Published in the Daily Post, Tuesday, 26 & 28 December
2000
Rotumans, a mockery of indigenous rights
By Victor Lal at Oxford
THE Council of Chiefs from the northern Polynesian island of Rotuma
recently called for the establishment of a separate Ministry of Rotuman
Affairs, a body similar to the long established Ministry of Fijian Affairs.
The Rotumans are also being increasingly portrayed as endangered indigenous
peoples of Fiji, who need to be protected front the politically demanding
and economically superior Indo-Fijian community. The Interim government
and some vocal Fijian racial supremacists have not only elevated the
Rotumans as equals office Fijians but have accorded them superior rights
over the Indo‑Fijians: all under the banner of indigenous rights But
historical facts suggest evidence to the contrary. The Rotumans are not
indigenous to Fiji but are merely an ethnic group in our multi‑racial,
multi‑cultural, and multi‑religious country. The time has arrived for
the Rotumans and their Fijian supporters to stop projecting the Rotumans
as indigenous peoples of Fiji whom deserve a special place above and
over other Fijian races The Rotumans who now constitute a recognisable
minority with their own churches and associations, are in Fiji as a result
of the accident of British colonial history.
Like their counterparts - the Indo‑Fijian, Chinese, European, and other
Pacific Islanders. whose ancestral homes are in India, China, England,
Australasia and Pacific Islands respectively ‑ the Rotumans are from
Rotuma, a relatively remote island located four hundred sixty‑five kilometres
north of the northernmost island in the Fiji group. A fertile volcanic
island of forty‑three square kilometres surrounded by a fringing coral
reef and a number of offshore islets, Rotuma is divided into seven districts,
and each headed by a tilled chief. Rotuma has been politically affiliated
with Fiji for more than a century, first as a British colony and since
1970 as part of the independent nation. Rotuma's people who have Fiji
citizenship are, however, culturally and linguistically distinct, having
strong historic relationships with Tonga, Samoa, and other Polynesian
islands rather than with the Fijians.
In the 1840s both Roman Catholics and Wesleyans established missions
on the island. Conflicts between the two groups, fuelled by previous
political rivalries among the Rotuman chiefs resulted in hostilities
that led the local chiefs in 1879 to ask Great Britain to annex the island
group. Like Fiji, Rotuma was directly ceded to Great Britain by a separate
Deed of Cession in the year 1881, on the 13th day of May. It was enjoined
by the British to Fiji for administrative purposes. However, the Rotuman
people never had any intention of becoming part of Fiji or a colony of
Fiji, as a petition by seven Rotuman chiefs in 1970 the to the governor‑general
of Fiji, Sir Robert Foster, clearly reveals on examination. In 1970 the
Rotuman delegation to the London Constitutional Conference on Fiji's
independence requested, amongst other things, a seat for Rotuma in the
House of Representatives for the soon to be independent Dominion of Fiji.
That Rotuma is sovereignty is not an issue. The 1881 Deed of Cession
to Great Britain is testimony to that fact. In recent years, some Rotumans
have even threatened to secede from Fiji because geographically and ethnically
they have little to do with thee Fijians.
And yet the Rotumans are repeatedly portrayed as indigenous to Fiji,
and who are is need of special protection, most recently in the Interim
Government's 'Blueprint for the Protection of Fijian and Rotuman Rights
and interests, and the Advancement oftheir Development’.
The Rotumans and ‘Blueprint'
According to the Interim Government, the Fijians and
Rotumans are the 'poorest of the poor' in Fiji. Interestingly, according
to the 1996 Fiji Poverty Report, the 'poorest of the poor' in Fiji are
not the Rotumans or the Fijians, but Indo‑Fijians. Unveiling the 'Blueprint,
the Interim Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase told the Great Council of
Chiefs on 13 July 2000 that the 'proposals cover issues which have been
of great concern to Fijians and Rotumans regarding the security of their
rights and interests as the indigenous communities in Fiji, and also
the advancement and acceleration of their development, so that they can
participate on an equitable basis in the progress of our country'.
The Great Council of Chiefs heard that the purpose of the Blueprint
for the protection of Fijian and Rotuman rights and interests, and the
advancement of their development, is to bring together all the proposals
to address these concerns. The Council was told that the follow-up action
to be taken comprises the enactment of necessary legislation, the issuance
of appropriate Government directives and the provision of budgetary allocations.
Much of the measures proposed in the Blueprint can be implemented in
the next two years. However, the Interim Government also proposed that
a ten‑year plan for Fijian and Rotuman development be prepared.
Education, for example, Qarase pointed out 'is a very important area
where we need to pay greater attention in order to improve the performances
of Fijian and Rotuman children. A good and successful education is the
most effective pathway to a successful future for each individual. The
10‑year plan can also set out the broad vision for all indigenous Fijians
and Rotumans and for our country as a whole. The plan can thus play an
important role in our current endeavour to bring greater unity to Fijians
and Rotumans. For it is in our unity that we can best protect our future'.
He then outlined the specific proposals summarised below, together with
others, which will be part of this 10‑year plan. Qarase proposed that
a meeting representative of all Fijian and Rotuman interests is to be
convened by Government early in the year 2001 to discuss and to map out
what should be in this ten year plan. This is to ensure that it is a
plan for Fijians and Rotumans by Fijians and Rotumans for their future.
As a way of background, Qarase told the Great Council of Chiefs as follows:
'Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans make up more than 51 percent of the
total population of he Fiji Islands, and their numbers, according to
the 1996 Census, are continuing to grow at 1.8 percent per annum compared
to the national population growth rate of 0.8 percent. They also comprise
the majority landowning communities in Fiji, with customary proprietary
rights to more than 3 percent of all land in the country together with
associated traditional fishing rights, or qoliqoli. Given the above,
anything that affects them must affect the nation. Ensuring the paramountcy
of their interests and their equitable participation in all aspects of
life in Fiji is thus a pre‑condition for the achievement of long term
peace, stability and sustainable development in the country. What is
needed is an enabling environment to facilitate the achievement of these
objectives. This is what this Blueprint seeks to provide. It is to enable
indigenous Fijians and Rotumans to fully exercise their rights of self‑determination
within the unitary State of the Republic of the Fiji Islands. It is to
safeguard the paramountcy of their interests in our multi‑ethnic and
multi‑cultural society.
And it in to improve and enhance opportunities, amenities and services
for Fijians and Rotumans its their development and participation.' Some
of the benefits the Rotumans are to enjoy in the Blueprint are as follows:
- Legislative Action (by Decree) ‑ New Constitution: Preparation of
a new Constitution to be promulgated on 24 July, 2001 (Constitution
Day) to give effect to the collective desire of Fijians that the national
leadership positions of Head of State and Head of Government should
always be held by them. The new Constitution is also to address other
issues of importance to Fijians and Rotumans in line with the Terms
of Reference, as approved by the Great Council of Chiefs. The point
is stressed that it will be a new Constitution.
- Fijian and Rotuman Development Trust Fund ‑ The establishment of
a Fijian (including Rotumans) Development Trust Fund (similar to the
Banaban Trust Fund and the Tuvalu Trust Fund). This is a capital endowment
to be Invested to earn interest income to support Fijian (and Rotuman)
development.
- Compulsory National Savings Scheme ‑ The establishment of a national
savings scheme for Fijians and Rotumans. A paper on this is favour
remaining part of Fiji see a need for improvements in these areas.
The building of a wharf in 1973, the inauguration of the airstrip in
1981, and the recent installation of satellite communication has helped
to relieve the sense of isolation that prevailed throughout the colonial
period. But if Rotuma is to be truly integrated into the nation of
Fiji more has to be done. Improvements to the airport allowing larger
planes with cheaper fares, more reliable shipping, improvements to
the island's infrastructure including roads and facilities, and more
functional bureaucratic channels will all be required. The proposal
for a special ministry for Rotuman Affairs can be seen as a plea by
Rotumans for creating conditions that will alleviate frustrations that
have generated doubts about Rotuma's affiliation with Fiji.
Politically, Rotumans express discontent on two levels. At the national
level they have felt slighted by what they consider under‑representation
in the Legislature. The fact that they were given no seats in the lower
house of Parliament in the original constitution was distressing, and
(the current demand for two seats, one representing the constituency
on the island, the other Rotumans in Fiji, is generally seen as a necessary
correction. From a socio‑political as well as a demographic point of
view this seems justified since the two constituencies face somewhat
different circumstances; their interests only partially overlap.
At the local level, on Rotuma, there is a good deal of discontent with
the current arrangement. Complaints about lack of communication between
the Rotuma Council and the people they serve, about the Council's ineffectiveness
in formulating and carrying out development policies, and about the alleged
self‑serving behaviour of Council members, are widespread.
Many of the people Howard and Rensel have talked to propose reconstituting
the Council so that there are more representatives and its members more
accountable. Whatever support the independence movement has on Rotuma,
and particularly that provided by the M'lmahao group probably derives
as much or more from discontent with the Council as from dissatisfaction
with Fiji. The attempt by the dissidents to replace the chiefs with 'ministers'
from each district is testimony to their anger and sense of alienation.
Quite apart from the independence issue it would seem to be worthwhile
for Rotumans to consider ways to reconstitute a governing body that wound
enjoy popular support as well as authoritative legitimacy.
To date the voices that have received the most attention have often
been the shrillest and the most polarised. Both sides make unrealistic
claims regarding the degree of support they enjoy among tine Rotuman
people. Howard and Rensel believe that before any final decisions are
made Rotumans need to participate in a full discussion of the issues
and to consider a range of practical, workable solutions. Hopefully saner
more reasonable, voices will prevail. At some point, after the options
have been thoroughly debated and narrowed down to those that are practicable,
a referendum might be held so that an assessment can be made concerning
Rotuman opinion.
According to Howard and Rensel, the situation of Rotumans in the nation
of Fiji is unique insofar as they are there as a result of an accident
of British colonial history. Rotumans nevertheless contributed willingly
to Fiji's development during the colonial and post‑colonial periods.
However, the termination of colonial rule, the coups, and the subsequent
withdrawal of Fiji from the British Commonwealth, raise legitimate questions
concerning the legacy of union. Rotumans have good reasons for wanting
to preserve their unique cultural heritage. Many are apprehensive about
being dominated by Fiji, about being nothing more than a neglected minority
in a multi‑cultural state. If Fiji wants to retain and strengthen Rotuman
loyalty it will have to address these concerns and work together with
Rotumans to find satisfactory solutions. For their part, Rotumans need
to formulate for themselves more clearly than has yet been done, through
discussion and possibly referenda, just what it is they want, so that
negotiations can proceed on a firm footing.
Rotuman leader concerned about Regimes Blueprint
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Council of Rotuma, Visanti Makrava has
expressed concern at the Interim Regime's Blueprint for Fijian and Rotuman
development. In an interview published in the Sunday Post, Makrava stated: "Fijians
and Rotumans are trying to compare themselves with Indians and Asians
in commerce. What we don't understand is that the Asians and Indians
are reaping the hard work of their ancestors centuries ago and here we
are trying to jump into something that was never part of our life and
we are getting our fingers burnt.” “This is why I am concerned with the
Interim Government's [Blueprint] idea. It has to be very careful in the
provisions it makes under this document if not then we must expect a
generation of frustrated Fijians and Rotumans if this fails again”.
Makrava was made the Chief Executive of the National Bank of Fiji after
the 1987 racially motivated military coups. He saw the total collapse
of the Bank within a few years through scandalous loans and corruption;
it also cost the taxpayers over $300m to salvage public deposits. Makrava
was forced to resign after the bank dealings were revealed in the
Parliament. An inquiry into the collapse of the Bank and the loans made
has not resulted in any conviction yet.
Rotumans and Qarase at UN
On 16 September 2000, in his address to the 55th Session of the United
Nations General Assembly, the Interim Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase,
again repeated the assertion that the Rotumans are, like the Fijians,
indigenous peoples of Fiji. He began his speech by pointing out the following:
'We are a country of many communities and many cultures. All have contributed
to Fiji's development. We have all accepted each other as citizens and
as communities, and Fiji is our common and permanent home. But we also
have peculiar features, which bear directly on inter‑communal relationships
within our society.' He also spoke on the population: 'We have a total
population of around 800,000. Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans makeup
52 percent and are growing at 1.8 percent every year. The second major
ethnic group is our Indian community. They make up 43 percent of the
population, but with a low birth rate and emigration, this is continuing
to decrease at 0.3 percent each year. The other communities in Fiji are
Europeans, Chinese, and Pacific Islanders.'
The Interim Prime Minister Qarase also touched on the land issue: 'Then
there is land ownership. The Indigenous Fijians and Rotumans own, by
custom, 84 percent of all land in Fiji. Much of the best of this, however,
is on lease for various purposes, residential, commercial and agricultural,
and more than 60 percent of the tenants are members of our Indian community.
Most of the agricultural leases are sugar cane farming leases, and more
than 75 percent of these are held by Indian tenants, and most of these
tenants have lived on their leased land for three generations. In our
urban areas the situation is the reverse. The majority of property owners,
of businesses, of those in the professions, of those working for a regular
income, are non‑Fijians, and mostly Indians.'
He also touched on religion: 'In religion, more than 57 percent of the
population, the indigenous Fijians and Rotumans and the other minor communities,
are mostly Christian. On the other hand, the remaining 43 percent, the
members of the Indian community, mostly belong to the Hindu, Muslim and
other faiths.'
The Interim Prime Minister then spoke on culture and value system: 'Indigenous
Fijians and Rotumans have a hierarchical social structure. Traditional
hereditary chiefs and commoners alike have their place and role in society,
and are bound together by reciprocal obligations of loyalty, obedience,
and of sharing with, and caring for, each other, and everyone in the
community. Fijians value their democratic rights as individuals, but
as a community, they know their place in their traditional society.'
The Rotumans, along with the Fijians, were also portrayed as having a
low living standard. 'And in our general living standards, even though
the indigenous Fijians and Rotumans own 84 percent of the land in Fiji,
they have, on average, the lowest level of household income, and they
also lag well behind the other communities in almost every aspect of
life in a rapidly expanding market based economy'. In the context of
Fiji, what the Interior Government hoped to build was a new partnership
between indigenous Fijian and Rotuman communities, and the other communities
as the basis of living together in our multi-ethnic and multi‑cultural
society, in the 21st Century. Qarase assured the UN that Fiji will return
to constitu- (sic) to be presented to the GCC for its approval. The Fund
is to finance increased Fijian and Rotuman equity and other forms of
participation in business, and also investment in education. The concept
has been discussed before and agreed to in principle in both the FAB
and GCC.
Law on Affirmative Action ‑ Enabling legislation on affirmative action
for Fijians and Rotumans to accompany the relevant provisions of the
new Constitution. FDB Loan Scheme - Continuation of the FDB Loan Scheme
for Fijians and Rotumans but to exclude other communities who are to
he covered by a separate scheme at the FDB.
Do Rotumans deserve Special Status
Before contesting the Rotumans special status in the Blueprint, we may
ask who are the Rotumans in Fiji and Rotuma? Two specialists on the Rotumans,
Alan Howard and Janet Rensel, had put together the following account
of the Rotuman community as a background paper for the Fiji Constitution
Review Commission in November 1995.
Briefly, Fiji census reports that over the past several decades document
a dramatic shift in the distribution of Rotumans, with an ever-increasing
proportion recorded away from their home island. According to the 1986
census, 73.5 percent of Rotumans lived elsewhere in Fiji. Out migration
increasingly has involved young couples who either migrated with their
children, or left Rotuma single, married in Fiji and had their children
here. The high rate of emigration for Rotumans of working age is understandable.
Fiji's diversified economy provides a broad base of employment whereas
Rotuma's does not. Rotumans in Fiji are employed not only by the government
but also by the private sector. After young Rotumans leave the island
in search of further education and employment, many opt to stay away,
to marry and establish families and residences of their own. Some choose
to go back so Rotuma, for shorter or longer periods, to visit, take a
job, fund a spouse, or resettle. Whether or not they return, many Rotuman
migrants actively maintain connections with their home island.
Only 29.5 percent of all Rotumans were living on Rotuma in 1986, while
28.3 percent were recorded an living in Rewa district, 19.7 percent were
recorded as living in Naitasiri and 14.6 percent were recorded as living
in Ba. Comparatively, while indigenous Fijians were also heavily concentrated
in these areas, they are far more evenly distributed across the country.
According so Howard and Rensel, statistics on Rotumans and Fijians suggests
that almost 30 percent of Rotumans would have to relocate to approximate
the population distribution of indigenous Fijians. Off‑island Rotumans
are heavily concentrated in the major urban centers of Fiji, with the
largest concentration in the Suva/Lami area (64.1 percent). An additional
9.5 percent were in Lautoka and 6.1 percent in Vatukoula. Fully 87.8
percent of Rotumans living off‑island were classified as 'urban' in the
1986 census, representing 61.9 percent of the total Rotuman population.
The 1986 Census shows Rotumans reporting high rates of educational attainment,
with 58 percent completing Form One or higher and over four percent reporting
at least some post‑secondary education. In contrast, Fijians reported
47 percent having completed Form One or higher and only 1.5 percent some
post-secondary education. The Index of Difference indicates that Fijian
educational patterns would have to shift 17 percent to approximate the
somewhat higher rates of educational attainment seen among Rotumans.
Rotumans in Occupation
The 1986 Census showed that the majority of Rotuman men were engaged
in cash-based employment (57.1 percent) while Rotuman females were more
evenly split between cash employment and the role of homemaker (27.5
percent versus 40.1 percent). After cash employment, the most likely
activity for Rotuman males was that of student (9.6 percent). A similar,
though slightly less marked, relationship is seen for Fijians with 55.3
percent of Fijian males engaged in cash employment, while 6.7 percent
are students. The somewhat higher percentage of total Rotumans engaged
in cash work is accounted for mostly by more women in the work force
(27.5 percent of Rotuman women versus 17.8 percent of Fijian women).
Correspondingly, a smaller percentage of Rotuman women are categorised
as homemakers.
The projected populations for Rotumans in 1996 and 2006 suggests that
even with moderate fertility decline the greatest growth is among the
youngest Rotumans across the projection period. The overall picture of
Rotuman population growth is one of moderate increase in the foreseeable
future.
[continued from Monday]
Rotumans in Occupation
The 1986 Census showed that the majority of Rotuman men were engaged
in cash‑based employment (57.1 percent) while Rotuman females were more
evenly split between cash employment and the role of homemaker (27.5
percent versus 40.1 percent). After cash employment, the most likely
activity for Rotuman males was that of student (9.6 percent). A similar,
though slightly less marked, relationship is seen for Fijians with 55.3
percent of Fijian males engaged in cash employment, while 6.7 percent
are students. The somewhat higher percentage of total Rotumans engaged
in cash work is accounted for mostly by more women in the work force
(27.5 percent of Rotuman women versus 17.8 percent of Fijian women).
Correspondingly, a smaller percentage of Rotuman women are categorised
as homemakers.
The projected population for Rotumans in 1996 and 2006 suggests that
even with moderate fertility decline the greatest growth is among the
youngest Rotumans across the projection period. The overall picture of
Rotuman population growth is one of moderate increase in the foreseeable
future. This will contribute to Rotumans' maintaining a relatively young
population into the twenty‑first century. Continued fertility decline
will reverse this trend eventually, but a shift is unlikely to occur
in the near future. While the Rotuman population comprises only a small
segment of the total population of Fiji, it has grown substantially over
the past century. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future, though it is highly unlikely that Rotumans will become a numeric
force in Fijian population dynamics. Nonetheless, Howard and Rensel argue,
contributions to a society cannot be measured in mere numbers. In this
regard, Rotuman demographics present a picture of an well-educated, economically
productive people who should be viewed as an asset to the nation of Fiji
as a whole.
Rotumans and May riots, looting
The Interim Prime Minister Qarase explained why it was important to secure
the paramountcy of Fijian and Rotuman interests in Fiji: 'The crux of
our political crisis in Fiji is that indigenous Fijian and Rotuman communities
felt threatened by certain policies which the non‑indigenous leadership
of the Peoples Coalition Government had implemented following their decisive
victory in our national elections in May 1999. It was this fear and anxiety
about their future as the world's only indigenous Fijian and Rotuman
community of just over 420,000 people that led to mass demonstrations
and ultimately the Coup d'etat on May 19th this year. It manifested itself
also in the mass looting of shops, destruction of property, and threats
to people and their families, and unfortunately and tragically, the victims
were mainly members of our Indian community. It was in this serious and
deteriorating law and order situation that the Fiji Military Forces responded
to a request from our Police to take over direct control of law and order
and the protection of citizens. To facilitate this role, the Fiji Military
Forces abrogated our 1997 Constitution on 29th May... However, as the
civilian Interim Administration, we have ourselves taken over from the
Army and, as I have said, we are firmly committed to returning Fiji to
constitutional parliamentary democracy.'
Blueprint and Indigenous Footprint: A Mismatch
From the above analysis of the history of Rotumans, it can be seen that
they are not the indigenous peoples of Fiji. In other words, their historical
footprints from the island of Rotuma to Fiji do not entitle them to a
priority of place in the Interim Government's Blueprint. They must be
treated as equals with other non‑Fijian races and not as the so‑called
'sons of the soil' in Fiji. It is to be sincerely hoped that émigré Rotumans
or those born in Fiji, whether lawyers or laymen, will not hide behind
the sulu of Fijian nationalism to trample upon the rights and aspirations
of the Indo‑Fijian community to benefit themselves and their kinsmen
on the island of Rotuma.
Above all, the Rotumans had no right to join George Speight and his murderous
henchmen to unleash the evil that pervaded Fiji and the Indo‑Fijian community
in May 2000 in the pseudo garb of indigenous rights and paramountcy in
Fiji.
Rotuma only accidentally became a part of colonial Fiji in 1881. The
indentured forebears of the Indo‑Fijian community were already beginning
to build the current prosperity of Fiji as far back as 1879. They not
only created the modern cash economy from which the Rotumans are benefiting
but also shielded the indigenous Fijians from some of the detrimental
aspects of the process of modernization, enabling them to develop at
their own pace. The indo‑Fijians came in a 'slave ship' from India and
not 'a sailing ship', from Rotuma. In fact, the ancestors of the Indo‑Fijians
resembled more the Fijians of the past and the present: they had lived
in nucleated villages before coming to Fiji, had their own traditional
lifestyles, and like the Fijian chief and commoners, had their own hierarchical
social structure, that of Brahmins (upper caste) or charmars (lower castes).
But the harshness of the indenture system and the receding memory of
India created a 'new Indian' in Fiji, as seen in their descendants' ‑
the Indo‑Fijians. As Interim Prime Minister rightly told the UN but without
explaining the causes of fragmentation and differences: 'Indigenous Fijians
and Rotumans have a hierarchical social structure ... With our Indian
and other communities, people are much more individually based. There
is, therefore, greater consciousness and emphasis on one's individual
rights and freedoms ‑ the right to equality, the importance of education,
success in one's professional life, security of property rights'.
Those Rotumans planning to freely ride on the economic back of Indo‑Fijian
toil and sacrifice will be well advised to pay heed to the words and
wisdom on an indentured Indian labourer to his descendant:
pity me not then,
nor mourn for a dying, decrepit man
think of what I was and what you can be for I hope ‑
as I see you grope
your journey from here
will be without fear
as mine might have been
As the Indo‑Fijian community remains 'marooned' in Fiji,
the Rotumans and their leaders must acknowledge that they are merely
equal citizens of Fiji and not indigenous peoples of Fiji. They have
no right to forcibly gorge into the wealth of the nation and expect the
Indo‑Fijians to wait for the crumbs from their masters' table ‑ the supposedly
indigenous Rotumans of Fiji.
The historical footprints of the Indo‑Fijians in every walk of life
snakes longer throughout Fiji than that of the Rotumans or those on the
Kio and Rabi islands. The inhabitants of Kio Island are Polynesians from
Tuvalu. The Tuvaluan Government bought the island in 1948 to relocate
some of its own inhabitants due to lack of fertile land in their country.
Tuvaluans living on Kio are self‑governing but are Fiji citizens. Rabi
Island was bought for the inhabitants of Banaba (Ocean) Island in 1942
as their own island had been ravaged by phosphate mining making it uninhabitable.
Banabans are self‑governing but are Fiji citizens.
However, none of these islanders, including the Rotumans, are indigenous
to Fiji. The Rotumans and their Fijian supporters do not need an Einstein
to calculate which year comes first: 1879 or 1881.
The self‑respecting Rotumans must themselves request to be treated as
equals with other races in any new constitutional dispensation not on
the basis of dubious indigenous rights heritage but as worthy citizens
of Fiji. Their Fijian supporters must stop dragging them into the vortex
of indigenous rights.
VICTOR LAL read law at Oxford University where he has held Reuters,
Wingate, and Research Fellowships in race and constitutionalism in
multi‑ethnic states. He is the author of Fiji: Coups in Paradise, and
is a regular commentator for Daily Post. |