Fiji Melanesian Council: October 2016

Submission by the Fiji Melanesian Community Development Association – representing the descendants of Black Birding Laborers from PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu that were brought, through deception, to Fiji from 1863 – 1904.

Commission members, this submission is from the Fiji Melanesian Community Development Association (FMCDA); the descendants of Black Birding Laborers from PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

From the outset, the Commission needs to be enlightened on the membership of FMCDA. The associations constitution, appended as Annex 1, stipulates that membership is for ALL descendants of labourers deceptively brought into Fiji from PNG, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. Whilst all can speak in an associations meeting only financial members can move or vote in a motion.
Before proceeding with our submission towards the formulation of Fiji’s new Constitution, allow us to highlight some background information and some issues that our community continues to face over the years and which we believe our new constitution will address.

The opportunity that this consultation offers is timely and will never occur again in our lifetime; hence the appreciation of the FMCDA members.

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Fiji is an island nation within the Melanesian group, and to put things in perspective, this submission is for the descendants of Black Birding Laborers from the 3 Melanesian Islands including Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea (Annex 1). Do note that we are an uprooted community and we experience being discriminated upon and marginalized by Fiji’s government systems and programmes. Importantly, we always support whichever government is in power which may be due to our insecurity in a land which we call home.

Politically we are categorized as others, a minority group, non iTaukei or “vulagi”, “vasu” and members of the Multi Ethnic Communities.

Melanesians were brought to provide the much needed cheap labour to lay the foundation of Fiji’s economic development by Europeans before and even during the Colonial period from 1863 to the early 1900’s. Melanesians contributions to Fiji were often forgotten. They were taken for granted because of the nature of recruitment and the type of work they were involved in as laborers in cotton fields, construction of roads, sugar cane fields, and gold mine. Some were also used by planters as “small fierce armies” in the absence of a strong government that could assure early Europeans protection in 1870(Nicole R, 2006)

Records indicate that some of our forefathers were used as laborers on the reclamation of land at the forefront of old capital Levuka and also the new capital Suva before they were distributed to other parts of Fiji to work for planters. As a result settlements were established around Viti Levu, Vanua Levu, Lomaiviti and in the Lau group. Kuva (1976) Tapu, (1987) and Halapua (2005). The contributing factor to our scatteredness.

Their tireless works paved the way for the recruitment of the Indentured laborers from India in 1887 to work in the sugar plantations. Kuva, 1976, Tapu, (1987) and (Halapua, 2005.)

On the expiring of their terms, which is questionable given that they were illiterate, a large number of Melanesians made Fiji their new home. Intermarriages with the iTaukei women became a norm. While few chose to return back to the Solomons and Vanuatu, some went to Queensland. Those who remained in Fiji continued to work as casual laborers and as manual workers in colonial offices and for commercial companies. Some remained subsistence farmers in the land beside their settlements. Kuva, (1976), Tapu, (1987) and Halapua, (2005)

Due to intermarriages with indigenous Fijians, Melanesians way of life, culture, values and languages are predominantly Fijian (Halapua, 2005). Unlike the descendants of indentured laborers from India, still maintainimg their languages, cultures, traditions and even their religions, we have assimilated into the iTaukei traditional and customary system likewise all becoming Christians.

1.1 The Socio Economic Status of Melanesians in Fiji

According to the 1997 UNDP report; Melanesians are the most marginalized ethnic group in Fiji. The marginalization of Melanesians is historical and the result of the uneven economy and political relationship to the important means of production. The social and economic status of the Minority Melanesians in Fiji is shaped by the nature of recruitment for the plantation system as it developed in Fiji. Since the recruitment of the Melanesians as cheap wage labour in the early development of Fiji’s colonial economy, majority still remain ‘a temporary cheap labour force’ (Halapua, 2005)

The question on why Melanesians are still marginalized after more than 40 years of independence in a Melanesian country; which they claimed to have maternal links for the last 100 years is simply by the lack of recognition of our existence in previous Constitutions, government systems and structures likewise its programmes and policies.

The negligence of various governments in the past has prompted our elders in 1987 to form an Association known as the Fiji Melanesian Community Development Association. The formation of the Association was also caused by fear of the threat by nationalist politicians proclaiming that “Fiji is for the indigenous Fijians or the iTaukei and not for the non iTaukei” similar to some sentiments raised in relation to our national identity that we are facing today. The Melanesian Association was formed for the management and administration of the descendants of black birding laborers and also as a vehicle to voice our aspiration to the government, other organization and to the rest of the world.

1.2 Resettlements

The 1987 coup was a crossroad to many of us who used to think that we are also a iTaukei because of our Melanesian look and cultural assimilation. However, little did we know that cultural and traditional values changes, as it is influenced by the environment we live in. Therefore, the general view that for non iTaukei or Fijian to assimilate to the iTaukei’s cultures and traditions in order to become iTaukei or to bridge the gap between the ethnic groups in Fiji is no longer true or a reality as we members of the FMCDA have experienced over the last 100 years.

Some examples we would like to highlight are the relocation of our relatives from land which they were given some 80 to 100 years ago by some landowning unit based on the matrilineal or “vasu” relationship, or some through traditional protocols as a token of a service provided by some of our ancestors.

This includes settlements such as Buinikadamu in Bua where they were resettled at Maniava in Ra, Navutu settlement resettled to Drasa at Lololo ni Lautoka, those at Ganivatu Village Naitasiri faced with continued threats from their cousins in the village because they are not in the VKB. Those in Namara settlement at Khalsa Road where some members of the community were resettled at Sasawira Davuilevu; Matata settlement in Lami were informed that developments will take place in the near future and they have to forego their rights on living on the parcel of land they have lived on for around 100years. Some settlements like Caubati, Laqere, Manikoso, New Town, and Filafou to name just a few are, also expecting developments to force their resettlements.

1.3 Identity Crises

Over those years descendants of Melanesians were pushed around from one identity to another. After independence during the Alliance government we were under the Fijian roll during election only to add numbers to the Alliance party, but could not access programmes that benefited those listed in the iTaukei roll.

The same also applied after the coup in 1987 when Melanesian were
categorized as others, the general voters or the minority communities in Fiji and today we are called the Fijians.

The Melanesian Association and its members supports the current government initiative on the national identity for all citizens to be called Fijians, however, will the change of name benefit us economically? Will the name gives us equal treatment on access to government development programmes, access to education and scholarships?

A case in point; in 2011 when the Department of MEA was dissolved only 1 percent of the Self Help projects benefited the Multi Ethnic Communities while the 99 percent benefitted the ITaukei, or those who own more than 80 percent of the resources in Fiji.

2. OUR STAND ON THE NEW PROCESS

Despite the dissolution of the Department that looks after the Multi Ethnic Communities in Fiji, the Melanesian Community strongly supports the current government in the formulation of a new constitution through the participatory processes, which we are experiencing today.

At this juncture, I would like to thank the government and the Constitution Commission for coming down to the grass roots people like us, to seek our views and hear our voices. These are the voices from the “unsung heroes” (Halapua 2005)

Solutions to the issues that were raised earlier we believe can be addressed through this new constitution.

3. OUR VISION FOR FIJI AS MELANESIANS

The Melanesian Community’s vision for Fiji is for Fiji to be a home to all people irrespective of their origins, culture and religion. A home that is secure and safe.

A home is different from a place; a home is where you find love, peace and harmony. A home is where you find dialogue, arguments controlled by a bond and a relationship based on Biblical principles which is love and justice. Love is willing to forgive, love is willing to compromise, love understands, love accepts one another’s views, status and beliefs. A home that recognizes all human beings as equal and at the same time accepting the status of those that needs to be respected. A home where we find those in leadership have the capability to care for everyone who wants to be part of this home called Fiji.

The Melanesian Community would like Fiji to be a Liberal State, but based on values that promotes love, peace, justice and harmony.

4. RECOMMENDED POLITICAL SYSTEM

To make Fiji a home, our political system needs to be changed. This includes the adoption of the Presidential System where the President becomes the Head of Government and State, rather than the parliamentary system.

The main difference between a parliamentary and presidential system of government is that in a presidential system, the president is separate from the legislative body, but in a parliamentary system, the chief executive, such as a prime minister, is part of the legislative body, or parliament. A presidential system separates the executive and legislative functions of the government and provides what are commonly called checks and balances to limit the power of both the chief executive and the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the legislature holds the power, and the chief executive must answer to the legislature. Another main difference is that in a presidential system, the president and members of the legislature are elected separately by the people, but in a parliamentary system, the legislature is elected by the people and then must appoint or recommend for appointment one of its members to be the chief executive.

Many forms of government are used by countries around the world, and very few governments are completely alike, even if they use the same type of system. Presidential and parliamentary systems of government can vary in specific details from one country to another, but certain general aspects typically are the same in countries that have the same type of system. For example, in some parliamentary systems, the national legislative body is called a parliament, and in others, it might be called by a term such as “national assembly,” but they generally serve the same purposes regardless of their names. Likewise, the specific powers or duties of presidents might vary from country to country, but they generally are all elected by the people and are separate from the legislative body.

In a presidential system, the president is the head of government and the head of state. As the head of government, the president oversees the operations of the government and fulfills certain duties, such as appointing officials and advisers to help run the government, signing or vetoing laws passed by the legislature and establishing an annual budget. A president’s duties as head of state include tasks such as making speeches, representing the country at public events, hosting or visiting diplomats from other countries and presenting prestigious national awards.

The roles of head of state and head of government often are held by different people in a parliamentary system. For example, a country might have a prime minister who acts as its head of government and a monarch who acts as its head of state. Some countries that have a parliamentary system also have a president instead of a monarch, and the president acts as the head of state. A country that has both a prime minister and a president is sometimes said to have a semi-presidential system of government, although it is more closely related to a parliamentary system because of the power held by the legislature and prime minister in such a system.

Another difference between these systems of government is the effects that each system has on things such as efficiency and political acrimony. In a presidential system, because the president and members of the legislature are elected separately, it is possible for the president to be from one political party and the legislature to be controlled by a different political party. This can cause discord at the highest levels of the government and make it difficult for the president and the legislators to achieve their respective goals. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is almost always from the political party that controls the legislature, so there is less discord, and it is easier for that party to accomplish its goals.

Parliamentary and presidential systems also differ in their abilities to remove the chief executive from power. In a parliamentary system, it is much easier for the legislature to remove the prime minister from power. Even a disagreement in policy or a lack of effective leadership could be enough reason for this to happen. A president is more difficult to remove from power and usually is possible only in extreme cases, such as when the president is accused of a serious crime.

• It also includes the review and reduction of members of Parliament or Legislative Council.

· The members of Parliament or Legislative Council is to be reduced from 72 to 45 and from those 45 seats, 1 seat is to be allocated to the Melanesian Community.

· By having a representative in Parliament or Legislative Council ensures equal representation and for FMCDA to have a voice in the legislature; similar to what was previously offered to the Rotuman Community where they have their own Roll.

· This recommendation is based on the fact that we are scattered all over Fiji and we will always be disadvantaged with respect to numbers in a constituency (akin to the Rotumans). This was evident during the 1977 (x2), 1982 and 1987 General Elections where we were in the Fijian Roll. The situation was also obvious in the 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001 and 2006 General Elections when we were grouped as General Voters.

· It will also need the review of the constituency boundaries for election. Constituency Boundaries for election should be based on a proportionate representation of the voters in a constituency.

· Candidates for Political Parties to be thoroughly screened based on certain criterion to be developed by the Solicitors Generals Office. To maintain the integrity of the Legislature, FMCDA recommends that aspiring candidates:-

• Who have been incarcerated should not stand for the General Election; and

• Should have a good financial standing.

• One voting system is strongly recommended.

5. OUR SENTIMENT ON THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ACT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The Melanesian Community is of the view that the 2001 Social Justice Act and Affirmative Action Programmes based on the 1997 Constitution are biased and not targeting those that are really disadvantaged in Fiji. From the 21 Affirmative Action Programs under the Social Just Act 2001 only two programs directly benefited the Multi Ethnic Communities, this includes the establishment of MEA Scholarship and Cultural Programs.

The Social Justice Act of 2001 re-affirms the establishment and function of the Department of Multi Ethnic Affairs. However, it is unfortunate for the Multi Ethnic Communities and especially a Minority Community like us that the only Ministry or Department that represent our existence and was set up to facilitate our development especially scholarship was dissolved because of its duplication of roles on the delivery of development projects with the Ministry of Provincial Development.

5.1 Thus we request the re-establishment of the Department of Multi Ethnic Affairs

The re-establishment of the Department of Multi Ethnic Affairs would not affect our National Identity as our ethnic identity will continually maintain.

However, the roles of the Department of MEA to be reviewed and focus on the followings;

• Administration of all Multi Ethnic Communities in Fiji

• Management of MEA Scholarship and,

• Secretariat to the National and District Advisory Council similar to the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs

5.2 The review of the MEA Scholarship policy

5.2.1 For Scholarship the maximum qualifications one can attain if he/she is awareded a Multi Ethnic Affairs Scholarship(MEA) is at Bachelors Level.

• The Melanesian Community requests if the qualification level in the Multi Ethnic Scholarship to be similar to the iTaukei Affairs and Public Service Scholarships where one can reach up to a Post Graduate and even PhD qualification.

• That a quota or percentage from the total MEA Scholarship allocation to be directed to the Melanesian Community.

• It needs to be noted, that initially we Melanesians were allocated a quota of 8. Unfortunately, the introduction of awarding scholarship through merit had a negative impact on us and we are left to struggle once more. The vicious cycle of helplessness and hopelessness rears its ugly head once more.

• We Melanesians would appreciate that Certificate Level qualification, together with Short Term Programmes from FNU or any accredited vocational institution to be also considered by the MEA.

• We believe, that education is the omly way out from if we are to walk away from the vicious cycle of helplessness and hopelessness.

• We are a community rich with untapped potentials BUT the opportunities to explore those potentials are poor. The continued deprivation of scholarships through MEA worsens our attempts to uplift our living standard.

5.3 Review of the Administration of the District Advisory Council and its Allowance

• The Melanesian Association feels that government should review the management and administration of the District Advisory Council with its roles functions and its allowances.

• The District Advisory Councils was in existence since 1969 and became part of the rural development machinery in 1972 under the ambit of the then Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development to serve the non- iTaukei communities. Similar to the Provincial Councils, they were known as the Rural Advisory Councils and later as Rural Indian Advisory Councils under the Ministry of Indian Affairs in 1987. Their advisory functions were to cater for the welfare of the non indigenous communities.

• In 1994 the DAC was administered by the Ministry of Regional Development and Multi Ethnic Affairs. In 1999, the Department of Multi-Ethnic Affairs was elevated to become a fully fledged Ministry, leaving the Ministry of Regional Development to focus only on rural development.

• In 2007 to 2010, the Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs and National Disaster Management were again merged with the Ministry of Provincial Development where the function of DAC continued to be administered by the Department of MEA. The Department of MEA was disbanded on 1st January 2011, with its functions incorporated to other Ministries including the DAC with its current structures transferred to the Ministry of Provincial Development.

• The main purpose of the District Advisory Council was to provide a forum for the Indians and Minority communities to participate in the discussion and decision on development issues in their respective settlements and areas.

• There are 18 District Advisory Councils around Fiji with 252 members.

• The District Advisory Council similar to the Mata ni Tikina appointed by the government through the Minister responsible under the recommendation of the Provincial Administrator or District Officer. DAC members are appointed to serve for 2 years.

• Important Role played by District Advisory Council

• The role played by the members of the District Advisory Council in general is similar to that of the Mata ni Tikina which includes: attending and conducting meetings of various settlements, coordination of development projects with government and non government organizations and assist the District Officers/Provincial Administrator during Natural Disasters on the coordination of evacuation centres, food rations and relief supplies on settlements outside the iTaukei village boundaries.

• However, members of District Advisory Council’s role are more challenging compared to that of the Mata ni Tikina’s. This is because the Mata ni Tikina has the current iTaukei traditional structure already in place where the iTaukei villages and Tikina’s are headed by traditional chiefs and land boundaries are clearly demarcated and development projects are headed by village mayors or Turaga ni Koros with 80 percent of the resources owned by the iTaukei.

• The District Advisory Council on the other hand, deals with the Multi Ethnic Communities. These communities are consisting of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds which include the Indian, Part European, Asians, Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians communities

• Some of these communities live in farming areas where their houses are scattered, while some lived in formal and non formal settlements. In addition to that, some members of these communities are landless; resettle farmers who are either squarttering on government or iTaukei lands.

• Dealing with these communities requires a high level of understanding of the different cultures and religious backgrounds of these communities and the skills to communicate.

• Unfortunately, during the years DAC members have been blamed for non performance with high expectation from government and communities for them to work hard, while their counterparts in the iTaukei communities were benefitting from government assistance.

• To compare the allowance given to the T/Koro, M/Tikina and DAC members, the T/Koro receives an allowance of $50.00 per month which is equal to $600.00 per annum while the M/Tikina receives an allowance of $40.00 per month which is equal to $480.00 per annum, while DAC member has an allowance of $103.00 if DAC meeting is held once in a year and if it is done twice a year then they would receive an allowance of $206 per annum. To divide the $206.00 into 12 months similar to the Turaga ni Koro and Mata ni Tikina, DAC members would be receiving $17.16 per month and $50.00 in three (3) months which is a month’s allowance of the Turaga ni Koro who only looks after one village, and if DAC meeting is held once in a year, then the DAC allowance for one year is $103 per annum with $8.58 a month looking after 3 to 4 settlements.

• The high expectation for DAC members to perform with less allowance provided compared to the allowance given to the Turaga ni Koro and Mata ni Tikina is unreasonable, considering the fact that although they have been receiving less allowance, DAC members continue to work tirelessly throughout the year.

• Based on the above the Melanesian Association recommends that the DAC to be reviewed and the DAC allowance to increase to $40.00 month similar to the Mata Ni Tikina.

6. MELANESIAN SETTELMENT AND TRUST ACT

We would appreciate that the new constitution to authorize the enacting of a Melanesian Act similar to the Banaban Settlement Act. The Act should include amongst others the legalization of land parcels that we currently occupy and the setting up of a Trust Fund.

7. PERPETUAL LAND PROVISION

Given that our major concern now and would definitely persist in the future is the insecure land tenure that a majority of us encounter, we are requesting this august body to endorse our recommendation to legalize all parcels of land that we currently occupy.

This could be achieved by way of enshrining our plight in the new constitution. By reflecting our land issue in the Constitution ensures it is legal and not ad-hoc where government or landowners have the powers to evict us. This is what we have experienced in Namara, Nabuinikadamu, and Navutu. Moreover, economic development together with the change in outlook of educated young landowners, who appreciates the economic value of their land, is another threat that could be alleviated if our land issue is in the Constitution.

We therefore would recommend that the Commission to endorse that all insecure parcels of land we currently occupy be legalized by way of a Perpetual Land Provision. Furthermore, for those settlements within a town or city boundaries be exempted from paying municipal rates.

8. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

The Development Programs under the Ministry of Provincial Development should be shared equally, between the iTaukei and the Multi Ethnic Communities.

9. OTHER ISSUES

i. The Peoples Charter to be included in the new Constitution and any government voted to work in line with the People Charter.

ii. Landownership to be remain with iTaukei under the TLTB as trustees

iii. We would also appreciate that the Fiji Government advocates our concerns to the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

NO	NAME	TRIBE/ORIGIN	AREA
1	Richard Koi	Buka PNG	Ovalau and Eastern Division
2	Lorosio Waqa	Pentecost Vanuatu	Ovalau Eastern Division
3	Antonio Tiko	Ambae Vanuatu	Ovalau Eastern Division
4	Jimi Tawai	Bali Solomoni	Ovalau Eastern Division
5	Selai Murray	Wai Solomoni	Ovalau Eastern Division
6	Inoke Sololo	Vataleka/ Kuwarai Solomoni	Ovalau Eastern Division
7	Jimi Rido	Bali Solomoni	Vanua Levu
8	Jone Kalakai	Kalakena Solomoni	Vanua Levu
9	Jotame Ratuloa	Vataleka Kuwarai	Vanua Levu
10	Gasio Rokoduru	Abrim	Ovalau Eastern Division
11	Agnes Abong	Malekula Vanuatu	Viti Levu and Vanua Levu
12	Jack Koi	Buka PNG	Fiji Wide
13	Eileen Moli	Ambae Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
14	Eparama Siga	Sadro Vanuatu	Central Eastern
15	Tomu Nawako	Sadro Vanuatu	Northern and Western
16	Jone Sade	Merelavo Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
17	Maikeli Tukana	Lakoni Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
18	Akanisi Bole	Motalava Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
19	Miachle Malo	Maevo Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
20	Gasio Rokoduru	Abrim Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
21	Tome Anikisuna	Marata Solomoni	Central Eastern
22	Jale Tora	Marata Solomoni	Northern
23	Are Maori	Marata Solomoni	Western
24	Kelemedi Vokona Replace Aminiasi Abariga February Deceased 2015	Bali Solomoni	Viti Levu
25	Tomasi Aloi	Wai Solomoni	Suva Nasinu
26	Are Marika	Wai Solomoni	Viti Levu South
27	Jale Suvadi	Kalekana Solomoni	Suva Central
28	Demesi Kedei	Vataleka/Kuwarai Solomoni	Viti Levu
29	Jeseva Lasea	Kuwaio Solomoni	Central
30	Fulori Lasea	Kuwaio Solomoni	Eastern
31	Akuila Cama	Kuwaio Solomoni	South and Western
32	Joe Sanega	Chairperson Solomoni	Wailoku
33	Lucy Abong	Deputy Chair Vanuatu	Fiji Wide
34	Laisa Rayawa	President Melanesian Women’s Wing Solomoni	Fiji Wide
35	Are Marika	Youth President Solomoni	Fiji Wide

Fiji Melanesian Council

Fiji Melanesian Council

Monday, 24 October 2016

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Fiji Melanesian Community and the Fiji Melanesian Council