THE FIJI
TIMES 152nd ANNIVERSARY – CONCLUDING PART 4 of 4
THE FALL OF
CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN 2000 AND THE ROLE OF FT IN THAT.
Thakur
Ranjit Singh
PROLOGUE - PART 4
This is the CONCLUDING PART of the four-part
series on the history of the Fiji Times
(FT).
In May 1999,
Mahendra Pal Chaudhry was sworn in as the first Fiji Indian Prime Minister of
Fiji. A year later, an unruly protest march opposing his leadership climaxed in
a renegade soldier-led attempted coup. The rebel Counter-Revolutionary Warfare
soldiers led by a failed businessman, George Speight, took the elected Fiji government
hostage. As was the case with the original coup d’état in May 1987, the
Labour-led Fiji Indian dominated coalition government’s term in office was cut
short by Speight and his ethno-nationalist forces.
The May 2000
attempted coup, the dissolution of Chaudhry government and the lack of popular
uprising to support democracy have been partially attributed to an alleged
irresponsible journalism which put considerable pressure on the fledgling first
Fiji Indian-led government. Claims have been made that the media, particularly
The Fiji Times, played a critical role in this event through the way it
portrayed Chaudhry and his government. Such reporting has been challenged as
having contributed to racial animosity, leading to political disorder.
 |
| Mahendra Chaudhry, the first Fiji Indian Prime Minister was seen as a socialist and a threat to the business community. He was also regarded as a threat to some "shady" Itaukei politicians who were thoroughly walloped by Peoples Coalition in 1999 election. As an astute Finance man and a former Auditor, Chaudhry was seen as a danger to "unclean" businesses, hence he had to be removed. And the Fiji Times contributed to his fall. |
The author, Thakur
Ranjit Singh conducted a post - graduate research on Pacific Islands Media
Association (PIMA) scholarship at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) for
Masters in Communication (MCS) studies in 2009. [One thing to note is that both
PIMA and AUT treated me as a Pacifica Fijian and NOT as and an ‘INDIAN” which
would have disqualified me from this scholarship. Unfortunately this is the
battle we Fiji Indians are still having with NZ authorities for our Pacifika identity.]
The analysis of
Fiji Times articles between May 1999 leading to political disturbances a year
later were conducted. Some of the
conclusion of findings from my research were covered in PART 3 of the article.
Here is the concluding part.
DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before
localisation in 2010. All materials and
string of comments are from already published articles and my
research on Master’s Thesis in 2011. [Link provided at the end of article]
INTRODUCTION
In PART 3, I covered the major conclusions of my research. These, among
others showed inconsistencies in messages from newsrooms where the White
Management and Itaukei “gate-keepers” had conflicting coverage, new tinpot
nationalists were given more space than the government, disrespect for the
office of PM and President, lack of balance in the paper without fair
opportunity for both the parties, and apparent ignorance of paper on proper management,
ignorance about racial balance requirement of Fiji Constitution and having a newsroom with 95% paper
content in a flammable racial situation by Itaukei reporters.
Just reiterating, the topics covered in the research analysis covered
the following:
Election Victory &
Politics , Media Issues, Racial Agitation/Protests, Land, Rajen Chaudhry, Tea
Lady Affair, Baba & Chaudhry Tensions, Clark-Hunter Work Permits,
Constitutional Amendments, Fiji Hardwood and Speight, Industrial Issues, Ganesh
and Chaudhry Houses, Housing Authority, Margaret Wise, Daily Post and Radio
Fiji Ban, Socialism and Sharing Wealth, Punja and Companies, Political
Personalities and Zimbabwe Land Problems.
The conclusion
continues:
THE FIJI TIMES – CONCLUDING PART 4 OF 4 PART SERIES:
 |
| The foreign-owned Fiji Times just celebrated 152nd anniversary in Fiji and did not tell what my research revealed. It substantiated that its despise for Indians a century - ago remained in the new millennium. FT showed a racist slant in its news reporting, and contributed to fall of democracy in Fiji in 2000. |
1) Double Standards: There appeared to be double standards of scrutiny and criticism of
different governments by FT. Its zeal and so-called investigative prowess in
unearthing scandals and indulging in muckraking were seen to be inversely
comparable when reporting on Chaudhry’s “Indian” government, compared to Qarase’s
“Fijian” government respectively. While the objective of this paper was not to
determine this question, the difference was so obvious that I was forced to
look at some examples of them where FT showed favourable stance to a “Fijian”
government, bringing into question its media ethics and claims of being a
neutral, independent, and free media. Some of the topics so treated form part
of my subject analysis like Rajendra Chaudhry, Housing Authority, tea - lady
affair, among others. Readers will know more major issues and scandals in
Qarase’s (and Rabuka’s) government occurred on favouritism, nepotism, abuse of
office, personal relationships, and other governance matters. However, they
never got as much microscopic media scrutiny from FT as they did in Peoples
Coalition Government. Such media charges were led by Itaukei journalists, including Margaret Wise, and
others having direct and indirect links with former politicians who lost their
power and livelihood through loss to Peoples Coalition Government.
One such issue directly concerns your truly, me
when I went on Fiji TVs Close Up with SDL Assistant Minister, Simione Kaitani, in
2003, when he accused Chaudhry of committing sedition. On a visit to India in
2003, Chaudhry complained about his treatment in Fiji by authorities. I
challenged Kaitani on his hypocritic stance, and hence went on TV 1’s Close up programme. In it, he admitted to committing sedition on National TV. (Watch
it, links given). Instead of reprimand, Qarase promoted him to a fully-fledged
Minister. There was no issue from FT, which, in case of Chaudhry government,
charged like hungry Pitbull dogs and went on witch hunt for even small cases.
There were other scandals in Rabuka and Qarase regimes which were overlooked
but became big issues and raised storms in Chaudhry government and detailed in
my research.
Here is link to that Close Up TV 1 programme, that
was anchored by Riaz Sayed Khaiyum, brother of Fiji’s Attorney General and the
CEO of government-owned Fiji Broadcasting Commission (FBC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM481jp0Ddc
 |
| I always maintained that the Great Council of Chiefs, the Military and a partisan media had been the greatest threat to democracy in Fiji. While Fiji is on a path to to search for a home-grown solution, we appear to be a long way from it. |
2) Margaret Wise: The question of ethics arises from the role played by the star FT
reporter Margaret Wise whose romance and affair and a child out of wedlock with
Sitiveni Rabuka was already covered in PART 2 of the article, and this was a
common knowledge. The person who placed very sharp scrutiny on others,
especially Chaudhry and his government was unfortunately spared similar
treatment by her employers FT who allowed and apparently encouraged undeserving
and unbridled frenzied attacks on the government in general and Fiji Indians in
particular where she penned many racially divisive stories. The fact that FT
allowed, in fact encouraged such a journalist speaks volumes about ethics and
journalistic standards, or lack of it, in their organisation. Response on PART
3 of my article has perturbed many readers on Facebook as to how come a foreign-owned,
and supposedly respectable media allowed this to happen, under guardianship of
White men. I still am unable to answer this.
3) Propaganda Model of Media: In simple language, this
model in media explains how people are manipulated and influenced, and
how approval for economic, social, and political policies, both foreign and domestic,
is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda. In
simple language this means how media dupes and fools public. The theory says
that media is a mere business and does not give two hoots about justice, fair
journalism, support for democracy or acting as a watchdog. It is a business to
earn and grow profits through advertising, wide ownership and having government
favours, among others. Thus, there is a conflict of interest, and therefore media
works as a propaganda for anti-democratic elements.
 |
| While Rabuka was reportedly manipulated by his chiefs to commit treason, it appears the vested -interests ganged up to cut Peoples Coalition Government, by using George Speight as a pawn. Speight, the poor fall guy is still languishing in prison while those behind the fall of democracy are flourishing outside. |
As my research required the bearing and relevance
of media theories applicable to FT, it would appear that this one fitted the
bill. FT seemed to gang up with the business community to protect the elite
interests, be that the business or influential chiefs who had lost out to
Chaudhry and were afraid to be exposed. This became especially more crucial
where Chaudhry was known to despise abuse of office and
power, had a heart for socialism, was an astute finance man and a former
Auditor who could spell many dangers for businesses and politicians who were
not “clean.”
This Propaganda Model came into play when Chaudhry
imposed licence on rice and in his social justice speech, announced new
policies on minimum wages and redistribution of wealth. FT’s defence of the
business community and its failure to properly explain and debate the issue
about social democracy showed its leaning and favour towards its advertisers,
politicians, influential Chiefs and the
business community.
This provided ample reason why the well-connected
people wished to see the end of Chaudhry regime, lest it hit their bottom-line,
or even gain jail-terms, with the requirement of sharing wealth with the poorer
section of the community and some of their questionable dealings.
DISCUSSION
Was FT solely responsible for downfall of Chaudhry’s
Peoples Coalition Government?
What happened in Fiji cannot be fully
attributed to the actions of George Speight. While FT helped create such an
atmosphere that was ripe for the removal of the government from means other
than democratic, contributory factors from Chaudhry’s style of
leadership hastened the process and discouraged any uprising in support of
democracy.
Had Chaudhry been able to build bridges,
especially with the Itaukei community and its institutions, such huge support
for Speight may not have been there. If anything, Itaukei themselves may have
caused an uprising to support democracy. However nothing like that happened
with an insensitive and abrasive style of doing things that was not conducive
to the Fijian/Itaukei way and ethos of getting things done.
 |
| He lived to my prediction that Chaudhry's worst enemy was Chaudhry himself. While Speight and Fiji Times contributed to his fall, there were contributory factors on his part, and he fell on his own sword. Fiji lost such a grand opportunity. Just hoping he has leant from his past mistakes and will rise up as a stateman in the next election. |
Unpopular decisions taken on the strength of
democracy in a young nation where democracy to the Fijian culture had been
fairly recent, the rapid action based on such mandate was a foolhardy action
which MPC took despite ample warning from all the sources. It has been already
revealed in social media by a reliable source that Chaudhry was cautioned by
the American Embassy intelligence, and personally by the then Ambassador, of
the Speight-type uprising, which he ignored. He even failed to heed warnings of
his Home Affairs Minister and had the recklessness of surrounding himself with undeserving
“Yes, Prime Minister” type of advisors.
Tinkering with the Constitution, fiddling
with land, appointment of his son and inability to maintain accord within his
coalition-partners led to his early demise which did not see any uprising to
support him.
Perhaps Fiji’s greatest
historian Professor Brij Vilash Lal, banned from his land of birth by Khaiyum
and Bainimarama, summed the win of People’s Coalition well as a Pyrrhic
victory, which is a victory that comes at a great cost, perhaps
making the ordeal to win not worth it.
Final Word
There is little doubt
that the analysis carried out in this research shows that FT did not behave or
operate like a responsible media in a developing nation where the concept of
democracy was still new to the ‘natives’ and FT’s obsession with racial
overtones in its stories divided the nation. All the good things about media
being a uniting force were never seen in FT. If anything FT lived to its accusation
of being anti-Indian since it was established in 1869, as already revealed in
PART 1 of this series of articles.
It also lived according
to traits of the Propaganda Model where FT was seen to protect the interest of
the Itaukei political elite and the business community. While no proof has come
to court to substantiate the hands of business community in the fall of People’s
Coalition Government, this research gave enough motives for that and why the
business community wished to see Chaudhry go.
If a percentage were to
be allocated for ease of understanding, then perhaps FT contribution in causing
and giving rise to an environment for the fall of democracy rests at 60%
while Chaudhry’s inherent problems contributed to the other 40%.
Chaudhry lived to one prediction and fear all had
about him: Chaudhry’s worst enemy was - Chaudhry himself. And as
predicted by some, including your truly, he fell on his own sword.
Despite the passage of
time, the partisan approach of the newspaper towards the elite class has not
changed. Times (pun intended) have changed; from Gillion’s (1977) reporting of
the 1860s to my research covering 2,000 in the new millennium. Even the elites
have changed; from the CSR, the British government and the Europeans to the
indigenous Fijian chiefs, the Fijian elites running the government and the
predominantly Indian business community. What has not changed is the credibility
of the Propaganda Model of Media which remained steadfast in
giving credence to Herman and Chomsky’s (2008) theory on how the media becomes
the lapdog and mouthpiece of the ruling elites - and is mostly interested in making
money. (Does that remind you of another print
media and a radio station in Fiji now? I did not say anything!)
 |
| What an irony. The lot Fiji Times was trying to protect ended up owning media in Fiji. Gujarati community now controls almost 90% of Fiji’s print media. C.J. Patel with Vinod Patel, owns the Fiji Sun, while Moti Bhai now owns FT. Hari Punja has shares in the radio station, Communications Fiji Limited. |
HA HA HA -THE LAST LAUGH
The Fiji Times was
forced to abandon Fiji. It has now been bought by the Motibhai Group. What is
interesting here is the media ownership now rests in the hands of exactly those
people who were accused and suspected of supporting the divisive elements in
the removal of Chaudhry’s People’s Coalition Government, which was shifting
towards a socialistic trend.
Ha Ha Ha – What an irony in Fiji Media ownership. The elite the Fiji
Times was trying to protect has now ended up controlling Fiji media. What
hope, common people, the Aam Aadmi?
Future research
While this research
could claim to be the genesis of such a detailed media analysis of a Fiji
media, this also provides a springboard for future research.
The new balance of
media ownership, coupled with the new media decrees, and possibly a
new-media-friendly government in future, would provide rich fodder for an
ongoing research to gauge the transition of Fiji media into a “real” Third
World media.
This author harbours a
wish to carry this research forward with a doctoral thesis in this area, given
appropriate resources. USP or FNU - go ahead, make my day. I am now retired and
would not mind a break in Fiji, with my already rich experience in this area. (Perhaps
my surname does not qualify me for such favours!)
[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is former
publisher of now closed, partly government-owned Daily Post newspaper, a
journalist, a media commentator, a community worker in Auckland and runs his
blog FIJI PUNDIT. He did a research on the role of the Fiji Times in
contributing to destabilising of democracy by a partisan newspaper that culminated in Speight’s
attempted coup in 2000. Contents in the four-part articles are largely from his
Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology
(AUT) in 2011, and already published materials. All reference to Fiji Times is
to the foreign owned entity prior to localisation in 2010.
E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com]
Link to thesis: https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/2554
Link to Fiji TV Close-up with Kaitani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM481jp0Ddc
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
