Fiji’s

Letters To The Editor

Channel 10

and Rabuka

Madam, Jemima Garrett’s column [ PIM Decem ber 1992] about the Australian television Channel 10’s interview with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is commend able as independent, objective and fair comment. She has basically confirmed what I had said to the news media in Fiji about that interview. It was a dishonest and unprofessional piece of work. By

editing and splicing together comments

that had been provided off the record the reporter portrayed a false image of the Prime Minister as someone who was callous, uncharitable and in favour of repatriation of our Indo-Fijian citizens.

In her full quotation of the particular part of the interview that Channel 10 had distorted, Jemima Garrett could have made the point more strongly had >he included the continuation of that exchange: Journalist: Would it be better then if the Indians just went back to India.

Rabuka: Yes, but that is not what we’re iriving for.

Journalist: You did say that earlier though hat you wanted them all to go.

Rabuka: No I didn’t, that was somebody r Ise.

Journalist: Do you support that?

Rabuka: No.

It wasjacqueline Wilcox the journalist

vho persisted in suggesting throughout

he interview the idea of repatriation of [ndo-Fijians to India. The Prime Minis er was not impressed with Wilcox’s gnorant and arrogant manner because ater in the interview he said to her:- “I am surprised that your station has illowed you to come here not being fully mefed about the situation here in Fiji md try to ask some questions as if you mew what was going on here”.

The Prime Minister’s comments about joverty and the social welfare system are ilso distorted because they were directed it certain sections of the Australian tudience who are defenders of the nodern Welfare State. The Prime Min ster had said he was not in favour of an :laborate state-sponsored welfare system n Fiji because he believed our societal :thos of younger relatives caring for the Lged and the invalid is still strong and he lid not see why the state or profit making >rganisations in Fiji should take over this latural role of families.

Jacqueline Wilcox had promised to end me a copy of her television

programme and a copy of the full videotape of the interview. To date we have not received any of these. Nor have we received an apology from Channel 10.

Jone Dakuvula

Office of the Prime Minister

Fiji’s

guests

Madam, No-one likes to be misrepresented through devious editing and Jemima Garrett may certainly be quite correct to raise the question of ethics. This is the ostensible thrust of her column in December’s PIM entitled “Shame on you, Channel 10”.

However, the summary of the unedi ted material presented by Jemima does little to redeem Rabuka. No matter which way you re-present them, his comments about the poor being sinners and how he doesn’t believe in social security are anathema to most ordinary Australians. There is no escaping the irony in the fact that these comments were made as Rabuka himself had come to Australia a-begging alms for defence.

The reference to third, fourth, fifth and sixth generation Fijians of Indian descent as “guests” does not wash very well either. A guest/host comparison is only viable in Fiji because the so-called guests have not at any stage emasculated their

inhabitant hosts by dispossessing them of their land or their cultural or social identity. Thus we still have in Fiji indigenous people empowered enough in political and social identity and land ownership to be afforded the description of “host”. This, unlike the “guests” in Australia ( to continue this unfortunate and insulting metaphor) whose antecedents dispossessed the host inhabi tants of land and destroyed their cultural and social identity.

Initially after the coups some Austra lians, who were not fully informed about Fijian history, strove to assuage their guilt about mistreatment of the Kooris by projecting the Australian situation onto Fiji and treating Rabuka as a hero for indigenous struggles. Now many more Australians treat him as a subject of ridicule, scorn and comedy. So much for the high and positive profile pur ported to have been lately gained for Fiji by its Prime Minister.

As for the ethics around “off-the record” interviews being kept secret to support the “new openness”, let that be debated at a journalist’s luncheon. What we would like to see in PIM is presen tation and discussion of facts that the media has at hand, as opposed to a presentation and discussion about ethics that promote keeping certain facts un derhand.

Sosi Toa

Nawal Maharaj NSW Movement for Democracy in Fiji Inc

Nsw

Australia

Island games

Madam , I write in reply to Futa Helu’s (FH) foray into to the world of sports writing in your July 1992 edition. I agree with his praise of the rugby success of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga. This was especially illustrated by Samoa and Tonga’s recent wins against the NZ Maoris.

However FH tells us that rugby began as a means of keeping warm in the cold, fostering a public school mentality and sustaining imperial interests. While sport may contribute to a person’s develop ment and consequent contribution to a nation I am not sure William Webb Ellis had dreams of an expanded empire when, in 1823, “he first took the ball in his arms and ran with it”. Rather I think he had the more limited objective of scoring a goal (try).

It appears FH is repelled by New Zealand’s ‘Public School Mentality’. As a product of the New Zealand state education I was surprised to hear we had ‘public schools’. We certainly have private schools but to compare them with English public schools of the 19th century is to create a false impression in the eyes of those readers who have not been to New Zealand.

Rugby, FH, informs us is flawed for Pacific Islanders because it is a game of brute endurance and tenacity and lacks speed, sharpness of eye, accuracy, skill and finality. I am happy to see that Pacific Islanders have overcome these obvious drawbacks and are still fine exponents of the running, passing, kick

ing, jumping, catching, tackling game

enjoyed by rugby players and supporters everywhere. Indeed the International Rugby Board (IRB) object of the game

specifically mentions carrying, passing,

kicking and grounding the ball.

It is true that not all rugby involves running, passing and kicking. However those other facets of the game our learned sports writer finds so disagreeable, have evolved as part of the game and as such have their own skill and strength require ments. FH mentions the rougher aspects of the game. I do not condone foul play or violence but FH forgets that like boxing which he tells us is a traditional island sport, rugby is a contact sport between grown men, none of whom are forced to play.

FH ‘calls to reject New Zealand Philistinism (an inaccessibility to ideas

and ideals) as expressed by its rugby’. On July 4 1992 New Zealand adopted the revised IRB rules designed to make rugby an even more attractive game.

New Zealand played a major role in revising the rules. To accuse New Zealand of Philistinism and brand its supposedly dull rugby as a portrayal of the nation is narrow minded and petty.

FH tells us the 15-a-side code should be altered ‘to allow what is distinctive in the Pacific character to come through’.

He is being too harsh on many Pacific Island players. Is it not their flair, speed and style which have made players and teams from many Island nations so successful? There are also many Pacific Islanders apparently rising above the yoke of imperialism and playing with great sucess in the freezing climes of Australia and New Zealand.

FH’s depth of sport knowledge is further displayed (exposed?) with judge ments on the state of Australian Cricket.

A great way to fill the last paragraph but a Bilo’s cartoon would have used the space more efficiently.

Yes FH traditional island sports use skill, sharpness of the eye and agility and I hope they never die out. However to suggest introduced sports should be changed to suit specific abilities denies people the chance to broaden their sporting and cultural horizons. The people in the Pacific have the ability to do well at any sport.

Finally to brand a nation dull im perialist or philistine because of your view of one sport, reflects the view of one who has some or all of those qualities.

Wake up Futa Helu, you are missing a great game.

Paul Curry

Port Vila, Vanuatu

Spc

burden

Madam Your article “Clean Up This Mess” (December 1992) is a very sad story about one of the supposedly prime and prestigious regional institutions in the Pacific. Just as the SPC is beginning to rebuild it headquarters in Noumea, it is time for Pacific people to reflect on the purpose or mission of this financially burdened organisation.

Indeed one can question whether the region needs the Commission at all; especially when the Forum Secretariat is

moving more and more effectively intcc SPC ‘territory’. After nearly 50 years oi providing ‘technical advice and assist ance to the Pacific, it may be time for at re-think on the region’s priorities.’

Aid funds are no longer flowing freely, and it is only a matter of time (and it may, have already arrived) when donors willl begin to question their commitments toe this mis-managed organisation. In at world of economic recession it might be* prudent for Pacific people to quid backing a losing and broken-down horse. .

George Kingsleys

Christchurchi New /jealandS

Australia

a disappointment

Madam, Australia is becoming a disappointment with regards to the issue of East Timor.

While the plight of East Timor is recognised by the highest world body, the United Nations, Australia does not, by forging partnership with Indonesia to set up drill facilities in the Timor sea soon, according to the latest news. Then where has that much vocality on the massacre in Dili, November 1991, boiled down to? Or was it just a white-wash hypocrisy? Again where is that good sense that Australia had in sending a navy contingent to Iraq to help defence less Kuwait from the tyranny of Presi dent Saddam Hussein? Is East Timor’s plight not of the same vein?

Thank God for the recent far sightedness and co-operation of South Pacific Island nations that saw New Zealand through to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. I remain optimistic that due to this milestone development, East Timor’s plight will once again be boosted.

Congratulations New Zealand, you de serve it for having been the bastion of freedom and the kingpin of a free world in the South Pacific.

As for Portugal, God bless you in your bid to restrain Australia and Indonesia through the International Courts of Justice against their barbaric intentions to acquire minerals and oil from the Timor Sea. It will be a glaring act tantamount to international crime if they proceed.

Graham Vulabete

University of the South Pacific Suva Fiji