grossly unfair

letters

Garment maker’s criticism was grossly unfair

Your November issue carried an article titled “Unkind Cut for Garment Makers.” The article appears to have been based on views expressed by Mr David Einfield of Farah Manufac turing.

In giving vent to his frustra tion, Mr Einfield chose to criti cise the Fiji government and to allege that no serious efforts, if any, had been made to address the problems of concern to him.

This is grossly unfair.

At various levels of govern ment repeated efforts have been made and representations continue to be made with re gard to the problems faced by Fiji’s garment manufacturers.

More regrettably, Mr Einfield chose to indict individuals from whom he expected greater sup port the very individuals who have been in the forefront of seeking improved conditions for our garment manufacturers.

These efforts are well known to the Fiji manufacturing in dustry and are much appreci ated. It is therefore a matter of considerable regret that Mr Ein field chose to denigrate such efforts. His personal apology to us, naturally, will not reach as wide an audience as the original article.

In fairness to the Australian government, it should also be recorded that our representa tions have not fallen on deaf ears. The suggestion of indiffer

ence on the part of Australia is unjustified.

We know full well the com plexities involved in the area of access for garments and remain hopeful that the new textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF)

regime in 1988 will reveal con cessions for the Forum island countries which reflect the spirit of Sparteca.

For the interim period too it is our expectation that the current difficulties will be alleviated.

Meanwhile, Fiji’s representa tions will continue even if Mr Einfield choses to remain obli vious to them.

James A. Maraj,

Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Suva.