Up Front

with the editor

N° doubt whether or not you agree with some of the comments made in Fiji recently by Malaysia’s visiting Minister for Works, Tun Sambanthan, depends on which side of the political fence you’re on. Both the Alliance and the Federation, from the look of their propaganda sheets, read different mes sages into his gospel.

BUT there is a measure of agree ment on one matter Tun Sam banthan raised—the question of a common name for the people of Fiji.

It is generally conceded in Fiji that there should be one name; the problem is to find the right one.

According to many people, the right one is not “Fijian”. The word Fijian, they say, is reserved for in digenous Fijians, and mustn’t be applied to people with Indian or European parentage, even if they were born in the colony. True Fijians, these critics say, especially resent Fiji-born Indians being referred to as “Fijians” when they are interviewed or reported on in overseas newspapers They are not “Fijians” but “Fiji- Indians”.

Various alternatives for a common name have been put forward. “Vitian” —from Viti, the real name of Fiji— has been suggested several times.

Then there is “Vanuan”, from the Fijian word Vanua, for land or place.

And since Tun Sambanthan brought the subject up again, there has been a number of weird concoctions offered by the Fiji public.

Legal support

As a result of a piece of legal machinery passed in the Fiji Legis lative Council last year, those who stick out for this “correct” use of Fijian can quote extra legal authority in their support. A person “shall be regarded as a Fijian or as a native if ... his father or any of his earlier male progenitors in the male line is or was the child of parents both of whom are or were indigenous inhabitants of the Fiji Islands, the island of Rotuma, or any island in Melanesia, Micronesia or Polynesia.”

In other words a Fijian is not only indigenous of Fiji but may be any

body from the South Pacific Island as long as he is not European, India or Chinese.

This legal definition brought som crossfire before the Legislativ Council passed it, Opposition leade A. D. Patel (who was born in India taking the view that all inhabitant of Fiji should be described a “Fijians”, and that the Fijian’s ow word for himself—“taukei” (mean mg owner)—should be sufficient t describe the indigenous Fijian. Fi’ nationalism was not helped by sup port for a narrow definition of th word Fijian, Mr. Patel indicated.

Mr. Patel was right, of course. Th constant reference to Fiji-Indians which sets almost half the population apart from the other half, has beei breeding too much resentment for to< long. Those Indians who resent ii the name the inference that they an outsiders, are entitled to resent it.

It’s not easy to argue against th recently expressed editorial view o

5 Pacific Review, Nadi, that if hitians and Samoans can legally called Fijians, why can’t people ing in Fiji?

I wonder if the thing would have ilt up over the years into the naked •ial issue it now is if various Euro ans had not been so ready to sup rt what they assumed to be a leral point of view held by the jians? Is it only in the last year two that the government has re gnised the need to sponsor nation sm and racial harmony in the der interest, and not merely in the erest of the indigenous Fijians? rely not.

Agreed that legal definitions, par ularly over land ownership and the jian administration, will be affected everyody should start using the m Fijian, but Fiji’s abundance of vyers have the wit to solve that.

This matter of one name for the ople of Fiji needs to be tackled now, the top. If, (a) the colony is not ing to change its name and solve problems that way, if (b) it is lable to find a satisfactory altern ve to the word Fijian, then (c) it tter make up its mind that Fijian the name for people who call Fiji •me.

Message for P-NG

Meanwhile there is a message in ji’s serious dilemma for the people Papua-New Guinea, some of whom ;ve recently been showing symptoms ? their own nomenclature tremens. [though, unlike Fiji, a big portion P-NG’s two million people did not rive at some stage as immigrants, ere has been a trend to identify e people separately as “Papuans” id “New Guineans.” The Admin ;ration does it all the time, and so >es the radio.

Thus thousands of locals to whom has never occurred that there is me kind of dividing line down the :ntre of the main island are now ;ing brainwashed daily into believ g there really are two distinct itions of people on the island.

There can be no real doubt now iat the Territory of Papua and New uinea has a single destiny. The ;ople need one name, and, what rev they might choose to call them slves at some future date, I can see 3 reason why they shouldn’t be died simply ‘New Guineans” now.

In the pages of PIM we have been ) referring to them for some years, le exception being in Percy hatterton’s column, because Percy equently needs to make a distinc on in drawing on his pre-war apu a n experiences. But he’ll robably soon find a way round that.

Stuart Inder