Fijians “Must Foot Their
pp. 35-41 · Read in the full issue
Share Of The Bill'
professor O. H. K. Spate, Professor of Geography at the Australian National »-sity, Canberra, is the author of the Spate Report on the Economic Problems i°rospects of the Fijian People, published in 1959 and quoted frequently by sport of the Burns Commission. Professor Spate is now in the United States on jure and study visit of at least six months, and en route he wrote two articles C PIAA" giving his views on the Burns Report. The second article, dealing with Effects of the Report on the future of the Fijians, will be published in May.
Special to Pacific Islands Monthly by O. H. K. Spate.
When, in December, 1952, the Legislative Council of Fiji .issed its resolution asking for a Commission of Enquiry into \sources and population, it was presumably rather worried, ww, seven years later, it has got what it asked for and will i-esumably be still more worried.
jit isn’t, it ought to be: a lot >.ore babies have been born, rid a lot more resources used jind the Report is anything but sally optimistic. concludes with a demand for [ireath of realism” not only in xnment policy, but also in “the ook of the general public and ilcularly of the members of the slative Council”. ji the strictly economic side, the ort itself is a gale, or even a or hurricane, of harsh realism; it was time! lere had been storm warnings xe, notably the Reports of the al Review Committee. These, sver, did little more than »cate stern deflation, a recipe it as appropriate to the temper [he times (and the real needs ”iji) as one of Mr. Gladstone’s sets. ue merit of the Burns Report hat it is really comprehensive, olaces, perhaps, it achieves this :he price of superficiality—the tons on fisheries, minerals, and istries are rather slight; but at ;t we have a large-scale chart of >s difficulties and a possible way Possible, that is, if Fiji puts mind to it—and that is a big ition.
Shocking Details
he Report makes positive iposals. involving heavy ex fiiture —over 10 years, some 1,000,000 (£A15,750,000), more i could possibly be met locally. 3 “can only be implemented if United Kingdom Government is Dared to make a sizable grant [Fiji”. One suspects that this ,1 suggestion, and the first of 124 definite recommendations — .ich advocates free contraceptives married persons) —will be the it generally popular.
Ihe general fact that Fiji has n earning a smaller income than
she should, and living beyond it, is familiar enough. As presented in the Report, the details are shock ing. They may be briefly set out as follows: Between 1936 and 1958 • population rose by about 80 per cent. • while value of agricultural ex ports rose about six times, volume (except for sugar) was erratic at best, in fact practically static. ® sugar production is restricted by quota—and has exceeded the amount which can be sold by the agreement. • while at least two-thirds of the coconut area is over-age, the rate of replanting was under one-ninth of what it should have been. • apart from gold, a wasting asset, cocoa, not yet commercial, and a little light industry, there have been no substantial new developments. • the value of imports of commodities which might be pro duced locally has risen over 19 times.
Well and grimly in the red!
Most of the technical recom mendations are devoted to the crying need for intensification and diversification of primary industry, and here are found some of the sharpest criticisms in a Report which does not spare the rod; complaints, for example, of the poor standards of copra plantations and processing, and of the “policy” (clearly, in the Commission’s view, a courtesy title!) of the Fijian Development Fund Board (incidentally, two-thirds of its balances are invested in develop ing Australia).
There is justified reproach for the Indian obsession with cane as the only worthwhile and dignified kind of farming, a very short sighted attitude, especially in view of the fact that Fiji’s sugar quota could be raised from a smaller area than is now under cane, thus re leasing good land for other crops.
These basic matters, vital as are, are not the most costly: capital expenditure allottee agriculture is under £F2,77 against nearly £F7,500,000 for munications—the lion’s share £Fs,ooo,ooo, for a new wharf storage at Suva and for sealin Suva-Nadi road. Of the agricu. total, a round million is allotte subsidising fertilisers, three-qm of a million for increased cultural credit, and £F330,000 pound-for-pound subsidy for nut replantings.
These are probably economies”; and if one is not so sure about the main roac against more feeders), incr production will mean incr traffic and so make improve essential.
CDC Help
Three specific projects are re mended, with the suggestion the Colonial Development Cor tion be asked to find two-t of the money: these are “ schemes for tea, coffee, and ranching. These proposals soundly based and argued; fc may be quite as difficult to the land—Fijian land?—as money. At all events, the mission’s programme is a vasi provement on the piece suggestions made hitherto.
It is a programme, not a with capital P. In several jj the Report distinctly warns ernment off private prese notably in regard to marke concerning which I would lil remark that I am at a lo;< understand how my modest pie a Marketing Officer (an “m broker” merely, as the Comm;, puts it) could be taken or taken for a scheme for a full-lf official marketing agency.
Tries To Bring Order
That is by the way: the po.i that the Commission’s approach the economic side anyhow) id doctrinaire, but does try to I duce some order into the got mental activity which is essent Fiji’s economy, private as we public, is to become steady cc feet.
In this connection, the prot National Resources Council —w> Development Commissioner, in status to the Financial retary, as chairman and witl; non-official as well as six oc members would be valuabc provided only that (as is imr but hardly strongly enough) first co-ordinating job should co-ordinate out of existence of the medley of overlanping B£ which clutter up the Civil Lise On what might be called geie as distinct from purely agricui diversification, the Comm.i rightly attaches great impon to livestock and forestry (in . perhaps rather overlooking the e
3.es involved in Fijian landhold ,, and deplores once again the —deplorable neglect of fisheries sr all, tinned pilchards are so fcdy so fish imports are on a shelf teeming with fish!) ; has some sensible things to say rut tourism including a re ader that not every would-be list has all the dollars in the id to throw about, and that the mary travelling public in Fiji needs hotels. Indeed, Korolevu Yasawa publicity, with its );estion that only Princes and ji Men need apply, may scare more tourists than it attracts.
Sometimes Hot and Cold
n secondary industry the Com i;ion, understandably, seems to 7 hot and cold. If secondary ustry could be brought off, the nl as well as economic con j.ences might be immense: solid manent urban employment, sh would at least take the edge the larrikinism of the declassed an who has drifted to Suva; nings for female labour, which giving better standing to Indian jien might in time take the edge i one of the most potent and Jiamental (if not the most )ous) factors in Fijian-Indian :nt antagonism—differing sexual aides within each race (NB; does NOT mean miscegena !!); mixed employment provid a more neutral ground where jms and Indians could meet not competition but “on the job”. 0 doubt the Commission is right ;e cautious, and so much depends ;the jack-pot question: is there is there not cheap hydro :tricity in them thar hills? (Or, 1 a few years—what about a >,kage” nuclear reactor?) No Magic Power he natural reaction of “less sloped” countries (already d e r-developed”, originally a nemism for “backward” or oendent”, has become a stigma :!!) is to think that industriali m is a cure-all: one magic =er station, and the desert shall isorn as the rose. In far more well nd countries than Fiji—Burma, ion, for example—this delusion wils rational thinking on what [is to be done. Fiji has some :it advantages and more dis iintages for secondary industry; abilities, once given power, are but limited: popular thinking cersally looks to possibilities ier than limitations. All the ie reason, therefore, to give more died consideration to this topic.
Commission’s reasoning is id enough, but one feels that warrants more than two out of pages. he Commission insists that, ior detail apart, its recommenda is must broadly be taken or left
whole; they hang together too ;lly for overmuch picking and
’esing to be possible.
Not Detailed Report
j.e Report is not a meticulously liled blueprint, but it is rather ; than a first rough sketch, oints out that so far there has little conscious attempt to oce resources available in any : year with possible alternative and that economic planning i.s to have been regarded simply government activity with little riy thought given to its relations private enterprise—or world iitions. adds, wisely, that “such an [trtant part of the Government’s ; is not something that can seft to any junior officer due a spell in the Secretariat, how i enthusiastic and hard working nay be”. What the Commission >done, then, is to set a course ih, resolutely taken, may bring >out of the doldrums otherwise by an economic hurricane,” resolutely taken” —will it be? ie sometimes feels that the old m custom of Kereksre —borrowamongst kin at the will of the ower—has become part not just :oecifically Fijian thinking, but :iie thinking of Fiji. Not one ne three major races is without :omic virtue (the Fijians are at good Distributists!) or without all. including themselves, will S 3 that the Fijians are not uccably economic men; the ans have their cane fixation, their peasant suspicion can Oit co-operative mutual aid s as much as Fijian feckless- Europeans are not exempt tr —there are not unwarranted [fiaints of monopolistic com sncy (I’ve known a Burns Philp say plaintively that copra too vital to be left in the Jis of one private firm —of course wasn’t referring to his own !!) and a good deal of European nold is as poorly used, or even ed, as Fijian land, with less ise. (Here the Report’s proposals taxation of such land —the ntive tax—are very commend t. The children have over it, and poor old Mothercountry [ld foot the bill . . .
Not Top Priority
ie can sympathise with the ng that colonies which give ole get grants, and that loyalty ;s own reward. But it can Ty be maintained that as lards population, economic ntial, or political or strategic trtance to the Commonwealth, is on a par with some African iaribbean colonies, needs and deserves some out aid: but, while it should not be ie bottom of the queue, it will Ibe at the top. That is a fact Fiii must face, ie Burns Commission envisages
\y substantial grants from the Jited Kingdom. But clearly the nntor is entitled —in fact, has the W —to demand, as a condition of grant that it shall be given possibility of being effective. 3s cannot be without very con tsrable psychological, as well as ninistrative, changes within Fiji: rhaps mainly from the Fijians, not exclusively. saradoxically, perhaps, at one rat this radical Commission is sservative enough to work against ;. In my view, the economic üblem is paramount, the political ondary, and the Commission is ;te likely right in discounting Bstitutional change from the sent Crown Colony system. r;ut with a legislature of 16 sials and 15 non-officials (in eee racially water-tight groups five, with two of two groups ruinated and all five Fijians in ±h more or less official), is it £ not possible for Government to with truth: you, the repre itatives of the peoples of Fiji, at such-and-such: therefore you st be prepared to take the con iiences and pay so and so much, Whether an unofficial majority nld really be more efficient and ►ously responsible than the pre jt Legco I do not know (I rather line to doubt it); but without :h representation it is very iicult to pin the responsibility really doing the job.
All Must Work jid yet, if anything is clear in :> tangled situation, it is that )e is a job which demands the :>rt of all groups—officials and 1-officials, Europeans, Fijians, Jans. Unless Fiji can and will :t its share of the bill for iabilitation, then outside aid will Just a shot in the arm—the in- Jon of a highly stimulant drug 0 an already over-wrought lent. The eventual collapse would complete, beyond repair within nreseeable future.
The Burns Report is deflating, 1 very properly; it is not .ationary. Assuming admini itive steps are taken to make programme feasible, and the isequential grants are made, it ;s with Fiji to ensure whether result will be to lay foundations really solid economic advance, for an inflationary catastrophe the first order. is now or never for Fiji; and ich it is depends very largely the reactions of the Fijians per. This is not to depreciate serious responsibility of Euro :ns and Indians; but in the last ■»rt, the Commission’s proposals work, or not work, largely in measure that the Fijians can ng themselves to work with them . to contribute their full share i.ead of being subsidised sengers.