Fiji's Population Problems Handed
pp. 39-41 · Read in the full issue
To Britain
Interesting Aspects of The Council Debate
From Our Own Correspondent.
SUVA, December 22. brought into the open by ex • Governor Sir Brian Freeston’s amouS “birthi-control” warning to le Indian political leaders in 1949, Iji’s problem of potential over jpulation reached a new stage this onth, when the Legislative Council lanimously asked that a Commis on be sent from the United King >m to survey the whole situation, id to advise on any action consid ed necessary to prevent a slump in e living standards of the racial oups in Fiji.
This diplomatically-worded move ;arly fell over backwards in its ideavour to avoid any appearance pointing a finger of rebuke at any mmunity. It was much less amatic than the straightforward itz sprung in the Council by the rmer Governor. Although it has used widespread interest, it has not ovoked anything in the nature of i inter-racial brawl.
The mover, Mr. H. Maurice Scott
(who was born in Fiji) and the seconder, Sir Alport Barker (who has lived here for 60-odd years), simply stressed the mounting fear (first publicly voiced by Sir Brian Freeston) that within the next half-century Fiji may well find itself unable to support its fast-mounting population.
Mr. Scott pointed out that at the present rate of increase, the popula tion in the year 2,000 —that is, only 48 years ahead—will be nearly 1,500,000 (835,000 Indians, 425,000 Fijians and 148,000 other races) and that there would be only 0.7 of an acre of land available for each per son. He appealed to the Council to take a broad view of the question and to remember that over-population in the future could produce bitter strife as well as pestilence, hunger and dirt. If the present opportunity for surveying the situation rationally were lost, it would be lost for ever.
The Fijian members solidly sup ported the motion. One of them (Joeli K. Ravai) quoted cases in which Fijian communities themselves
were already seriously short of land in Viti Levu and in the Lau Group.
Opposition came from Mr.
Harold Gatty, a Government nominated member, who condemned the motion as “premature and ill conceived.” He said that the problem was one of distribution rather than over-population, and said that if the
natural resources of Fiji were de veloped in the next few years there would be an acute shortage of labour.
This view was supported by some of the Indians.
Strong support for the motion came from the Secretary for Fijian Affairs (Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna) who said that Fiji must continue to depend primarily on agriculture, and that
most of the best land' was already taken up with sugarcane culture, and most of the second-class land with rice, grown mainly by Indians. There was not much land available for grazing. He added: “We should be finding out many things now before a Commission is appointed. We should know where the good lands and bad lands are, and their extent.
For the benefit of all we should H moving now, so that in the years t come we will still have a content© population.”
One or two Government officia seemed inclined to support M Gatty’s viewpoint.
Both the Governor (Sir Ronaf Garvey) and the Colonial Secretai, (Mr. A, F. R. Stoddart), at the en of the debate, firmly indicated tK Government’s approval of the motio as a means of meeting the genuii fears long expressed by sections « responsible opinion in Fiji.
Mr. Scott contributed the ter statement that most of the oppositio to his motion came from “new bo< in the Colony or from honourab birds-of-passage.”
OUTSIDE the council, there hi been some sour comment on tl bringing up of a possible labor shortage as a talking-point. Peop remember that precisely the san argument was produced (mainly 1 European copra-planters) whe many years ago, a move was ma*. to curb the flood of Indian imn grants. As a result of the argumei the flood was not curbed and thi the present population problem w. materially added to.
Mr. Gatty’s argument that t;
population question should be left to Nature to decide left the door wide open to the more vehement Euro pean backers of the Fijian case, based an the Deed of Cession and the specifically-stated British pledge to maintain the paramountcy of Fijian and interests in Fiji.
Earlier in the session, a delicate ■ift was perceptible in the Indian :amp, when Mr. B. M. Jannif came ip with an earnest plea for the pro vision of birth-control information to inable parents to plan their families, ndia, said Mr. Jannif, was already idvocating birth control, and he laimed wide support for his proposal.
With a pontifical air, the Senior ndian Member (Mr. Vishnu Deo) ountered with the statement that phat was needed was self-control, not jirth control, to which Mr. Jannif re nted tartly: “More easily said than one.’’ [ Government speakers, with an bvious eye to religious susceptibil jies and possibly with an uneasy lemory of how the last Governor had ;emed (but only seemed) to skate imbly on the thin ice of the popula on question, were diplomatically Dn-committal on this aspect of the ifficult subject.
In the end, the motion went rough unanimously; but some of the [itside public wonders whether the reposed unbiased commission will rer be in a position to do or to tommend anything effectual.