Putting the record
straight, Dr. Narsey
[posted 18 Aug 2011,1245]
So, in typical fashion my good friend Dr.
Wadan Narsey has availed himself of another opportunity to take a swipe at
the Fiji Labour Party and me personally.
It is regrettable that he chose to do so
while paying tribute to Sir Paul Reeves. Readers of Wadan Narsey’s ‘tribute’
would have noted that almost two-thirds of it was devoted to NFP/SVT/FLP
politics with blatant bias and outright inaccuracies deliberately designed
to malign the Fiji Labour Party and its leader while extolling the former
leaders of the NFP and SVT.
This article is intended not to revisit
the past but to correct the distortions and outright misrepresentation of
facts by Dr. Narsey regarding the position of FLP on the 1997 Constitution.
However, it is unfortunate that some NFP-aligned academics are unable to
stomach their Party’s demise in 1999 and its failure to resurrect itself in
the 2001 and 2006 general elections.
The first of the corrections is that at no
time did the FLP put a racist tag on the 1997 Constitution, as claimed by
Dr. Narsey.
What FLP opposed was the complete reversal
by SVT/NFP of the Reeves Commission’s recommendations on the electoral
system. It proposed that these be adopted if Fiji was to rid itself of
racial politics. The electoral system recommended by the Reeves Commission
was completely nullified, and indeed reversed, by the SVT/NFP leaders in so
far as communal and open seats were concerned.
In recommending the new electoral system,
Sir Paul and his colleagues on the Commission had laid emphasis on the fact
that Fiji must move away from communal politics through an electoral system
which promoted the emergence of multi-ethnic governments. They recommended
45 Open and only 25 Communal seats in a 70 member House, with the latter
being gradually phased out over a period of time and replaced by Open seats.
Not only did the SVT/NFP leadership
completely reverse these recommendations, they also entrenched the communal
seats by requiring a 75% majority vote to change the system. As we all know
this was never going to happen!
The second is the false allegation by Dr. Narsey that Labour …“having won
the majority of seats in the 1999 elections, chose to exclude the Fijian SVT
from Cabinet”.
The truth is that the SVT was invited to
join the Cabinet by way of a written invitation sent by me as Prime Minister
to its Leader. In reply, the SVT stated that it wanted 4 Cabinet portfolios,
including the position of Deputy PM for Mr. Rabuka.
According to the power-sharing formula
under Section 99 of the Constitution, SVT having won only 8 of 71 seats, was
entitled to just two ministerial portfolios.
Aside from wanting 4 ministries, they also
demanded that
• FLP’s nominees to the Senate should
include 3 SVT members
• James Ah Koy and Sam Speight of SVT be
excluded from ministerial appointments.
• All ambassadors, high commissioners and
members appointed by the SVT to continue in office
• all members of Boards of statutory
bodies appointed by the SVT to continue in office
As can be seen, the SVT demands were
extremely unreasonable and could not, therefore, be entertained.
But the important fact is that the
People’s Coalition Government led by the FLP, had 12 indigenous ministers
and only 6 Indo-Fijians in a Cabinet of 18.
Dr. Narsey infers that the SVT had the
majority support of the indigenous community in 1999 and, therefore, it was
a political blunder to exclude them from Cabinet.
The truth is that in the 1999 general
elections, SVT won only 5 out of 23 Fijian communal seats while the other 18
were won by FLP’s Coalition partners. So, how could SVT be perceived to have
had majority support of the indigenous people?
If SVT and NFP had Fiji’s interest at
heart and the desire to build a multi-racial Fiji, they would not have opted
out of the recommendations of the Reeves Commission to embrace and entrench
an overwhelmingly communal electoral system.
Let me refer to yet another distortion in Dr Narsey’s ‘tribute’. He states:
“While there were some important modifications by the 1998 Parliament (of
which I was then a member) they in no way altered the real substance of the
Reeves Report contributions to the 1997 Constitution”.
This is absolute nonsense. The whole
purpose of the review was to replace a racist (1990) constitution with a
multiracial charter. By completely reversing its core proposals (on the
electoral arrangements) the Rabuka/Reddy team defeated the whole purpose of
the exercise to create a harmonious multiracial society.
These changes cannot be passed off as
minor. They were so substantial they changed completely the very thrust of
the Report. The electoral system recommended by the Reeves Commission was at
the very core of its ethos: to move Fiji away from race based communal
politics to one that fostered multi racialism.
This is why the FLP had so vigorously
opposed the agreement both in the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee, and
later, in Parliament.
Reversing this fundamental recommendation
in the Report, must be viewed as a severe rebuke to Sir Paul himself because
he had gone to great lengths to explain the electoral system they had
recommended.
Another sad fact of the 1997 Constitution
making process was the rejection by the SVT/NFP of the Reeves recommendation
to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 years.
Both had endorsed it in their submission
to the Commission but, quite surprisingly, failed to give it their support
in the Select Committee stages because they feared the younger voters were
more likely to vote for Labour.
There were many other very worthy
recommendations in the Reeves Report which were either ignored or side-lined
by the SVT/NFP team. Principal among them were:
• an elected rather than a nominated
Senate
• the President and Vice President to be
elected by an electoral college of both Houses of Parliament, not by members
of the GCC
• changes to the membership of the GCC
It is a pity that these significant
recommendations which may well have changed the body politic of Fiji, were
buried by those then in control.
MP Chaudhry |