Letter To The Editor

Brisk Defence Of the Fijian Worker

GENERALISATIONS regarding

J racial groups often create false impressions, writes “Interested bserver,” criticising comments lade by a correspondent in March EM under the headline “Fijians [ust Learn to Work.”

Observer” continues: The correspondent unfairly iticised the Fijians by suggesting lat “it takes three men to do the rerage day’s work of even the ost take-it-or-leave-it Aussie”, id by doing so ignores some iportant factors.

For instance, if it is true that e average Australian labourer irks harder than the Fijian— lich I and many others would spute to the last ditch—there is 50 the formidable fact that the istralian is paid about £2 a day d the Fijian receives about 87day. Even if, as the corres ndent alleged, it takes three |ians to do the work of one istralian, the one Australian still ts 16/- more than the three lians combined. Who benefits?

Bsumably the employer in Fiji.

Contrary to the opinion of the ■respondent, “cheap labour” is 11 employed in Fiji, and to all ents and purposes the Fijian •ourer is a useful milch cow. f the Fijian is “less efficient” in his Australian counterpart, the son lies in educational back end, the workers’ environment 1 the conveniently overlooked t that the Fijian worker is nmonly not paid enough, in sent-day conditions, to maintain iself and his family in good ilth. gain, I would like to know what correspondent means by des wig the Fijians as “a privileged pie.” My own observations lead light to the conclusion that the ans are denied many opportuni i given to people of other races Fiji. 91- example, the Industrial and icultural Loans Board exists for benefit of non-Fijians, although m informed that this lending itution is financed by public ds. The assertion that “money is cannot make any fundamental srence” is nonsense, polish generalisations of the I expressed by the correspondent the sort of thing that breeds •rant prejudice and inter-racial ion, “Interested Obeserver” con es.