FIJI TIMES PART 4: THE FALL OF CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN 2000 AND ITS ROLE IN THAT

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152^nd 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.

 

Therefore, it was essential to cut down Peoples Coalition Government before it became a real threat to the vested interests, and - to hell with democracy and media ethics.

 

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.

Check the private media ownership in Fiji, and majority are owned by Gujarati Business Community. Fiji’s business Indian community, the 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 – 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

 

 

FIJI TIMES PART 3 : HOW IT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN MAY 2000

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152^nd ANNIVERSARY – PART 3 of 4

HOW FT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN 2000 “SPEIGHT COUP”.

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE - PART 3

This is the THIRD PART continuation of the four-part series  on the history of the Fiji Times (FT). This is from already published articles and my research of Master’s Thesis – a historical notoriety of a Fiji newspaper never told in this manner and language. [See link to research at the end of this article]

DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before localisation in 2010. Hence I do not have any concerns with the locally - owned FT of 2021.

 

INTRODUCTION

In Part 2, we further showed how “skirt-journalism”, racist and biased reporting created ethnic issues and negativity against an “Indian” government of Chaudhry. 

 

Mahendra Chaudhry (centre top) with three Itaukei people who were behind his removal-directly or indirectly: (L-R) Laisenia Qarase, Sakiasi Butadroka and George Speight.

Part 3 enumerates extracts of conclusion from my research thesis as part of my Masters in Communisation Studies (Journalism) at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). It reveals that the leopard did not change spots even after a century. Subsequent to departure of the white men, they continued being towel boys and lapdogs of Eastern Chiefs, elite Itaukei, ethnonationalist  politicians and  Gujarati businesses (has it changed ever?), and how they contributed to the disturbances by George Speight and the fall of Fiji’s democracy in 2000. This was mostly done through unbridled and racially skewed newsroom management with conflicting viewpoint on boundary between good and fair journalism and racism, favouring your own types. The partisan stance of FT, with poor internal management shamed journalism - the Fourth Estate. Please read that here…………..

 

THE FIJI TIMES - PART 3 (OF 4)

 

The Concluding Remarks of my Research

 

I had conducted an analysis of the Fiji Times for one year, May 1999 to May 2000, leading to attempted coup by George Speight.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry (L) with his captor, George Speight after his release from 56 days captivity in Fiji Parliament building in May-June, 2000.

Almost two thirds (62.8%) of the analysis reported negatively against People’s Coalition government while less than 10% showed any warmth towards the government. Only just over a quarter (27.4%) of the items were of neutral in nature. In fact a reputable and credible media should have 100% balanced, fair, neutral, and impartial reporting. Of the 19 sections covered, thirteen (68.4%) reported 50% or more negative items while three of these were above 90%. So, you can see how partisan and unfair FT was.

The sections of media analysis , among others, covered major issues of interest under Chaudhry government as reported over one year of  People’s Coalition government rule. The following topics were covered for analysis in my research:

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.

Some Fiji Times headline that Chaudhry government had to endure in its short one-year term.

The trend of reporting showed that for the largest selling paper in the country, such a large percentage of negative items would end up affecting people’s perception of the government. However a poll conducted seven months after election victory revealed that despite so much negative reporting, Chaudhry government, reported very advanced positive poll results, higher than ever gained by Rabuka government before him.

Therefore it would appear that those plotting to overthrow the government had to act fast before the government became too popular with the common people. And then began FT’s questionable reporting, that has been summarised here. If you read my thesis, (link given below) it also shows photo-shoot of relevant offending articles, photos and headlines that resulted in assault of democracy in Fiji.

My conclusion makes interesting reading, especially Fiji Indians will be able to relate to them from a racism perspectives. In the Newsroom of FT,  almost 96% of stories and control were by Itaukei editors, journalists, and controllers of news when the Fiji Indians comprised some 40% of Fiji population. Read, be shocked, and clap your hands for 152^nd anniversary celebrations of the Fiji Times for its contributions to the country:

Some of the notable concluding observations from the content analysis in my research were:

1) There was obvious discord between what FT said and advocated in its editorials, and what appeared in the papers - it failed to walk its talk. There appeared to be  clash, disagreements and conflict between editorials and news content. It was like one part of you is  trying to make peace between two persons fighting, while the other part is secretly winking at one of them to keep on fighting. Or like a proverbial rat in some African traditions, which bites, and at the same time blows to soothe the pain of its biting. This description aptly fitted FT on occasions where it appeared to have one view of the editorial writer while completely opposite stance was seen in the stories appearing in the news pages. In Hindi, the saying of ..” bagal mein choori, mukh mein Ram.. which means praising God, while hiding a knife on the side to stab at an opportune time. This reflected a disagreement between the editorial opinion and the newsroom. FT failed to practice what it preached. What it advocated and pontificated in its editorials, it failed to reflect them in its news pages. What this means is, in its editorial by White men, it was preaching all the goodness of a fair journalism, while the stories by Itaukei Editor and senior Itaukei journalists spewed racial venom against a “Fiji Indian” Chaudhry government.

Some Fiji Times headline that Chaudhry government had to endure in its short one-year term.

2)  The lack of coordination between the newspaper management and the newspaper operations. Elaborating what was said above, the ‘management’, comprised of expatriate policy and editorial formulators, notably the expatriate publisher and the editor in chief, Alan Robinson, and Russell Hunter (for part of the time) respectively. The ‘operations’ or the  Fijian(Itaukei) ‘gatekeepers’ comprised of the editor Samisoni Kakaivalu, his Deputy Netani Rika and the senior Fijian newsroom team including Margaret Wise, about whom you read in Part 2. Lack of coordination appears to have stemmed from unbridled newsroom control on the local staff who coined up the headlines that chose and manufactured stories and headlines, as had been cited by a researcher  where a Fiji Indian journalist at FT admitted that the article she wrote was completely twisted and the headline was given by a member of the senior staff. The ‘management’ expatriate executives have to be accountable for what we found as an environment which gave unbridled ‘gate keeping’ duties to unqualified, insensitive, and partisan newsroom (Itaukei) staff.

 

Tin-Pot ethnonationalist politicians with questionable following and character sprung up overnight and were given more prominence in FT than the ruling government and politicians who had to resort to letters -to-editor to make their point. Sakiasi Butadroka (top) and Taniela Tabu.

3)   New groups of militant and nationalist makeshifts (tin-pot) organisations sprung up overnight to oppose government’s initiatives. Their little-known leaders with suspect following were given undeserved and unbridled exposure by FT under the guise of media freedom, despite such utterances bordering on sedition and hate-speeches, and in clear breach of Media Code of Conduct and Ethics. Every now and then you would have a tin-pot Itaukei nationalist and questionable leader, with little credibility and following, rising up and vomiting anti-Fiji Indian poison, and FT had no hesitation in highlighting verbal diarrhoea and racists diatribes of such leaders while ignoring clarifications and statements from the government and officials of the day.

 

4)  Open disrespect to President and PM - FT provided ample opportunity to any man and his dog who wished to take a pot shot at the highest seat of the country- the President and the Prime Minister. A responsible, civilised media, especially in a developing country divided on racial lines would be expected to exercise caution and sensitivity. FT committed dereliction of ethics and duties by permitting and sanctioning such show of disrespect to the leaders of a developing nation under the guise of media freedom. One is free to be critical of the politicians of any shades or colour. But when it comes to the SEAT OF THE COUNTRY, such as the Prime Minister or President, the POSITIONS command respect, and no credible newspapers would ever allow any dogs of racism to piss on the highest poles and seats of the nation. Unfortunately, over a century-old FT allowed this to happen without blinking an eye lid.

 

Protest by Indians in Haryana, India, Chaudhry's ancestral land by those raising their voice against his removal in Fiji. 

5)  Lack of Balance - The number of important issues where government had to resort to letters to editor column to tell its side of the story was evident that there was something grossly amiss in media’s balance and adherence to Code of Conduct that called for equal opportunity of response. In the analysis, instances were quoted where the government as well as the members of the general public wrote in to clarify and inform on issues which was seen as the media’s role. It appears either FT failed to grasp and inform on issues, or it deliberately failed in its duty of keeping Fiji well informed to safeguard democracy. Sadly, FT failed to balance their stories with all sides of views - a strong pillar of respected journalism. FT clearly displayed its neglect and recklessness of duties and failed to protect and defend democracy – another strong pillar of any respectable Fourth Estate (media). It failed to allow the same space and opportunity to the Government of the day to clarify lies and unsubstantiated claims by the opposition, ethnonationalist officials of statutory organisations (read NLTB) and tin-pot nationalist leaders.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry commanded huge respect, especially in cane belt of rural Fiji. He was more popular than any PM before him, hence had to be removed by the ethnonationalist Itaukei agitators before he became too popular. Here Chaudhry (R) is seen, having a word with his ardent supporter and friend from Rarawai, Ba, Fiji, Late Krishna Nand Maharaj.

6)  Failure of FT to recognise lopsided racial mix: In Fiji, it is a Constitutional requirement and direction (in 1977 Constitution) to grant equitable distribution of civil service positions at all levels to reflect the country’s demographic makeup. It seems this escaped the knowledge of FT. That is why it allowed misinformed viewpoints without trying to point out the anomaly, with extremely high percentage in Military and civil service with information on land ownership and other standard statistics. It not only ignored the lopsided racial mix elsewhere in government, but itself failed to abide by the general principle that the newsroom should be the mirror of the country. There was marked favour of Itaukei , not only at all (especially senior) levels  of its news team, but also in news content reporting  where some 95 % of the stories with by lines were from Itaukei reporters in a racially divided nation with Fiji Indians comprising some 40% of the population at that time. Over two-thirds of FT newsroom was populated by Itaukei, and they filed almost all stories, with a few “balanced” stories coming from Fiji Indian reporters, and they were few and far in between.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry, when PM( L-R) with President of Fiji Labour Party, Jokepeci Koroi, Fiji's President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and his wife, Vir Mati.

Sounds shocking? The balance of conclusion and the concluding remarks leading to fall of People’s Coalition Government will be revealed in PART 4 and the final part of this four - part article.

 

[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. Details in the articles are largely from his Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011, and already published material. 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

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

FIJI TIMES PART 2: IT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN FIJI AS A BIASED MEDIA, SUPPORTING UNELECTED CHIEFS

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152^nd ANNIVERSARY – PART 2 of 4

HOW FT, WITH THE CHIEFS, CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN FIJI AS A BIASED MEDIA.

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE - PART 2

This is SECOND PART of continuation of the four-part series  on the history of the Fiji Times (FT). This is from already published articles and my research of Master’s Thesis – a historical notoriety of a Fiji newspaper never told in this manner and language.

DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before localisation in 2010. Hence I do not have any concerns with the locally - owned FT of 2021.

 

INTRODUCTION

In Part 1, we mentioned that The Fiji Times (FT) just marked  152^nd anniversary and were in Fiji prior to arrival of first Girmitiyas but remained blind to their plight and inhumane treatment. In fact they despised and hated them as smelly, dark-skinned invaders to Fiji and became cheerleaders and  mouthpiece of the British and Australian colonists and degraded these helpless and defenceless people.

Part 2 here will show that the leopard did not change spots, and after departure of the white men, they became towel boys and lapdogs of Eastern Chiefs, elite Itaukei and European and Gujarati businesses, and how they became a threat to Fiji’s democracy. As I have openly stated before, the greatest threat to democracy in Fiji came from the Great Council of Chiefs, followed by a partisan media. Please read that here…………..

 

Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup-maker of 1987, was soundly defeated by Chaudhry in 1999 election. He was having an affair with a key senior reporter of FT, Margaret Wise who was agitating a war with Chaudhry, unethically using FT, while management of FT allowed this rot to continue.

THE FIJI TIMES - PART 2 (OF 4)

 

Russell Hunter was refused an extension of his work permit by Chaudhry government which had a bitter running battle with the media in general and FT in particular. One notable incident was during the launch of the Fiji Media Council’s Code of Conduct where the Prime Minister Chaudhry was very critical of reporting standards and the attitude of FT towards his government and accused it of “fanning the fires of sedition and racism.” In his speech, Chaudhry had singled out one particular reporter, Margaret Wise – that, later.

In speaking about unnecessary and unwarranted coverage given to nationalist union leader Taniela Tabu, Chaudhry accused The Fiji Times of harbouring an agenda:

There have been a number of articles on Taniela Tabu breathing fire and brimstone along racial lines, making all kinds of threats and allegations not backed by facts. Yet The Fiji Times continues to pose this man whose own credibility is questionable, having frittered away $4 million of union membership funds that he can’t explain, as the saviour of the Fijian civil servants… none of the other media reported anything on his unwarranted ourbursts... It makes me wonder whether there is not a conspiracy at work here between that particular reporter and these anti-government elements?

 

Russell Hunter, Editor-in Chief of Fiji Times, during late 1990, and was denied visa and deported during the Peoples Coalition rule, but joined FT once Chaudhry was displaced as a result of political instability that, as my research shows, was partly contributed by the stance of a biased FT.

Media commentators Field, Baba and Nabobo-Baba shed additional light on the Wise story:

 

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Fiji Times decided, almost by default and as a result of one particular reporter that they were going to get rid of Chaudhry. Reporter Margaret Wise tore into Chaudhry with many an unsourced story which the paper had no qualms about publishing. What was known to the newspaper, but not shared with readers and now a matter of court record, was that she was also Rabuka’s lover and had a child by him.

It was Mahendra Chaudhry and his People’s Coalition Government that soundly walloped Rabuka and his SVT into oblivion. The unethical sexual relationship between FT’s political star reporter Margaret Wise and the person who was soundly beaten by Chaudhry, Sitiveni Rabuka was reported in FT. Michael Field (2010), in his Swimming with Sharks mentioned this:

Rabuka fathered a boy with [Margaret] Wise and then denied it was his. I was often in Fiji at the time, covering treason and mutiny trials. More than once I would run into Rabuka after Wise took him to court. ‘ A DNA test revealed Mr Rabuka  was 99.999 percent [certain] to be the likely father of the 18-month-old boy,’ the Fiji Times said.

The court found he was the father, and he was ordered to pay F$30 a week. (p.179)

Tin-Pot racist trade unionists and political party leaders, with questionable support and ethics were allowed space by certain reporters of FT to spew racial venom on Chaudhry's Peoples Coalition Government of the day, and management of FT allowed this partisan approach to flourish.

The ethical issue that arises here is that when she was reporting against the Chaudhry government, she was also having an affair with Rabuka. How would a multinational, Rupert Murdoch’s media allow such a conflict of interest to exist without any control, and with apparent knowledge, encouragement, and the blessings from FT management. Why did Alan Robinson and Russel Hunter allow this unethical media practice to flourish?

It is incidents and situations like this that gave rise to the term “skirt journalism” that raises ethical and conflict of interest issues.

Another researcher at USP was also critical of the newspaper which portrayed Speight as a crusader for the Fijian race, wresting back the power for the Fijian race for preservation of their future. She also named Margaret Wise, as one of FT reporters who wrote stories that were aimed at consolidating the myth that the takeover was an ethnic conflict and not provincial rivalry between the confederacies. Wise continued to run stories which kept on emphasising inter-ethnic conflict as the reason.

Sakiasi Butadroka, who helped displace Ratu Mara's Alliance Government was also used by ethno-nationalist politicians to destabilise Chaudry's Government, and FT allowed them enough space and publicity to do this.

Another researcher in her hypothesis proposed that:

The Fiji Times represented and reinforced the ruling class ideology in Fiji, a ruling class who were determined to consolidate political power by promoting the role of chiefly elite and thereby disguising the tension caused by class relations in society.

It also declared that the Speight crisis happened because Fijians did not trust an Indo Fijian Prime Minister to deliver security of Fijian rights and guarantee of Fijian leadership. She added that the editor of FT during the crisis was a Fijian (referred to as indigenous race). The view of the Fijian editor appeared to have been filtering in the newspapers. FT took it for granted that the Fijian chiefs had legitimacy to provide leadership role in a crisis situation, ignoring the Indo-Fijians in the process.

This concept of legitimising the role of non-elected and politically aligned chiefs over all the people of Fiji matches Herman and Chomsky’s (2008) Propaganda Model theory which stipulates that media is dependent on the elites and participates in propaganda campaigns helpful to elite interests. Research analysis showed the newspaper tended to support not only the business functions but also the ruling chiefly elite over that of the survival of democracy.

The racial slant of FT  supported democracy, as long as the Fijians and the GCC dominated leadership  and ruled Fiji. FT, while supporting democracy tended to favour Fijian self-interest over the political system and mandate of the people. The papers failed to support the huge mandate of the people for return of Chaudhry to power. This was a clear reflection of the racial skew of the papers’ editor and senior and influential journalists and their links to the ruling elite who supported Fijian leadership for Fiji.

A free and neutral media in a fledgling democracy, in a developing nation, with racial issues, need to exercise extra care to project itself as a neutral, impartial and balanced Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, as my research substantiates, the foreign-owned FT failed to live up to this expectation, while beating hollowed drums of success in Fiji for 152 years.
.

Criticism by Chaudhry and other researchers and authors concluded that:

……the FT editor failed to provide any in-depth analysis of the causes of the political crisis nor related it back to historical events. .… reinforced the colonial legacy that Fijian chiefs are the rightful rulers of Fiji, emphasising that Fiji, and this presumably means Fijians, was not ready for a multiracial constitution. 

The researcher was critical of the standard of the editorials and the paper’s understanding of the Constitution and their lack of understanding of the special protection accorded in the 1997 Constitution, the process of Constitutional change and the inability of any Prime Minister to be able to change things at their whim, hence the fact that an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister was not a situation that should agitate the Fijian public.

My continuing Part 3 will brief you on my research for AUT Thesis, which substantiated that a partisan, a biased FT contributed to fall of democracy in Fiji - an irony for a supposedly Fourth Estate to do so.

 

[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. Details in the articles are largely from his Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011, and from already published materials. E-mail:thakurjifj@gmail.com.]