Fiji

The Franchise In

That Town Hall Meeting

Letter to the Editor.

MAY I trespass upon the space in your Monthly to refer to the article by your own correspondent at page 53 of the issue of July, 1935? In the minds of those who read and who are not aware of the true political situation in the Colony, a wrong impression may arise as to the present state of affairs.

In referring to the debate last May, he does not bring out with sufficient emphasis this most important fact; that while the two Indian Members, Hon. K.

B. Singh and Hon. M. M. Mudaliar, op posed control of the municipalities by the Government in the March session, 1934 (because the Indians wished to be allowed to exercise their own discretion in the choice of their own counsellors “to plead our cause, defend our rights and protect our interests”) in the May ses sion. 1935, fourteen months later, Hon.

K. B. Singh is quite satisfied to move a motion, the outcome of which will be the disenfranchisement of not only Indians but also of Europeans. Neither of the Indian members has given any reasons for this particularly violent change of views, or why they sprang the motion on an astonished Colony without warning.

Nor have Sir Henry Scott and Sir May nard Hedstrom, who seconded the motion, attempted to explain away those three questions, which were put to them at the public meeting referred to by your cor respondent; 1. Why they agreed to the disenfran chisement of the Europeans of the Colony without first obtaining the approval and consent of their electors at least. 2. Their grounds for saying that the “Labour Party,” when it came into power, would force a common roll on the Colony against the best interests of the Fijians —who are a primitive race, in official eyes, and thus a sacred trust. 3. What safeguards there were that, if the nominated form of Legislative Council were accepted to-day, a common roll would not follow to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to by five to three, the minority being Hon. Alport Barker, M.L.C., Hon. J. P. Bayly, M.L.C., and Major the Hon. Willoughby Totten ham M L.C. The Government Members were ordered by the President not to vote- the Fijian Nominated Members did not Vote, though every encouragement was given them to do so by the President.

The reference to those who called the meeting and who addressed it was im proper. The meeting was called by Hon.

Alport Barker, M.L.C. (Mayor of Suva), the motion was moved by Mr. D. M. Is.

McFarlane (an Australian solicitor Prac tising in Suva), and it was seconded by Major the Hon. Willoughby Tottenham.

M.L.C.

Your correspondent’s reference to the presence and arguments of Sir Maynard Hedstrom and Sir Henry Scott showed partiality and inaccuracy. On their en tering the meeting they were receivedl m silence; their opponents on the other hand received a very hearty greeting.

That their argument carried little weight is shown by the vote of 65 to 35, and a number of colonists have openly stated SSt a secret ballot would have very greatly increased the majority. Sir May

nard Hedstrom and Sir Henry Scott have been invited to call a meeting of their own to explain and defend their action.

So far they have not. Why?

Since the meeting, a petition against the change has been drawn up and signed by over 600 Europeans, mostly of the Southern Division of the Colony—i.e. f Suva.

The Indians have held meetings throughout the Colony, at which they have protested against the change in the present elective system and also disso ciate themselves from the views and actions of the two Indian Elected Mem bers. A petition to this effect has been signed by over 4,800 Indians. Further, I am informed that they—the two Indian members —have not called or addressed a public meeting on the issue.

I am, etc.,

W. Willoughby Tottenham.

Suva, August 28, 1935. [EDITORIAL NOTE: The Fiji franchise position was further discussed in the August issue (pages 9 and 41), and no further comment appears to be necessary. The British Colonial Office has decided to make a full inquiry, and consult Fiji residents, before agreeing to any alteration in the franchise.

The references to our correspondent’s report of the meeting do not seem to us to be justified. He appears to have reported the Town Hall meeting quite fairly. His reference to a “somewhat motley assemblage” seems to have given offence where none was intended. Obviously, he meant a “mixed” assemblage.] Mr. J. P. Blaikie Webster, of London, who is chairman of New Guinea Gold fields Ltd. and managing director of the powerful Mining Trust Ltd., returned to Sydney with his wife by the Comorin from England on September 5. On a visit to N.G.G. properties in the Mandated Territory, he will leave Sydney by the Macdhui in October.