowy Report simplistically claims  

“When the government did not meet all the military’s demands, Bainimarama seized power and assumed the position of Prime Minister, which he has maintained to date. He promised to engage in a clean-up campaign to rid Fiji of corruption and to eliminate racial inequalities in Fiji. Bainimarama said elections would be held when the country was stable and when appropriate electoral reforms were implemented”.

No comment at all on all the broken promises since 2006 or the final treasonous abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in 2009, by a manipulated senile President.

The Lowy Report is full of strange strained logic which puts a positive spin on the Bainimarama Regime, and tries to ultimately suggest that Australia is out of line and should lift all its sanctions and restore all links with the Bainimarama Regime.

This is the line that Jenny Hayward-Jones has consistently taken over the last couple of years, driven largely by the view that Australia has been out maneuvered and being displaced in the Pacific by China.

It would be more honest of the Lowy Institute if they were to honestly come out and maintain their arguments purely on foreign policy interests of Australia vis a  vis China.

There was no need to engage in a statistical charade of an opinion poll, with unrealistic questions being asked of ordinary Fiji citizens in a climate of fear, with outrageous conclusions being reached based on the unreliable responses received.

It does not help that Caz Tebutt has personal business interests in pushing the Fiji Australia Business Council line for restoration of normal Australian relations with Fiji: her opinion poll business took a nosedive with the 2006 coup and Australian sanctions on Fiji (but ironically encouraged her to extend her business to the Pacific and earned her an Exporter of the Year Award). Her business could do with a revival of the Fiji economy.

It is not plausible of the Fiji Regime spokesperson (more than a passing acquaintance of Caz Tebbutt) to claim that the Regime had no idea that such a great expert survey was being conducted.  Nor is it plausible for Tebutt Research to claim that they did not ask for permission from the Regime but just “sought legal opinion”.

It also does not help the Lowy Institute reputation that this poll was co-financed privately by one Mark Johnson AO who supposedly has mineral exploration interests in Vanua Levu. 

Given the positive spin that this Lowy Poll has put on Bainimarama, Johnson will no doubt be glad to have Bainimarama’s goodwill over the next few years when his business interests in Fiji come on stream and he has to negotiate taxation regimes with the Regime.

Dishonest pressure on Australian Government

It is ludicrous that the Lowy Institute should use the dubious responses from a 1032 ordinary relatively under-educated citizens of Fiji, to place pressure on the Australian Government to change its foreign policy stance on Fiji.

Or to pressure the Forum countries to do the same.

It is dismaying that writers like Graham Davis, who are given credibility by national Australian newspapers like The Australian, should contemptuously contrast the “high popularity rating” of Bainimarama from the grossly biased Tebbutt Poll with the allegedly low rating of Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Australia.

Davis and other coup supporters like Croz Walsh should note that for a proper comparison to be made, Julia Gillard would have to:

* use guns to remove a lawful government and make herself Prime Minister

* illegally over-spend tax-payers funds amounting to more than twice the Health Budget

* stop five years of Auditor General’s Reports on Government revenues and expenditure

* hide reports on the losses of hundreds of millions of dollars of pension funds resulting from decisions made by boards appointed by herself;

* illegally pay herself 30 years of back-pay for leave she allegedly did not take

* stop the audit of Regimental Funds abused by successive Military Commanders

* pay herself multiple salaries through a private accounting firm which also receives large business deals without going through proper tender processes

* have total media censorship in place, with a Public Emergency Decree that bans all meetings not wanted by her

* and ensure a judiciary that enforces Military Decrees including those which state that the Regime may not be taken to court for anything.

The list is still growing. Fiji is a small place and truth will eventually come out about  everything.

Simply because this regime had maintained a stranglehold on Fiji for the last five years does not in any way make it right or that it is going to be good for Fiji in the long run.

Nor does it mean that neighbouring Forum countries should just accept the “bad boy” back in the fold, as Anote Tong (Kiribati President) so naively suggests.

Forum countries who keep supporting Bainimarama for whatever reason they have, need to think about the day when their own soldiers or police forces may forget their oaths of obedience to the lawful elected government of the day and copy Bainimarama.

We Fiji people know now that we cannot expect any support from the US Government who (as Wikileaks has revealed) knew all the dirt on the Bainimarama Regime, but chose to not support Australia and NZ pressures on Fiji, because of their own foreign policy need for Fijian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (likewise the morally bankrupt UN). Tough luck for human rights and democracy in Fiji, eh?

For the Pacific, the Lowy Institute has just undermined itself very badly as an independent and objective “Think Tank”.

It shows itself to be just a private lobby group, indulging in propaganda, manipulating shonky opinion polls, to justify its foreign policy view for Australia, based largely on fear of China.

The Australian Government needs to ask whether the Lowy Institute really deserves Australian tax-payers funds in order to so contemptuously undermine long term law and order, constitutionality, and basic human rights in Pacific Island countries.

Lowy Institute pushes again on Fiji issue

It is being revealed that on the cusp of the Pacific leaders meeting in Auckland, the Lowy Institute is once again pushing for a change in position on Fiji’s situation to revert its continued isolation from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) family.

Lowy has apparently commissioned Tebbutt Research to conduct a poll in Fiji and various sources are citing that the findings point to an “overwhelming” support of the illegal and treasonous military regime. Caz Tebutt the principal of Tebutt Research based in Fiji is a member of the Fiji-Australia Business Council.

Now if this poll results do indicate this, how fantastic! All that will now be needed is for Fiji to cement those poll results and the fantastic "64/65% support charter" in an election (with UN/PIF observers) where the resounding truth of democratic votes will not be denied.

What defies logic however in this secret-squirrel exercise pushed by Lowy is that virtually no one in Fiji knew that this was happening.

Secondly in a country where repression, censorship and tyranny reigns – if a stranger such as a researcher accosts you for your opinion of the regime, it is a no-brainer that answer will be pro-regime, out of the sheer fear of repercussions.

The purpose of this exercise is still unclear. Lowy’s proponent of this exercise and complete newbie to the Pacific admits that the PIF will not move on Fiji. So too does the PIF Host, NZ Prime Minister John Key, in addition to the most senior of the PIF statesmen todate, Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Malielegaoi.

Ex-PIF employee, Dr Roman Grynberg’s fervent opportunistic jibes at Aust and NZ shooting from the shoulders of a completely unrelated Fiji issue continuously attempts to remain regionally relevant and confuse Fiji's non-PACER plus trade participation while ignoring fundamental principles of the rule of law and human rights – for even if the regime participates in these trade negotiations, taxpayers are being represented against their will by unelected usurpers.

Planned pro-democracy protests in Auckland targeting the PIF leaders might also show up to challenge the Lowy’s findings.

But the fact of the matter is the PIF in its 40^th years of history has never changed agreed-to positions just like the UN has never changed agreed to points of view. 

 

Dr Wadan Narsey: Ending our cycles of religious intolerance

For 95% of the time, the activities of Fiji’s religions have been good for Fiji’s development.  For perhaps 5% of the time, their actions have caused great harm.

Currently, the Military Regime continues its persecution of the Methodist Church, blatantly contravening Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Basic Human Rights:  “Everyone has the right to freedom .... either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Other religions in Fiji who are allowed to freely have their gatherings and functions, remain quiet.

These Catholic, Anglican, Hindu, and Muslim religious organizations are at a cross-road in Fiji’s troubled history.

They can do the difficult but right thing today, by speaking up to express their disapproval of the Regime’s treatment of the Methodist Church.  Or, wallowing in the past injustices, they can remain silent.

If religious leaders remain quiet, then the religious followers and their educated leaders, must rise to the challenge.

If both religious leaders and followers remain silent during these troubled times, Fiji is unlikely to come out of our cycles of religious intolerance.

Easy to have revenge

No doubt, many Hindus, Catholics and Muslims feel a quiet satisfaction that the Methodists are being persecuted by the Military Regime - “maleka”- “now you see what it feels like” to be persecuted!

They of course remember 1987 and 2000 when the Methodist Church supported the military coups that removed democratically elected governments, and demanded the imposition of a “Christian State” and “Sunday Bans”.

Temples and mosques had been burnt creating great psychological anxiety, distress and anger amongst Hindu and Muslim followers, many of whom began to feel that Fiji could never be their home, if they could not freely practise their religion. Many did emigrate.

But in 1987, the Catholic and other Christian clerics and adherents (and don’t forget the few conscientious Methodists like Rev. Koroi and others) earned huge goodwill from Hindus and Muslims by speaking up for their religious freedoms.

This no doubt also encouraged Hindu and Muslim participation in the Council of Churches, which played a powerful bridging role between religions and ethnic groups.

Today’s Catholics and Hindus as guilty as 1987 Methodists

Since 2006, the Catholic and Hindu religious organisations have behaved just as badly as the Methodists did in 1987.

They came out in support of a military coup that treasonously  removed a democratically elected government.

The leaders of the Catholic Church, the Hindu Sanatan Dharam  and Arya Samaj, and the Muslim League took prominent part in the NCBBF whose culmination was the People’s Charter, with its first paragraph swearing allegiance to the 1997 Constitution.

Many Catholics and Hindus took up positions in the Military Regime’s Boards.

They continued to support the Regime, even after the Appeal Court ruled in 2009 that the 2006 coup and the President’s actions were illegal and treasonous.

The military allegations of widespread corruption, both financial and electoral, have never been proven after five years - and are unlikely to be.

Without any public statement against what has happened since 2006 and 2009, these religious leaders remain collaborators in a treasonous military coup, and all its resultant evils: lack of accountability for hundreds of millions of tax-payers funds, destruction of the economy, draconian media censorship, and personal enrichment, to name just a few.

These actions of the Catholic, Hindu and Muslim organisations are no different today from those of the Methodists in 1987.

They have never publicly withdrawn their support of the 2006 Military coup, and they do not speak out in support of their sister Methodist Church who are persecuted.

Of course, neither has the Methodist Church ever made clear public statements admitting that their support of the 1987 and 2000 coups was treasonous and morally wrong.

And so the sad vicious cycle of religious intolerance continues, building up dams of evil for the future.

Religion is personal AND social

The purest and truest religion is between the individual “Person” and “God”.  There is no real need for religious organisations, leaders, buildings, or gatherings.

Yet all religions the world over have organisations, leaders, buildings of worship and gatherings.  These all strengthen the social bonds that the adherents have with each other, and enable them to collectively achieve many other good things in life often neglected by the State.

Despite our destructive military coups, Fiji is still one of the more developed countries in the Pacific because all our many religious organisations, have very successfully built and managed schools, technical and agricultural colleges, now universities, old peoples’ homes, orphanages, and welfare organizations.

Despite their great poverty, they also build ostentatious churches, temples and mosques, even though God has no need for physical buildings.

But one of the social benefits of religion, that even agnostics like me acknowledge, is that religious “peer group” social pressure is often the only thing that stops many ordinary humans from doing evil towards their fellow citizens.

For this valuable social aspect of religion, people must be allowed to freely gather together- to pray, to sing, to raise funds, and to discuss whatever matters they wish to discuss.  It is their basic human right to do so.

No one should be allowed to stop this basic human right, least of all an illegal Military Regime which has callously turned its tax-payer funded guns, on its own people.

Today, Hindus, Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims and even Indo-Fijian Methodists, are allowed by this Military Regime to freely practise their religion. 

But not the indigenous Fijian Methodists. 

Learning from the past

No religious organisation today can sit on their high horses and say “We are innocent”.

Many anonymous Methodist bloggers look back with great regret, to their own support of the coups in 19897 and 2000, and turned a blind eye to all the resulting injustices to others.

Today, many genuine Catholics must be wondering whether their support of the 2006 military coup has done far more damage to Fiji and the interests of poor, than the good done by small sums thrown around for social welfare and squatter housing.

Clerics who supported the Military’s alleged electoral reform after the 2006 coup, must be wondering, whether they were merely used to justify a coup, and perhaps will soon be recalled out of their little boxes, for the next Act in the Military Charade.

Many ordinary Hindus, following the Military requirement for permits to have religious gatherings like Ram Naumi, now must have great doubts about the honesty, integrity and accountability of the Military Regime, which has also destroyed the sugar industry, and persecuted their political and trade union leaders.

Ending the cycle of religious intolerance

Religious leaders have a glorious opportunity to rise above past discordance and defend the religious freedoms of all religions, Methodists and others, while all acknowledging their mistakes in the past.

Religious leaders, who know the importance of repentance, are surely ideal people to take the lead in reconciliation in Fiji today, especially as most should not have personal material agendas (although some clearly do).

It is in such difficult times that religious leaders can prove their leadership mantles, just as some did in 1987 and 2000.

Here also is a valuable opportunity for the many intellectuals of all races, who support these religious bodies, to offer their wise advice and guide the religious leaders.

If the religious and intellectual leaders fail to lead, then they place enormous burdens on ordinary Christians, Hindus and Muslims to “do the right thing”.

Usually ordinary people can’t -- witness all the global nightmares of religious intolerance and violence-- between Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Muslims, Hindus and Christians.

Good people of Fiji: you have an opportunity to end the cycles of religious bigotry that began in 1987.

Let not the evils of media censorship and Public Emergency Decrees, or the pernicious desire for “revenge”, stop you in this worthy endeavor.

Blessed will be they who extend their helping hands to those who are down. And doubly blessed will be Fiji.

The Pacific Circus

It was as clear as day prior to the "Pacific Circus" that our Pacific neighbours would be ambushed into accepting the illegal and treasonous military regime's roadmap that attempts in vain to legimitize itself, even though public rejection of them is becoming bolder by the day.

Tragically these leaders are confusing the Fiji situation as being an occassion in which to defiantly shoot from Fiji's shoulders about regional self-determination, while opportunistically furthering their own interests. 

Duplicitously, the talk-fest is being paid for by taxpayers in Fiji against their will even as they are deprived of civil liberties, while our neighbours farcically seek to liberate Tahiti Nui.

Despite the regime's pitiful attempt to foil the PIF process, it is once again as clear as day, that these fabulous words and aspirations will be filed neatly away somewhere and duly forgotten.

Fiji's shadow looms over forum
Updated September 2, 2011 11:24:38

Next week the leaders of thirteen Pacific Island countries and the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand will be gathering in Auckland next week for the annual Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting.

They will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Forum's creation - but one of the founding members, Fiji, will be missing. Fiji, now under military led rule, is suspended from the Forum.

Presenter: Sean Dorney
Speakers: Richard Marles, Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs; Murray McCully, New Zealand's Foreign Minister; Danny Philip, Solomon Islands Prime Minister; Frank Yourn, Executive Director Australia-Pacific Islands Business Council; Derek Brian, Pacific Institue of Public Policy; Anote Tong, Kiribati President

DORNEY: Fiji's military commander and Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, is banned from the Auckland Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting. But nevertheless he is staking his claim to being the Pacific region's natural leader. Just a matter of days before the annual Pacific Forum meeting - he is hosting two regional summits. As current Chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group of countries he's called them to Fiji and he is also chairing his second "Engaging with Fiji" meeting. At least three leaders who'll be attending the Forum meeting in Auckland are by his side. But both New Zealand and Australia would like to believe none of this matters. Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Richard Marles:

MARLES: I don't think there is any country in the Pacific that feels comfortable with the position that Fiji is taking at the moment. Now, every country, of course, is going to engage with Fiji in its own way but I think however countries are dealing with the Pacific, with Fiji, I'm sorry, the central message has been clear across the Pacific is that what countries want to see is see Fiji start to take meaningful steps to a return to democracy and that's what Australia wants to see as well.

DORNEY: New Zealand's Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, says Fiji won't dominate next week's Forum.

McCULLY: Fiji will be the subject of some discussion but not too much because my sense around the region is that we've had to spend rather too much time at important Forum meetings talking about Fiji and not enough time on some of the positive issues that could take the region forward and so we don't want to get bogged down where there's an area of difference there.

DORNEY: Mr McCully was speaking during a recent visit to Solomon Islands where the Prime Minister, Danny Philip, said they had not even discussed Fiji and that the Solomons had its own policy on the issue.

PHILIP: We're going to remain with our all embracing policy towards Fiji.

DORNEY: Fiji's suspension from the Forum has created huge problems for the proposed regional trade and development deal between, on the one side, the island countries and, on the other, Australia and New Zealand. It's known as PACER Plus and the negotiations are difficult. Fiji does not participate. That's ridiculous according to the Australia-Pacific Islands Business Council. The Council's Executive Director, Frank Yourn:

YOURN: The regional economic agreement in the Pacific can't be negotiated without Fiji being completely at the table. And until that happens there really isn't going to be any progress.

DORNEY: Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Islands Affairs, Mr Marles, puts the blame on Fiji.

MARLES: There is, of course, an awkwardness associated with dealing with Fiji when you are talking about economic matters because we all understand that Fiji is a very important country in the Pacific and it is central to the economy of the Pacific. But this only highlights the difficulty associated with the current regime in Fiji. What is making this awkwardness, what is making this difficult is the fact that we have a regime in Fiji today which is not democratic. And what would solve all of these problems quickest is if we actually saw a meaningful return to democracy in Fiji. And that's really the path that we need to go down. And it's very important that whatever mechanisms we establish in relation to engaging in PACER Plus that bigger picture is kept up front and centre in what we do.

DORNEY: The man tasked with helping the Pacific Islands negotiate with Australia and New Zealand is Dr Chris Noonan. At the Auckland Forum meeting the island countries will be asking Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who will be making her first foray into the Pacific, why promised Australian funding for Dr Noonan's office has become such an obstacle. New Zealand is providing annual funding but Australia is insisting on quarterly reviews which is seen in the Pacific as compromising Dr Noonan's independence. Mr Marles defends AusAID's demands.

MARLES: All we want to do is make sure that the activities that we are funding, that there is accountability for those activities and that there is a proper reporting that those activities are being completed.

DORNEY: But the Australia-Pacific Islands Business Council's, Frank Yourn, says he sympathises with Dr Noonan's predicament.

YOURN: It does seem to me that some sort of three month financial reporting cycle makes it difficult to plan a forward business program if you've only got secured funding for three months.

DORNEY: Another issue that the Island countries will want to discuss is why the success of the Pacific seasonal labour scheme in New Zealand has not been replicated yet in Australia despite a pilot scheme being announced three years ago. Derek Brian, from the Port Vila based Pacific Institue of Public Policy says the Australian scheme leaves a lot to be desired.

BRIAN: It's definitely something that Australia needs to pick its game up on. It's something that most Pacific Island countries and the Melanesian countries in particular have been lobbying very hard for and I imagine we're going to hear the same again in Auckland.

DORNEY: Climate change is a subject worrying most island countries in the Pacific. The low lying coral atoll nations like Kiribati fear their entire future is threatened. President Anote Tong will be pushing for a strong statement from the Forum.

TONG: I appeal to the international community not to continue to negotiate but actually do something about it concrete.

DORNEY: What President Tong and the other island states want is far simpler processes to enable them to access some of the billions of dollars promised as global climate change adaptation funds. The head of the United Nations is heading to Auckland via Kiribati and this year's Forum is certain to adopt a resolution supporting their pleas. The reason this year's Forum is being held in New Zealand is so that the leaders will be able to attend the opening game of the Rugby World Cup between the All Blacks and Tonga. Fiji will be playing in the tournament - although its military leaders are definitely not invited. 

This has been Sean Dorney for Pacific Beat.