Fiji Indians compromised
pp. 7-9 · Read in the full issue
Dear Sir I write with regard to the cover story of your September issue, in particular the interview with the leader of the opposition, Jai Ram Reddy, titled “From opposition to cooperation”.
Reddy's attempt to defend the reversal of the open/communal seats allocation, as proposed by the Reeves Commission, is an insult to the intelligence of your readers. It must be remembered that Reddy and
Sitiveni Rabuka brokered the seat alloca tion agreement privately after consensus could not be reached at the joint parliamen tary select committee (JPSC) level.
Readers must understand that the open/communal seat allocation in the Reeves Report was for a very specific rea son: to bring about true multiracialism. Not surprisingly, the joint NFP/FLP submission to the Reeves Commission also called for 46 open and 25 communal seats. In light of this, one must ask: why did Reddy not adhere to his own party’s submission to the Reeves Commission?
Reddy, elsewhere in his interview, says, “I don’t believe anybody has sacrificed anything.” (P 24) However, in the Daily Post of April 15, 1997 Reddy is on record as saying: “...the Indian population had to make some sacri fices while trying to reach the parliamen tary composition.” (P 2) Are the two statements not a direct con tradiction of each other?
He then went on to state, “The commu nal seats...are based on fairness and on pro portionality.” (PIM P 24)
According to population numbers, Indians number 43.6 per cent of the popu lation, which in round figures equates to 20 seats. So why did Reddy agree to 19?
Where is the fairness and proportionality in this, Mr Reddy?
Suffice to say Reddy’s actions on the constitution review have totally compro mised Indian interests, yet again!
Rajendra P Chaudhry
Admin!Research Ojficer Fiji Labour Party Suva Fiji