They Say He Is Fiji's "Yes" Or

Police Commissioner Beaumont

"No" Man

FIJI’S Police Commissioner, Mr.

R. H. T. Beaumont, gave the force a much-needed shot in the arm when he arrived in the Colony in April, 1956.

Morale was low after two searching Commissions of Inquiry, but Mr. Beaumont soon rectified this and brought the force to a high standard of efficiency.

Officers and men found them selves subject to discipline they had not previously known.

Mr. Beaumont, in his zeal, now seems to be attempting to inflict a similar discipline on the public, and the public is not reacting kindly.

He came under the lash of public criticism, led by the Fiji Times, last month when he announced a drastic tightening of the conditions under which he would grant permits for lotteries in Fiji.

At the same time he gave the names of a dozen organisations to which he would “consider” granting permits. The list was “subject to change at my discretion”.

The Fiji Times said, in a leading article: “A study of the list reveals some puzzling features on the way in which he has used his discretion.

“He has included the Suva Boys’

Club, which is not yet in existence md for which no trust has as yet ceen appointed, but has omitted the Nawela Girls’ Hostel.

“He has included the Society for :he Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but none of the numerous irganisations and committees :hrough the Colony which aim at ■aising money to provide school iacilities and amenities for the Colony’s children.”

In response to a question by the ?iji Times, Mr. Beaumont admitted hat there had been no recent iemand from the public in general )r from any section of the public or the restrictions he imposed.

When asked on what grounds he lad decided that sporting bodies md similar organisations should )e deprived of the long-established ise of lotteries as a means of ■aising funds, Mr. Beaumont said: “I regard with sympathy the Haims of sports clubs to raise noney by lottery for specific mrposes such as football tours.

However, provision for this is not ncluded in Section 188 A of the ?enal Code, and I am unable to iondone a continued breach of the aw in this regard.”

Mr. Beaumont did not elaborate )n this, but apparently he took the tction because for the whole of Fiji, in the 12 months of 1956,

nearly 200 permits for lotteries had been granted.

The Commissioner, under the law at present, is the final authority.

There is no appeal from his decision.

AT the same time, Mr. Beaumont brought more public wrath upon his head when he warned that some clubs were contravening the law and running the risk of being declared common gaming houses.

The Fiji Times questioned him on this also, and asked which of several practices would render a club liable to a declaration. The newspaper was informed that these included playing bridge and poker (by members) for money: the club making a charge for cards or tables for such games; members rolling dice for money or to deter mine who should buy drinks; members playing billiards or snooker on the understanding that winner or loser would “shout”, and operating a poker board.

Mr. Beaumont said that the examples listed were matters for legal interpretation. It was not intended that clubs should be prosecuted for technical breaches committed innocently, but by drawing attention to the law “I am confident the clubs will regulate their position in this regard.”

Editorial Note:

Apparently what has got under the skin of most Fiji residents is Mr. Beaumont’s use of the personal pronoun—his announcements of ‘T will do this” and “I will not permit that.”

This is a symptom of the present political age, and not peculiar to Mr. Beaumont or to Fiji. Judged on standards in existence at the

beginning of this century, all governments, no matter what their political labels, are socialistic in practice—but this had not meant the complete anonymity of those who make up that government.

To the contrary, it has given rise to an ego-boosting practice that was unknown in our grandfather’s day.

In Papua-New Guinea, for example, nothing can happen these days unless the Minister for Territories makes a personal state ment to the public—that is, to the press and radio.

These statements give the gentle man’s full name and titles —and the impression that he alone has attended to the various details of the matter under attention, up to and including the typing of the documents. The matter was probably attended to by one of the junior clerks—but, like the old bottle of cough-mixture, it’s not genuine unless it has the signature of the Master.

Originally these pronouncements were the devices of Labour politicians, but inevitably, Conserva tive governments have followed Labour’s footsteps: it was too good a means of personal publicity to miss.

There are no cabinet ministers in Fiji, of course. Heads of depart ments fill that function, to some degree. That is where Mr*.

Beaumont came in.

Lotteries and gambling, like Ministerial pronouncements, are also a feature of modern life — accepted with tolerance for the most part by people other than those who belong to Calvinistic sections of the Christian Church. However, if a small place like Fiji really did have 200 lotteries in 1956, PIM, like Mr. Beaumont, doesn’t think much of it, either. t Bishop Foley, the Catholic Bishop of Fiji, and the Rev. Petero Mataca, a Fijian from the Yasawas, a student at the international seminary of Propaganda, Rome, were received in audience by the Pope at St. Peters, Vatican City, on June 30.