Home » Uncategorized » Rajend Naidu’s letter to the Fiji Sun that they did not publish.

Rajend Naidu’s letter to the Fiji Sun that they did not publish.

I was waiting to read some reaction to mick beddoes’ opinion piece in the Fiji Sun (9/6) but saw none.
Allow me a brief comment.
I have no doubt that mick beddoes is well meaning and sincere in his believe that the motive for the two former prime ministers Chaudhary and Qarase’s new found “copearation” is on account of their commitment to a higher order value ,viz. ” the re-establishment of democracy in Fiji”. And , I think his criticism of pro- Bainimarama regime bias on the part of the Fiji Sun and its columnist Graham Davis has some validity.
Beddoes is not alone in feeling that the Fiji Sun is advancing “opinions that favour the regime”.
But I think the faith that Beddoes posits in the political character and noble intentions of the two former prime ministers and their political coupling is misplaced.
Neither of them demonstrated an abiding adherance and respect for democratic values when they were in power.
Chaudhary was an autocrat pretending to be a democrat and Qarase was an ethno-nationalist. Their anti– democratic conduct requires no elaboration here.
People who are acquainted with Fiji politics know them only too well.
I see them teaming up for one reason only : their mutual political resurrection.
One should not read this criticism of the two political old horses as support for the Bainimarama regime.
I personally think the bainimarama regime has overstayed its original game plan.
The political game tends to do that to people in power.
No elaboration is needed for this either.
yours sinccerely,
Rajend Naidu
36 atlantic blvd
glenfield 2167
ph – 0298227398

40 thoughts on “Rajend Naidu’s letter to the Fiji Sun that they did not publish.

  1. Rajend dont you forget that your son Rajiv Naidu was working in FLP Parliamentary Office as Research Officer and completely endorsed FLP and its Leader model of politics. So why you complaining now? When did you realise that MPC is a bad leader? Why didnt you persuade your son not to work for FLP? You morron……get stuffed,

  2. Rajen Gandu your son was a model wearing sulu . why were you begging at that time to get your son a job in FLP Parliamentary Office . You know your son Rajiv was a non performer despite that Mr Chaudhry took him on board.Have some ethics and be proud that your son had the chance to work in the highest office of the land. You should be the last person talking against Mr Chaudhry.
    Behave yourself otherwise we will come as far as your bedroom.
    Thank You Muslim Leaque

  3. Not surprised that it was not printed in the paper. Just another example of someones personal opinions that really say nothing of any substance.

  4. @Fiji Labor Party Puppets out of Hibernation

    Gali gali mein Shor HAI, MP CHOR-DHARY CHOR HAI

    Do you care to tell us the millions of farmers money in Chor-dhary’s
    Commonwealth Bank account in Australia?

  5. Fiji sun must be investigated by new parliment for corruption and collusion/.

    ban all gov advertisments with fiji sun.

    close it down.l

  6. Victor Lal caught with his pants down …

    [posted 14 June 2012,1245]

    WHERE is that 40-page document Victor Lal that you claim links Mahendra Chaudhry to the 2006 coup?

    In your blog piece (courtesy Coup 4.5) of 5 June 2012 you went BIG on claims that: “Military Council documents link Chaudhry to the 2006 coup: Chaudhry prepared 40-page report against SDL and PM Laisenia Qarase for Bainimarama to overthrow the SDL-FLP multi-party government”.

    Mr Chaudhry and the FLP refuted the existence of any such report prepared by the Labour Leader. Now that your lie has been exposed – you are slinking away with your tail between your legs with a mild: “one of these days…” you will produce the documentary evidence.

    This is exactly the point we are making. You malign people you target without any shred of evidence based simply on gossip or hearsay. If you were an academic and “journalist” of any repute, you would not smear a person’s integrity without solid proof, no matter how much you dislike that person. In this case, you have made it more than obvious that it was fabricated by you to drive a wedge between him and Mr. Qarase

    You are now trying to bring in all kinds of red herrings into the issue, simply to detract attention away from your lies. The issue is: you maligned the Labour Leader without a scrap of evidence, and lack the courage to apologise.

    By your own admission you are one of Mr. Chaudhry’s “bitterest critics” – that reveals a lot about your attacks on Chaudhry. “Bitter” is a very harsh emotion that implies strong resentment against a perceived wrong. That’s the very point we are making: you harbor a grudge against Chaudhry because he once ignored your advice, thereby hurting your ego. Your hatred of Mahendra Chaudhry goes back much longer than the so-called million-dollar case.

    By the way, it’s very interesting how the amount varies with your every article – first it was a million dollars, then it became $2m and in your last diatribe it rose to $3 million. In any case, why are you so rapt up about the money in Mr Chaudhry’s Australian bank account?

    It has never been an issue with the donors of the money – they have never raised any questions about it. So, why are you getting so agitated about it?

    As for the businessmen who pressured Mr Chaudhry to take up the Finance portfolio – these are matters of a personal nature that one does not divulge to satisfy the curiosity of vectors! In any case, if Victor Lal is the investigative snoop he claims to be, why doesn’t he find out for himself?

  7. Millionaire M P ChOR-DHARY CHOR HAI, there is no rush for Victor Lal to release the 40 page document says:

    @Fiji Labor Cohorts

    What justification is there for your chorwa leader MP Chor to accumulate donations in his personal bank account in Australia, that was given to sugar cane farmers of fiji, to be resettled upon expiry of their leases?

    As for releasing the 40 page document, there is no rush for that to be released? hahhhahaaa

    Dr Victor Lal will take his time and release it at the appropriate time.

    Vinaka Victor Lal for exposing the corrupt Fiji Labor Party Leader, M P Chor-Dhary

  8. To Muslim Lick : It is news to me to learn from you that my son “completely endorsed FLP and its Leader model of politics”. Perhaps you know my son better than I do! In anycase we are not a Taliban family. We are a democratic family and everyone has the right to hold their own political views and positions.
    Incidentally I continued to work as a civil servant in the Rabuka government after the 1987 military coup and in the Qarase government after the Speight coup . Should that mean I “completely endorsed” their politics? Muslim Leak please try – I know it can be very hard for someone like you – but please try to think more sensibly.
    To Vishaal : From which part of your anatomy did you pluck your question : why were you begging at the time to get your son a job in FLP Parliamentary Office. I never did that. Any honourable man in the FLP can completely endorse that. So stop lying. I know you might find that a hard thing to do.

  9. Chaudri has bust victor lala’s ass.

    Victor lal sonalevu where is 40 page document.

    put up of shut up sat out of fiji politic

    flp has 99% indian support election tomorrow

    sdl 99% fijian support election tomorrow.

    flp and sdl will form next gov.

    victor lal fark uuuuu

  10. OH, in 2005 he told us he received no money, and now, we are told the money was for him to re-allocate to Australia, leaving his supporters behind – why did he need $2million – to buy Australian Parliament and convert it into a family bungalow?

    India clears Chaudhry on Haryana money

    [posted 7 Dec 2005, 1400]

    Finally, the bureau of investigation in India has cleared long-standing allegations that Mahendra Chaudhry had pocketed monies raised in his ancestral State of Haryana to help in the struggle of the Fiji-Indian community after the 2000 coup.

    The money was raised through public donations by the chief minister of Harayan at the time, Om Pakash Chautala. Chaudhry says he had not asked for the money to be raised, nor had he received a cent of this money.

    After questions from the media regarding the funds, he asked Chautala about the money and was told it was deposited in a Bank in India and would be despatched to him in due course.

    In February 2003, Chaudhry wrote to the External Affairs Minister in the Indian Government about the money and asked that the matter be investigated since his good name was being sullied about something he had not received and knew nothing of.

    But investigations into the matter were blocked by Chautala. At the beginning of this year, Chautala lost the elections in Haryana, defeated by Chief Minister Hooda. Chaudhry raised the issue with Hooda who began an investigation into the affair.

    As a result, Chautala’s son Ajay is now saying that the money ($F38,000) was sitting in a bank and could not be transferred to Fiji because of exchange problems.

    Chaudhry stands vindicated once and for all on an issue that had been raised consistently by his political detractors, trying to sully his integrity and reputation.

  11. Mahendra Millions: unanswered questions over Haryana letter

    Coupfourpointfive has decided to publish one of the series of articles that Victor Lal had published in the Fiji SUN regarding Mahendra Pal Chaudhry’s secret millions in Australian bank accounts. Here, he had challenged the findings of the Inquiry Team which had cleared Chaudhry.
    Haryana letter riddle
    Chaudhry’s tax file raise disturbing questions

    The 148-page thick tax file belonging to Mahendra Chaudhry raise many disturbing questions following the 14-page findings of the three-member inquiry team that has cleared Mr Chaudhry of any tax anomalies.

    In any event, the terms of reference for the “Committee” was to (a) establish whether the tax assessments by the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA) in respect of Mahendra Pal Chaudhry between 2000 and 2006 were carried out in accordance with the Income Tax Act (Cap 201) and any other relevant laws of Fiji; and (b) establish whether there were any breaches of the Exchange Control Act (Cap 211) by Mr Chaudhry between 2000 and 2006 in relation to the tax assessment carried out by FIRCA.

    In view of the narrow limits of the terms of reference and a short time span (7 March to 10 March 2008), the findings are not surprising, for a wide-ranging inquiry would have yielded another result regarding Mr Chaudhry’s tax affairs.

    Since there was no commission of enquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act (Cap 47), the Committee had not held any public hearings, called any witnesses nor taken any written or oral submissions as to facts or law.

    The Committee was however satisfied that the files provided by FIRCA and the materials provided by the Reserve Bank of Fiji were sufficiently comprehensive and contained sufficient information for it to conduct its enquiries and reach its conclusions.
    A copy of the file, however, reveal that Mr Chaudhry failed to declare interest on his investments, understated his income, owed thousands of dollars in tax before he granted a general tax amnesty to taxpayers, and had $2million salted away in his private Australian private bank account which he now, eight years later, belatedly claims was meant for him and his family.
    The mass of evidence confirms my series of tax stories, which I first began in August 2007, with minor contentions. As I explained, I had received his tax documents as far back as 2005, and had sent Mr Chaudhry a series of questions but never received any reply.
    Meanwhile, Mr Chaudhry had neither told FIRCA, nor the Indo-Fijian community, or the nation, that he had received $2million from one Harbhjan Lal of Haryana in India, and that over half a million dollars of that money was secretly transferred into his bank account through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney.
    Contrary to Mr Chaudhry’s assertion, I have never conceded that the $2million was for his resettlement in Australia.

    The unsigned letter dated 9 September 2004 by the mysterious Harbhajan Lal is highly questionable, and invites the question whether it was written ipso facto to persuade FIRCA that the $2million was for his resettlement because in his reply, Harbhajan Lal informs Mr Chaudhry as follows: “You have asked for the details of the funds,” and goes on to provide a detailed breakdown of the funds.
    It is right to ask Mr Chaudhry why, in September 2004, he was asking Harbhajan Lal, whom Mick Beddoes has described as the “Indian Santa Claus”, about the state of the funds in Haryana when from his own Australian bank account, Mr Chaudhry was acutely aware that he had already received $503,000 on 1 November 2000, $486,890 on 22 February 2001, and $514,148.50 on 15 April 2002 from India.
    And on 23 February 2001, a day after receiving $486,890 Mr Chaudhry, on becoming an overnight millionaire ($503,000+$486,890) or someone acting on his behalf, withdrew $800,000 from his bank account.

    There is also no evidence in his Commonwealth Bank of Australia statements, which he provided to FIRCA, that it was definitely Harbhajan Lal who transferred the first two instalments, for the transaction details simply read – deposit – 2070, whereas the third instalment clearly links the money to Indian “consulate general in Sydney.

    It was on 11 May 2004 that the investigating officer from FIRCA informed Mr Chaudhry, “I wish to advise you that information received through surveys taken by the Authority (FIRCA) and also from banks/financial institutions reveal that you are in receipt of income, which has either not been declared or under declared”.

    The FIRCA officer reminded him of the provisions of Section 50(5) of the Income Tax Act Cap 201, demanding that Mr Chaudhry furnish details of interest earned on all private bank accounts operated by him and his family, and among other details, to furnish a copy of the Trust Deed, for Mr Chaudhry had initially claimed that he was holding the $2million in trust for the Indo-Fijian community.

    Again, it is surprising that as a former government auditor, former finance minister in the Bavadra government, and Opposition spokesman on finance in Parliament, Mr Chaudhry was unaware that he had to declare interest on investments he earned abroad.

    The inquiry team in its report stated that, “In particular, FIRCA is satisfied that the non-disclosure (of interest) resulted from inadvertence and arose out of a misunderstanding of the application of Fiji laws to interest earned outside Fiji”.

    But in his 18 May 2004 letter to the investigating FIRCA officer, Mr Chaudhry, while stating that he held no trust deed, had categorically told the officer: “In so far as interest from moneys held in accounts abroad are concerned, please be advised that these have not been brought to Fiji but remain reinvested in the accounts there.”

    He does not mention that he was unaware of the application of Fiji laws to interest earned outside Fiji. There is also no evidence to suggest that Mr Chaudhry approached a tax lawyer for three years to seek clarification on the status of interest earned abroad.

    There is also no evidence that FIRCA was satisfied with the explanation about the investments, for on the margins of Mr Chaudhry’s signed letter another officer scrawled as follows: “OK!! Evidence – source of funds; when did first invest?? Details of Int[erest] earned from when first invested; copies of bank st[atement] if any and evid[ence] of any tax deducted at source.”

    Moreover, despite the team’s finding, on October 5, 2004, after a 3.30pm meeting with Mr Chaudhry’s tax agents, one FIRCA officer observed on the office memo: “More substantive evidence to support the letter.” Mr Chaudhry never provided any more substantive evidence on Harbhajan Lal, for on 10 November 2004 he paid $86,069.62 for income tax for 2000 (Receipt Number 5093831).

    According to Mr Chaudhry’s tax records for the year ending 31 December 2000, he had understated income of $2,815.22. For the year ending 2001, he had understated income of $35,100.52. For the year 2002, it was $65,823.84, and for the year 2003, it was $111,8672.22.

    There is also evidence that on 10 July 2007 he still owed FIRCA $57,672.09 in tax. It is legitimate, under the doctrine of public interest, to request Mr Chaudhry to declare when did he clear the balance: before, during, or after the tax amnesty that he granted to taxpayers.

    It is now for Mr Chaudhry to explain to the nation who is Harbhajan Lal? What committee in Haryana was Harbhajan Lal representing which collected the money on his behalf in 2000, and why was the third instalment transferred through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney?

    Who transferred the first two instalments, namely 2070? Did the Government of India secretly transfer the $2million into his bank account? Will Mr Chaudhry disclose the contents of his letter he allegedly wrote to Harbhajan Lal in 2004 enquiring about the state of the funds?

    What about the other hostages and their families? Weren’t they entitled to a portion of the $2million? Didn’t his parliamentary colleagues suffer at the hands of George Speight and his thugs during the hostage crisis? Did Mr Chaudhry ever tell his parliamentary FLP colleagues and the rank and file members that after his trip to India in 2000 he had finally become a double-digit millionaire, but had $2million in Australia for him and his family’s own personal spending?

    If the money was for his resettlement, why didn’t Mr Chaudhry return the $2million to the original donor or donors once he decided to run for Parliament in the 2001 and 2006 general elections in Fiji? Did he inform Harbhajan Lal or for that matter whoever gave him the money, that he (Mr Chaudhry) was keeping the money for him and his family?
    What must not be lost in the propaganda war unleashed by the interim regime and Mr Chaudhry in the aftermath of the team’s findings, is that he never told any of us that he had been sitting pretty tight on a phenomenal sum of $2million which he allegedly received from his supporters in India, as the team put it, “in order to assist him and his family to relocate to Australia consequent on the circumstances surrounding his ceasing to be Prime Minister of Fiji in 2000”.

  12. Wednesday, July 28, 2010
    Return to Sender, Address Unknown: The Famous Harbhajan Lal’s Letter Returned to Victor Lal

    We may recall that Mahendra Pal Chaudhry had informed FIRCA in 2004 that the millions in his secret Australian Bank Account were sent to him to relocate with his family to Australia following the failed 2000 Speight coup.

    He supported his claim by producing a letter from one Harbhajan Lal (no relation of Victor Lal) to FIRCA.

    The letter purportedly signed by Harbhajan Lal contained his address as Main Chowk, Assandh, Dist, Karnal, Haryana – 132029.

    In April 2008 Victor Lal wrote to Harbhajan Lal on the same address with a list of questions but the letter was returned to Lal with a note scribbled on the back: ‘Incomplete Address’.

    Coupfourpointfive wants to know from FIRCA and the illegal Attorney-General whether FIRCA’s investigating officers had made every effort to trace Harbhajan Lal and the address he gave on that letter dated 9 September 2004.
    In Chaudhry’s 148 page tax file, there is no copy of Chaudhry’s letter to Harbhajan Lal.

    Was the Haryana Letter a forgery?

    If not, did the Three-Member Inquiry Team which cleared Chaudhry, who was then dictator’s Finance Minister, enquire into the authenticity of the letter or the identity of Harbhajan Lal.

    For the letter forms the crucial component of the $2million in the Australian Bank Account.

    Victor Lal had written to Harbhajan Lal in 2008 as follows:
    Respected Harbhajan Saheb,
    Greetings from Oxford. I am writing to ask you if you could enlighten me more on the following attached letter that you had written on behalf of Mr Mahendra Chaudhry in 2004:

    Did Mr Chaudhry tell you what he wanted the letter for, or to which person or authority he was going to send it to in Fiji etc?
    When did Mr Chaudhry write to you?

    In your letter you talk about a “Committee” – Was it the Indo-Fijian Friendship Society that Chautala Saheb had formed when Mr Chaudhry went up to Haryana in 2000?

    Why was the money transferred through the Indian Consulate-General in Sydney?
    Did the Government of India give the whole $2million to Mr Chaudhry?
    I look forward to hearing from you. Signed Victor Lal, 28 April 2008.

    Who is Harbhajan Lal?

  13. There is no personal agenda against Chaudary – Victor Lal in the Fiji Sun

    The Military Council must not be swayed into supporting any media legislation just because the interim Finance Minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry claims that by publishing his tax affairs the media was trying to foster a division between the interim administration and the military council.
    They must come to an independent decision on the documentary evidence that Mr Chaudhry had secretly hid $2million in his Australian bank account from FIRCA, Parliament, the military, and the people of Fiji
    In 2005, he had claimed that he had not received a cent from his ancestral homeland in Haryana.
    And the council must not easily swallow Mr Chaudhry’s claim that the news media and Fiji Sun’s deported publisher Russell Hunter had a personal agenda against him.
    If Mr Hunter had a personal agenda, why didn’t Mr Chaudhry make his (Mr Hunter’s) removal from Fiji a pre-condition for FLP MPs joining the Qarase-led multi-party Cabinet after the 2006 election?
    Why is he raising the issue now? Is it because of the publication of the $2million Haryana story?
    Mr Chaudhry has also accused me of conspiracy, an allegation that I have dispelled in a previous column.
    What was Mr Chaudhry doing when he was criss-crossing the globe, calling upon us, and the various governments, to impose sanctions against the Bainimarama-installed interim Laisenia Qarase government after the 2000 coup?
    Was he, as a former minister Simione Kaitani claimed, encouraging us to commit treason with him against that interim government?
    Mr Chaudhry has no right to complain or accuse Mr Hunter and I over the tax stories. As I pointed out previously, he had every opportunity to end the speculation when the tax story first broke in August 2007.
    But, no, he chose to remain silent, and only went on the offensive when the Fiji Times took up his challenge and named him as the minister concerned.
    What Mr Chaudhry was, perhaps, unaware of was that I had a far more explosive story than the tax story, and that is, that he was hiding $2million in Australia.
    His allegations and outbursts against the media must be interpreted in the context of the $2million story. He is now claiming that the media is racist and divisive – a claim which is patently false and misleading.
    When Mr Chaudhry was ousted in the 2000 coup, one foreign journalist claimed as follows: “For reasons not yet fully explained, Chaudhry however had no honeymoon in office and quickly found himself ensnared in a bitter media war.
    “Part of the problem was, plainly, his own behaviour; he was startlingly arrogant and when confronted with genuine issues of concern (such as hiring his own son to a lucrative post) he responded with all the hostility useful in his former profession as a trade unionist.”
    It is evident that whenever Mr Chaudhry is not happy with a story about him or the FLP, he invokes the words, “personal agenda”.
    In 2000, as Prime Minister and Minister for Information, he removed a radio presenter and then publisher of Daily Post, Thakur Ranjit Singh, from the news and current affairs programme on the Hindustani station Radio Fiji 2, accusing him of being biased against the FLP.
    Mr Singh hosted the twice-weekly programme called “Tanik Hamari Bhi Suno” (Hey mate, listen to me).
    Mr Chaudhry said his government was the “custodian” of the taxpayers’ money and Radio Fiji had a responsibility to be fair, accurate and unbiased. He said Mr Singh violated this and was biased against the FLP. Regarding media criticism, he said: “In the name of freedom they want to commit murder.”
    Mr Chaudhry also suggested that the Fiji Media Council would take too long to handle a complaint. So he took it upon himself to remove Mr Singh from the programme!
    What about the counter-claim of Sir James Ah Koy, the former finance minister and current Fiji ambassador to China, that there was no personal agenda against Mr Chaudhry?
    On February 25, 2008, Sir James stressed that the two FIRCA chief auditors, Lepani Rabo and Joseva Leano, who were sacked last year had no personal agenda against Mr Chaudhry when the two started their intensive investigations against the FLP leader for allegedly evading tax over a period of time and his source of income in the off-shore accounts..
    Meanwhile, on the advice of Mr Hunter I had, on Monday August 6, 2007, sent Mr Chaudhry a list of questions regarding his tax matters to a private e-mail account of his which I had been using over the years to communicate with him.
    It was a formal e-mail and was sent under the Fiji Media Council’s Code of Ethics.
    The e-mail read: “Dear Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, Further to my earlier questions, I would be extremely grateful if you could indicate whether you are willing to confirm or deny that the interim Cabinet Minister that the Daily Post alluded to is none other than yourself. As I mentioned, I am working on a general tax story and your co-operation as interim Minister of Finance would be greatly appreciated.
    “You will also agree that although the Income Tax Act requires the FIRCA to maintain secrecy, it does not permit the taxpayer not to be untruthful in reporting his tax details.
    “Again, I would be extremely grateful if you could explain why you did not submit your tax returns in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, presuming you are the minister in question?
    “Also, why were you allegedly wrong in calculating your earnings, given that you are a former government auditor, a former finance minister in the ousted Bavadra government, and now the official purse keeper of the nation?”
    In the same e-mail I raised other matters: “I would also be grateful if you could answer the questions that I sent you on the Cyclone Ami and the Haryana funds. I hope you fully understand the seriousness of the matter and that your name is now being floating around on the internet, especially on Why Fiji is Crying website.
    “It is therefore in your own interest and in the interest of the nation and the interim government to confirm or deny that you are the minister in question, and are willing to give your side of the story… I look forward to hearing from you, preferably by the end of the week, as my deadline for the story is approaching, and as required by the Media Concil’s Code of Ethics. Yours sincerely, Victor Lal.”
    Mr Chaudhry completely ignored my questions so, on Wednesday August 15, 2007, I ran my version of his tax affairs, without naming him as the minister: “Taxman and the Minister: Revealed: How FIRCA did not believe him.”
    He, thereafter, continued to maintain stony silence, except claiming that an internal FIRCA inquiry had cleared the minister concerned. He refused to disclose his identity until the Fiji Times named him lately.
    Since he declined to respond to my earlier questions, neither I nor the Fiji Sun had any further obligation to ask him why he was hiding $2million in his Australian bank account.
    Now, Mr Chaudhry suddenly claims that Fiji’s media should be licensed because it’s divisive and racist. He said the media is not practising the way it should be and is not following media principles or ethics.
    What were we at the Fiji Sun doing when we sent him a list of questions in August 2007 to answer about his tax affairs – did he think that we had sent him a card wishing him Happy Diwali?
    Mr Chaudhry said Fiji’s media is not responsible with the freedom it’s been given. Frankly, it is he who is abusing his position as a servant of the people, albeit in a non-elected interim Cabinet. According to him: “Media freedom and any sort of freedom come with a sense of responsibility and if the media cannot comply with its own ethics and if it cannot discipline itself in the matters of the ethics and the conduct of the media, then obviously legislation is necessary to ensure that the media does not play a role which is detrimental to the country, which is dividing, which is racist in nature.
    “This is the hallmark of a number of media organisations in Fiji which have not even hesitated to destabilise the country for its own narrow agenda.” he said. Mr Chaudhry said the media in Fiji has earned itself a critical hallmark through its biased reporting. “Because of the bias that the media has shown in relation to a number of issues, the media is creating a political agenda and they have sacrificed the principle of media ethics. They have not reported on matters accurately and in a fair and balanced manner. And they seem to be frequently biased with freedom,” he said
    Mr Chaudhry added there was enough evidence to show why media legislation was important in Fiji. In the same breath, one could argue that there is enough evidence in the three-member team’s report which investigated his tax affairs that warrants a legislation to bar the likes of Mr Chaudhry from ever holding political office, not to mention as the chief treasurer of the nation, and as line manager of FIRCA.
    The report of the independent inquiry into the taxation affairs of Mahendra Pal Chaudhry found as follows: “Mr Chaudhry lodged his tax returns for the 2000 and 2001 financial years together on May 30, 2002, which was outside the March 31 due date for the lodgement of those returns. He lodged his returns for the year 2002 year on December 12, 2003, which was also outside the time allowed. Mr Chaudhry did not declare interest on the Australian and New Zealand financial institution accounts in his return lodged with FIRCA in respect of any of the 2000 and 2003 (inclusive) years.” These were some of the very questions that I had asked him to answer on August 6, 2007, and which he blatantly chose to ignore.
    Now, after thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money was paid to the team, we know that there were anomalies in his tax records, the very anomalies I had claimed in my stories.
    It is not the media but Mr Chaudhry who needs a lesson in ethics and should be subject to legislation – and the Military Council should deal with him immediately.
    We followed the Media Code of Ethics when we confronted him about his tax details. It was he who chose to brush us aside, and adopt an ostrich-like position until recently. He must, therefore, explain about the Haryana letter and who is the mysterious Harbhajan Lal.
    No media legislation can stop our search for the $2million that belonged to the Fiji-Indian community in Fiji.
    The media does not need a lecture in ethics from him nor be subjected to legislation when he ignored questions sent to him under the Media Council Code of Ethics. Perhaps Mr Chaudhry should disclose how much was paid to the three-member team to compile that tax report on him.
    It’s only ethical, since the money paid out belongs to the taxpayers, which includes the members of the Military Council.

  14. It just demonstrates the deviousness of the man – accused Fiji SUN in 2008, when he was Finance Minister, of bias and called for the gagging of the media, and now when he is out of Cabinet, he is defending press freedom

    Threats to Fiji TV

    posted 13 June 2012,1600] FLP website

    Interim Attorney General Aiyaz Khaiyum must confirm or deny reports that he threatened not to renew Fiji TV’s licence if it continues to give coverage to interviews with elected political leaders.

    According to media reports, the threat was issued following TV One’s news coverage of interviews with former prime ministers Laisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudhry .

    If the reports are accurate, then it is a matter of grave concern at a time when Fiji is embarking on the process to restore democracy and constitutional rule.

    It is contrary to repeated assurances given by the interim prime minister as well as the interim attorney general, both locally and to the international community that, with the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations, people are free to speak on political issues and concerns.

    The FLP has been concerned for some time that, despite these assurances, the ground reality is quite the opposite. Local media organisations are still not giving fair and balanced coverage to elected political leaders perceived as “opposition” by the regime.

    The reported threat by the interim attorney general goes to confirm that the media here is still operating under considerable constraints placed on them by the authorities.

    Is the regime so afraid of elected leaders that they must resort to the tactics of a police state to shut them out from the people?

    The FLP intends to raise this matter with the Constitutional Commission and other relevant organisations because it is now very clear that the process of taking Fiji back to democratic rule via general elections is not taking place in a free and fair environment.

    The process can hardly be described as inclusive and participatory if the voice of elected political leaders is going to be gagged by the regime.

  15. In 2008 he conspired with the illegal regime to deport Russell Hunter as publisher of Fiji SUN to hide further disclosure of his sordid tax details. The end result was the appointment of pro-regime publisher Peter Lomas. Now, the monster he created has turned against him:

    Fiji Sun – a puppet of the regime

    NFU replies to Vaniqi

    [posted 22 May 2012, 1500] Fiji Labour Party website

    Despite the removal of restrictions on the media with the lifting of the PER, the Fiji Sun continues to ignore statements that are critical of the regime’s actions and policies.

    The Sun did not run a statement by National Farmers Union general secretary Mahendra Chaudhry on 15 May in reply to an attack on him by Permanent Secretary for Sugar Manasa Vaniqi which had appeared in the Sun.

    Yet on 21 May the paper published a lengthy reply by Manasa Vaniqi to Mr Chaudhry’s comments, again attacking the NFU General Secretary. It made no mention of comments made by Mr Chaudhry which prompted the second reply by Vaniqi.

    The Fiji Sun has simply become a stooge of the regime. Is it a case of media ethics being jettisoned to serve the commercial interests of its owners? The paper is blatantly one sided in its coverage of news events, does not bother to seek a response to attacks on people carried in its paper. It does not even provide a right of reply afterwards.

    This is a gross violation of the media code of ethics which has a basic requirement that media organisations provide fair, balanced and accurate coverage, and a right of reply to anyone attacked in articles run by the media.

    This newspaper is a disgrace to the media world and its publisher, editor and other senior editorial staff deserve rebuke from the people at large in the strongest terms.

    The Fiji Sun like any other media organization carries a heavy responsibility to inform the public accurately. In running government propaganda without question and without looking at the accuracy of its claims, it is doing a great disservice to the people of Fiji. It is disseminating false information.

  16. Finance Minister Chaudhry says he has no money in overseas bank accounts - really, where did the $2million suddenly pop from - lottery win? says:

    Name minister, Chaudhry says

    Friday, February 22, 2008

    INTERIM Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has challenged the media to name the Cabinet minister accused of evading tax payments in past years.

    “What are they afraid of,” he challenged.

    “Why can’t they just name the minister they say owes taxes or has been evading taxes?

    “I am waiting for them to come up with a name or identify the minister.” Mr Chaudhry said such media reports were useless if the culprit was not identified.

    “I hope they name the person and I am waiting for that then we can move on from there,” he said.

    “The Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority will be responsible for any investigation once the person has been identified.”

    On whether it was he who is alleged to owe taxes, Mr Chaudhry said: “I won’t comment on it. Let them name the person.” He denied owning properties abroad and having bank accounts overseas.

    “Let the accusers come forward as these are just speculations. Let them name the minister,” Mr Chaudhry said.

  17. Lest we forget Chaudhry’s bank account in New Zealand


    “As Winston Peters, the former Foreign Minister and New Zealand First party leader, fights to save his reputation over a $100,000 gift scandal from a wealthy business tycoon, a group of former Fiji residents in New Zealand, who do not want to be identified at this point, want to know from the leader of the Fiji Labour Party Mahendra Chaudhry about the source of his funds in a New Zealand bank account which probably stood at $400,000 in 2004.

    There is hardly any discussion or information about Chaudhry’s bank account in New Zealand, with the three-member inquiry team into his tax affairs, concluding as follows: “As noted above, FIRCA’s file does not disclose how they concluded that the monies invested into the New Zealand term deposit in September 2000 were non-taxable, although the committee notes that those funds were invested soon after the events of May 2000, which led to Mr Chaudhry ceasing to be Prime Minister of Fiji and very close to the times at which the deposits into the Australian account were made.

    “In any event, the amount invested into the New Zealand account was small (less than 8 per cent of the total funds invested in the Australian and New Zealand accounts).”

    It is instructive to recall that FIRCA and Chaudhry had repeatedly taken shelter behind the confidentiality clause in Section 4 of the Tax Act but as I have argued, the Act does not give the taxpayer the luxury and freedom to hide millions from the nation. I wonder what conclusion we would have drawn from the team’s findings and Chaudhry’s denials if I had not come into possession of his tax file, which also contains details of his New Zealand funds.

    On 26 September 2000, Chaudhry had opened an account with ANZ bank in NZ, three months after he was released by George Speight from Parliament.

    On 1 June 2004, a month after FIRCA began closing in on him, he wrote to the bank requesting interest earned on his account number 981000000116059.

    On 16 July, the ANZ bank wrote to him detailing interest he received on the above account between 26 March 2001 and 26 September 2003. Chaudhry received interest income of $NZ23,274.47 or $F24,575.76. The exact amount of funds Chaudhry had in the bank there is not known, but according to forensic accountants, working backwards from the interest he received it was probably $300,000 to $400,000, raising the question of the original source of the New Zealand funds.

    The question that arises is why Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Electoral Reform, Public Enterprises and Anti-Corruption, Commerce, Industry and Tourism, has not responded to Chaudhry’s latest denial on Fiji TV, and by extension, to the people of Fiji that no money was received from India? After all, Khaiyum had announced the inquiry team with much fanfare claiming it was being done in the name of good governance, accountability, and transparency.

    What has a member of the inquiry team, the local educationist and former Deputy Prime Minister Taufa Vakatale, have to say to Chaudhry’s recent statement on Fiji TV? She might also want to explain why the team concluded that the amount invested by Chaudhry was small?

    It is time for Fiji’s lawmaker Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to confront Chaudhry’s bluff and bluster while the FLP leader is going around the country preaching about the People’s Charter. Chaudhry should be telling the people of Fiji about his millions, including the source of the funds in his New Zealand bank account. And, who is the “Indian Santa Claus” – one Harbhajan Lal of Haryana, whose letter Chaudhry tendered to FIRCA to convince the tax body that the $2million was from India? In fact, he was only able to invest in the thousands after he received the money in three instalments into his secret Sydney bank account.

    There is now a need for a Commission of Enquiry into Chaudhry’s mysterious millions because the three-member team was not constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Cap47) and, therefore, did not hold any public hearings, call any witnesses nor take any written or oral submissions as to facts or law.”

    Saturday, 02 February 2008 23:39
    Posted by a blogger called “Honest” on freedom blogsite SoliVakasama , here
    is an article by Victor Lal written in August 2006 that raises grave questions
    about the CHODOPU$$ and substantial funds donated by mainly overseas
    Fijians to help victims of the devastating Cyclone Ami five years ago.

    Honest Says:

    February 1, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    In response to ex-tourist, we have to be careful with Chaudhry – its nearly two
    years and yet he has not answered VICTOR LAL questions which our champion
    had put to the crook on 10 August 2006:

    Where are Cyclone Ami Funds?

    ‘Everyman and his dog’, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry acidly told Radio Australia
    lately, ‘knows who is the leader of the Fiji Labour Party in Fiji’. But hardly
    anybody knows how much money was allegedly collected by him as general
    secretary of the National Farmers Union nearly three years ago, and
    distributed to the 2003 Cyclone Ami victims.

    To date, neither Mr Chaudhry nor the NFU have provided any financial report
    of the money collected. The funds were allegedly collected worldwide and
    reportedly deposited in the Bank of Baroda in Fiji. We were told to send our
    donations to the following person: Secretary, Mr Mahendra P Chaudhry,
    National Farmers Union. Account: Cyclone Relief Fund. Account No: 155728.
    Bank: Bank of Baroda, Suva, Fiji Islands.

    Surprisingly, only recently the FLP parliamentarian for the Macuata East and
    Cakaudrove Indian Communal, Vijay Chand, claimed in Parliament that people
    in his constituency in Macuata still have not received hurricane relief rations
    after the devastating Cyclone Ami. He said people were still awaiting materials
    for hurricane relief houses, which had been promised to them but not
    delivered. Who promised them – the Government, the NFU, or other non-
    governmental organisations?

    Several individuals and organisations emerged during and immediately after
    the cyclone to launch an international money-raising campaign for the victims,
    especially on behalf of the Indo-Fijian cyclone victims. Three organisations, the
    International Congress of Fiji Indians (ICFI), the Mahendra Pal Chaudhry-led
    National Farmers Union (NFU) and GOPIO, the US-based Global Organisation of
    People of Indian Origin, were the most prominent in the collection of funds.

    The ICFI launched a campaign in Sydney, spearheaded by Dr Karam Singh,
    president of the Australian branch, and Dr Umanand Prasad. In New York, the
    legendry Indian Bollywood actor DevAnand kicked-started the GOPIO Cyclone
    Ami Relief Fund, calling on donors to send their tax-deductible contribution to
    one Dr Sushila Gidwani of New York.GOPIO estimated that there had been
    over $50 million in damage along with deaths and destruction.

    Fiji golfing hero Vijay Singh had extended his support in the GOPIO efforts to
    raise funds. GOPIO had designated president-elect Inder Singh to be the
    coordinator for Fiji Cyclone Relief Fund. It organised a fund-raiser in New York
    in the presence of Dev Anand, a life member of GOPIO, at The Tandoori
    Restaurant in Rego Park, Queens.

    Launching the New York appeal GOPIO, of which I was a founding member in
    the 1980s, assured us that “GOPIO will take advice from former Fiji Prime
    Minister Mahendra Chaudhry who has been actively involved in the relief and
    rehabilitation efforts in the affected areas” on the distribution of food and

    The NFU, in a report posted on the efijian.com website, called upon us to
    respond generously, pointing out that most of the victims were Indo-Fijian
    cane farmers. Since they were already on the receiving end of the
    Government’s racist land eviction policy, they could not be expected to rely
    upon the Fijian state for any assistance or sympathy. Any assistance that we
    could provide would, therefore, be really appreciated.

    A senior member and former Cabinet minister of the FLP has claimed that
    when Cyclone Ami struck, Mr Chaudhry was abroad. It fell on this particular
    parliamentarian to contact the FLP office in Suva. A female former Indo-Fijian
    journalist member of the FLP office staff allegedly provided him, curiously, with

    the NFU instead of the FLP account number listed above and the designated

    The parliamentarian, allegedly with Mr Chaudhry’s approval/ then circulated
    the details to the potential donors via the efijian.com website. And it was to
    this bank that many of us from around the world wholeheartedly responded, in
    the hope that the money would reach the victims.

    To date/ we are not sure if the money reached the intended victims for neither
    Mr Chaudhry nor the NFU have provided us with a detailed balance sheet.Let
    me make it clear at the outset. None of this should be read as accusing Mr
    Chaudhry or the NFU of serious fraud but in the absence of any detailed report
    in the last three years, we have every right to enquire whether the thousands
    of dollars reportedly collected from around the world reached the intended
    cyclone victims.

    But one may ask, why raise the issue now, nearly three years later? It is a fair
    question. It only occurred to me now after I recently read Mr Chaudhry
    demanding an immediate audit investigation into the funding for the 2003
    South Pacific Games held in Suva, the same year that the Cyclone Ami had
    struck/’lt is three years now since the Games were held, yet a financial report
    on the SPG accounts has still not been presented to Parliament by FASANOC
    and the Ministry of Sports,” said Mr Chaudhry.

    In a statement he said his party had been informed that a sum of $18 million
    was spent on the Games, of which the Government made a substantial
    contribution of some $7 million. Mr Chaudhry said taxpayers had a right to
    know how this money was used and why an audited report of the finances had
    not been submitted.

    Mr Chaudhry asked what was the cause of the delay. “Is it true that efforts to
    get detailed accounts are being thwarted by certain persons in the
    Government and FASANOC as well as some private contractors?” said Mr
    Chaudhry. “Taxpayers are entitled to an immediate explanation on why it is
    taking the games committee so long to file a financial report. Any organisation
    which benefits from public funds must account for every cent.”

    However, organisers have refuted Mr Chauhdry’s allegations. FASANOC
    president, Vidya Lakhan, said it appeared that the information given to the FLP
    was not as reliable as claimed. The Fiji Government did not provide $7 million
    but $1.9 million. Similarly, we demand to know whether Mr Chaudhry is aware
    that money was collected and deposited for the victims in an NFU bank
    account in the Bank of Baroda.

    If so, to date, why have we not been provided with a balance sheet, like the
    one he is demanding from FASANOC? What is the truth about Cyclone Ami

    The ICFI recently sent me a detailed account of how much they had collected
    and distributed to the Cyclone Ami victims. The Congress provided F$300 cash
    each to ninety-four families to rebuild their homes and provided food parcels
    to 250 families immediately after the cyclone, it says.

    Six members of the Governing Council of ICFI visited Fiji at their own expense
    and provided assistance. It must be pointed out that ICFI’s contribution was
    independent of Mr Chaudhry and his NFU. Mr Chaudhry, on the other hand, is
    yet to reply to my queries, which I sent to him nearly two months ago. Nor has
    he, as general secretary of the NFU, provided us with any detailed public
    statement on the Cyclone Ami funds.

    To refresh our memory, to date, Mr Chaudhry has not responded to some of
    the questions that I raised:

    When did Mr Chaudhry learn of the funds collected for him in his ancestral
    homeland? What did he do to encourage or stop the collection of funds? Why
    has the Indo-Fiji Friendship Society (IFFS) issued denials and clarifications now
    and not Mr Chaudhry or the FLP? Was Mr Chaudhry patron-in-chief of the IFFS,
    as claimed by its secretary Sher Singh Badshami?

    The collection of massive amounts of funds from overseas Indo-Fijians has
    become a routine affair over the years whenever a natural calamity or political
    upheaval has fallen upon the Indo-Fijian community, with no reciprocal
    accountability in the process. And three years is a long time for us to wait to
    find out what actually happened to our donations.

    The Cyclone Ami victims, according to the FLP parliamentarian Vijay Chand, are
    still waiting for help.

    Mr Chaudhry and the NFU cannot tell us to simply sod off. We have every right
    to know whether Account No 155728 existed with the Bank of Baroda. We also
    want to know what happened to our own individual donations and how the
    money was spent.

    Mr Chaudhry must not be allowed to deploy shifting explanations as he did
    during the Haryanagate scandal.

    He has a penchant for accusing others of fraud and financial mismanagement,
    to take FASANOC as an example, where he stated that “There are reports of
    huge amounts of money having been misappropriated or paid as kick-backs to
    certain individuals and government officials associated with the Games”.

    Applying the same yardstick, Mr Chaudhry should himself put the record
    straight about the Cyclone Ami funds.

    We, as charitable bystander shareholders to the suffering of the Cyclone Ami
    victims, have every right to demand a detailed account from him and the NFU.
    That is, if he admits that he had sanctioned the setting up of the account in his
    and that of the name of his union.

    The Bank of Baroda, as a reputable bank, also owes us an explanation. Their
    logo comprises dual ‘B’ that holds the rays of the rising sun. According to its
    promotional pitch, “the sun is an excellent representation of what our bank
    stands for. It is the single most powerful source of light and energy-its far
    reaching rays dispel darkness to illuminate everything they touch.”! hope that
    it will enlighten us on the issue I have touched upon.

    What is the truth Mr Chaudhry? How much money was collected in total and
    how much of it was distributed to the cyclone victims in 2003? Did you know of
    the existence of Account No 155728 in your name, and that of the NFU in the
    Bank of Baroda?

    Did Account No 155728 ever exist for the benefit of the Cyclone Ami victims?
    Did GOPIO hand over any funds to you, Mr Chaudhry, which it collected in New
    York? Or did another rogue and heartless fraudster swindle us in the name of
    the Cyclone Ami victims, and ride away on a galloping horse with the loot, into
    the Fiji sunset?

    We want a public balance sheet, and now.

  19. While I do not agree with Victor Lal’s method of inquiry regarding Chaudhry I would welcome a full investigation to put to rest once and for all these accusations.

    As for Chaudhary at some stage in his life he may been an honest person, however greed has a funny way of turning honesty to dishonesty and that is not Chaudhry’s but also Qarase’s dilemma.

    Chaudhry problem is the fact he tells one lie to cover up another and from that the lies multiplies to the point of where he believes such lies to be the truth.

    The Nation must not be deluded into believing these two prevaricators (Chaudhry and Qarase) have the Nations best interest at heart for each are motivated by greed.

  20. Rajend Naidu I understand you had burnt late night candles to draft a response,however do you still want to continue on this issue or you prefer to put this matter to rest. As I see you are a very very small fry and I don’t want to waste my time engaging in your gabbage . your response is warranted.

  21. Let me respond to this SOB who is questioning National Farmers Account from Mr Chaudhry. Maichood have you or anyone in your generation has ever planted a stick of cane. If yes than give the following details: Name
    Farm Registration Number
    Name of the Gang
    If no than shut up you have no authority to question on this matter. What Mr Chaudhry does is between cane farmers to decide not a fuckwit like you worry. If you are a product of genuine parents then fucken front up and write under your own name[SOB].

  22. Sagayam-Saweni Lautoka.

    Is your organisation part of the rort that has permeated the sugar cane industry?

    Has Chaudhry served the best interest of all the cane farmers or a certain clique of people?

    Is Chaudhry the best person for the job if so can you give reason why?

    Does Chaudhry have the support of the entire cane farmers union if not why not?

  23. Yes, Ratu Sai Teri Maichood the answer is :Name the leader who has CONTINUOUSLY served the cane farmers of Fiji from 1978 till TODAY {34yrs} you were not in the shell since than maichood.

  24. Sagayam-Saweni Lautoka

    I think you should control your foul language calling Victor Lal a “maichod” – his mother died some years ago ( he couldnt come to her funeral because he was banned from entering Fiji; the same applied to him when his father and sister died respectively – Rabuka had put him on banned list for standing up for Indo-Fijian rights after the 1987 coups), so be ashamed of yourself. His late father’s sister (Victor’s aunty) had a big farm in Rakiraki but lost
    everything when the land lease was not renewed. Chaudhry should be ashamed of himself for hiding those millions from us. At least Victor exposed him, and has continued to speak out against Mahend’s millions. Its a moral question – and good on you, Victor! At least you are not a blind supporter of Mahend, Victor. Sagayam be ashamed of your language. Mahend is a shame to Indo-Fijian community

  25. Sagayam-Saweni Lautoka.

    You frickin idiot answer the questions.

    Not more excuse’s luveni coolie.

  26. I think this answer will fit you well: boil shoes and drink soup,wear banana leaf stay in bush you cannibals .

  27. To Muslim leek : My “under-performing” son has also worked as a research assistant at the University of the South Pacific and at UNDP. Who went begging to get him these jobs? Tumaar Bap!
    To Visaal : you say you will come right up to my bedroom. Please do. I have a big stick waiting for you. You will get a kuita you will never forget. This is a forum for intelligent discourse on matters of importance for Fiji and its people . It clearly is not a forum for an intellectual imbecile like you.
    You and muslim league and others like you belong in the ” Moo Kolo Tatti” category. So yes, I will not waste my time any more with you lot.

  28. Sugarcane Farmer my apologies to victor lal as I was not aware of that incident however I now shift all those good words to you maichood if seems you were born in the sugar cane farm

  29. Rajen Naidu sala MADRASI YP Reddy ke Pelehar you don’t know how to pronounce and write a proper word in your own mother tongue. your danda is very weak that’s why i have to come as far as your BR. Your son was fired By Mr Chaudhry as he was a non performer. ok jhattu.

  30. To Vishaal : You are such a pathetic compulsive liar. My son Rajiv Naidu was NOT fired by Mr Chaudhary as you lie. After the expiry of his appointment as Temporary Administrative Officer his appointment was infact extended by the Secretary General to Parliament. Why would a “non- performer’s ” appointment be extended? And, my son had himself resigned from his position as the Research&Administration Officer[AO3] (SSO3 position at PSC) at the Opposition Office in the Parliament of Fiji.That’s a FACT. You are a semi-literate arsehole who is an unfit person to engage in a rational discussion. You need a big pitana to set you straight.

  31. Hi Kemuni, kerekere maca,

    Can we leave personal abuse, name calling, and specially not bring in other poster’s family and children please.

    The accumulation of millions by Chaudhary in an overseas bank account is a legitimate matter for discussion. It is distasteful and wrong for someone to use his official position for personal gain.

  32. To Vishaal – Paramata Sydney : Let me set the record straight for an ignoramus like you. I have had absolutely no contact or dealing with YP REddy in my entire life and I am now 57 years old. Perhaps I should have. In all likehood I would have had more then the $6531.90 I have in my bank account in Australia. You see I have never made anything on the side or under the table in my entire working life as a public servant unlike some people I know – including some high profile political leaders in Fiji. who semi-literate arseholes like you admire and worship.

  33. Rajend Naidu why don’t you admit the fact, I don’t want to reveal more of your nonsense but ya don’t deny that you were YP Reddy’s wheelbarrow boy at some stage.

  34. @ rajend

    Try not to get too enraged but what seems to be pathetic rantings of the FLP.

    Victor Lal’s point is, and always will be, completely valid. Until a proper investigation is completed (i.e. not by the Regime), the FLP will remain clouded by what appears to be Mahen’s acceptance of the CBA millions – if he wants to clear his name, it is for him to do it – not rely on backroom deals with the Bainimarama regime to exonerate his name.

    Having said that, both the FLP and the SDL still have my vote for any election – hell, I would even vote for a one-legged bus driver before I would ever vote for Frank and his forty theives.

  35. @Vishaal Paramata Sydney : In an argument between a sensible man and a ranting nut, the nutcase will always win.Vishaal is the clear winner in this contest. Congratulations Vishaal! You get a good big pitana as your winning prize!

  36. Choor , hit and run. What more to know about him.

    34 years in sugar industry, say no more, explains why sugar industry is so farked.

    1 year as PM, brought on coup against the people of Fiji. Refused to take advice from his Minister of Defence and Home Affairs.

  37. For body shape, you should consider canvas tote bags.
    Real life can be equally surprising. They aren’t the most practical tote bags if you have your bridesmaid’s name embroidered
    on the bags. And it occurred to me how a
    reader might actually FEEL about my characters. It
    is truly an amazing For Sale Womens Brown Vintage Shoulder Handbag – KCMODEI n stock.

  38. We have valuable information on the current Fiji government dictatorship and a specific diplomat (SS Kelera) at the Fiji Embassy in Japan currently involved in kidnapping, child neglect, misuse of diplomatic powers being aided my the Ambassador of Fiji in japan, Mataitoga, and the Current Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ratu.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s