Gun-Jumping

Fiji Style

When Fiji’s civil servants looked at their fortnightly pay cheques round the middle of July most of them blinked. They’d got a rise (which is going to cost the tax payer an extra $2 million a year) and it hadn’t even been OK’d by Parliament as part of the Civil Service restructuring exercise.

The result—a big row in Fiji’s House of Representatives with the Opposition hurling accusations of, “You’ve jumped the gun” at the government benches.

Opposition Leader Mr. S. M.

Koya spearheaded the attack with dire predictions of industrial un rest—everybody’ll want a rise— and whopping additional expendi ture of $8 million over three years if the reorganisation proposals are implemented.

Mr. Koya even wanted the gov ernment chief accountant’s head on a platter, asking that he be brought before the Bar of the House to explain the “unautho rised and illegal payment”.

Battle was joined when the Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese

Mara, moved the motion asking for implementation of the structural review—which is basically a honing down of the Civil Service grades from 98 grades of pay to 10 grades.

The government was also accused of making a monumental blunder and victimising some civil servants who didn’t agree with the restructuring.

Nearly every post which came under review involved a salary increase. Mr. Koya wondered, as most people did, whether the Fiji economy could stand the strain of the proposed increases.

Implementation of the reviewed salaries would impede, if not destroy, the attainment of the principles of Development Plan Six, he declared. It would undoubtedly produce repercussions.

“It will push the present infla tion to the hilt,” he stressed.

What’s more, the fact that the civil servants had received the re vised salary before the review was approved by Parliament meant that a high constitutional principle was involved. Even in colonial days, such an event did not take place.

From the government benches there was no attempt made to de fend the gun-jumping, although, at the time of writing, the Prime Minister had not replied to the de bate. Most government speakers contented themselves with looking at the salary increases as a “good thing”. The Minister for Communi cations, Works and Tourism, Mr.

Charles Stinson, agreed that an in crease of $2,300,000 was a large sum, but it was split among a large number of people.

Meantime, as the debate con tinued, civil servants were wonder ing whether they’d have to refund their “revised” pay in the event of a parliamentary thumbs-down.