Home » Bainamarama » Distribution of rent

Distribution of rent

Somebody asked me the other day what was wrong with Bainimarama’s decision to stop distributing a share of rents to chiefs? Isn’t it fair?

The first thing that’s wrong is that it wasn’t Bainimarama’s decision to make. The colonial government never made such decisions without consultation. The NLTB was set up by the colonial government under the leadership of Ratu Sukuna after extensive consultation with the Great Council of Chiefs.

All previous constitutions restricted the ability of elected governments to make such changes without broad-based support – a two thirds majority of an elected Parliament – and support from the Great Council of Chiefs.

Only Bainimarama’s arrogance fuelled by years of dictatorship allowed him to make changes without consulting a single landowner.

He will not listen to the Great Council of Chiefs but he follows every word his illegal Attorney General tells him.

Many iTaukei support a share of land rents going to chiefs and they have said this to Bainimarama when he met them after the decision. If a share goes to their chief, the chief can contribute to projects to help their village and their Vanua. If it goes only to individuals it is lost to the community.

Under the present regime money can be sent out of the country to mataqali members overseas if that’s what the mataqali decides and they have a majority of members overseas.

Who wants this apart from a few selfish individuals who think it suits them?

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Distribution of rent

  1. His illegal AG follows everything that Gates and Shameem tell him.

    One down and one to go.

  2. If these chiefs are as popular and respected as we are told it would be easy to get their mataqali members to make a contribution to these chiefs to use for the good of all.

    So what’s the problem?

  3. I don’t have any problem with the equal sharing of lease money introduced by Papa Pig. I guess most chiefs agree given the list of chiefly support provided by the Sun.

  4. Khayium was very smart to divide the i taukei chiefs and commoners and get votes. He introduced equal share to be distributed to every member of the mataqali so in this way each member is getting same amount as the chief.
    Now many i taukei’s are happy about this and say they will vote Khayium/ Bainimarma.
    This is how Bainimarma is getting popular amongst the i takei.
    Because of this many common i taukei will vote for Bainimarma.
    Money counts at the end of day for i taukei.
    i taukei can easily be bought for money!

  5. We have said it many times before: come over to Khaiyum’s party and you will be rewarded with some nice crumbs that fall from the feast we are having. After we have taken away your land with 100 year leases we will change the rules of the game and no crumbs will fall for you.

  6. Are the chiefs semi-god to get a lions share of the lease money and the poor man suffers. Where is the equality and we call ourselves christains.

    M a strong FB person, but if there is one thing I agree with him is the equal distribution of lease money.

  7. This is a social engineering project by the illegal and treasonous regime that is bound to eventually blow up in their faces. It is symptomatic of an idea that either fails to appreciate or is completely ignorant of the deeper, layered and largely unwritten nuances of traditional itaukei communal relationships — and we can only attribute Khaiyum’s thesis as the key trigger.

    Khaiyum’s attempt to ‘democratize’ social units of traditional structures and take a sledge-hammer to traditional communal units towards more individualistic constructs, while capitalising on lease money as the sweetener, simply ignores the basic premise that etched in the itaukei DNA is the innate reverence that land is not merely a commodity.

  8. Khaiyum’s plan is certainly smart and conniving: Throw a few dollars to the peasants and they will kiss his butt. But what about the long term effect of the divide and rule strategy that this sleaze bag is devising? Are we going to accept our land being taken for a handful of dollars? Are we going to accept the demise of our culture, our language our traditional leaders our dignity and our pride as a people? Do we really want to go down in history as the first indigenous people who handed their culture and their identity to a foreign concept to a man whose religion is causing so much grief and harm to christians around the world? Do we really want to do that for a handful of dollars?

  9. ALL CHIEFS ARE highly corrupt and thieves, stealing ordinary landowners EQUAL shre of lease money sine independence.

  10. Khayium has now gone to India to get support of Modi. Modi is not a fool. He has already warned Muslims in India.Modi has warned Pakistan. BJP is a Hindu party with not even a single Muslim having a seat in parliament from BJP.Modi and his colleagues have openly criticised the Muslims in India and Pakistan.They have warned them for any future terrorism in India.

  11. The corrupt, lying Fiji dictator is still yet to register his FijiFirst party. As directed by his puppet master, khaiyum, the names, addresses and signatures of more than 40,000 supporters will be published. This will take up over 500 pages. Wow! But why go to this extreme when only 5,000 signed up members are needed to register their party? Who are they trying to impress or convince? This all smells of desperation.

  12. People are getting it wrong,Lease monies are not only for the elite few but should be shared amongst all Mataqali individuals equally as they equally own everything thats in it .If the people take ownership of their family bonds and Mataqali and villages , they should all decide to contribute after the shares a being distributed and not before equal distribution is done

  13. In Navosavakadua’s view some are more equal than others. He also believes FB should listen to the institution GCC and not all chiefs and the rest of the population. He thinks that whatever the colonial Govt. created cannot be changed or modernized to suit the present generation, environment, way of living and circumstances. He also thinks other landowners cannot just get together and contribute a percentage of their share to their chiefs.

    I think his views are very narrow.

  14. People who cannot shed their jingoistic ideals will cease to exist and this is exemplified in the latest infantile comment by temumu kepa where she proclaims that the GCC is a pinnacle of Fijian society, is she once again speaking through of her anus.

    The formation of the GCC under the auspices and approval of Arthur Gordon was to ensure that the grass roots people had their say and needs addressed to the very body that he sanctioned, however since the 1970’s this body has been hijacked and sodomised by thieving mongrels like kepa her family among other sons of bitches.

    Frank must be commended for the rapid demise of this thieving body.

  15. SODELPA should clearly mention why it does not want the money to be equally distributed.This is a wrong policy of SODELPA and will lead to i taukei voting for FF.

  16. i taukei will limuri Bai in big way at election.Now is the time to take whatever one is getting from the illegal regime. i taukei will never vote for Khayium the destroyer of i taukei!.

  17. I-Taukei villages are institutions where the people are traditionally ranked (chiefs, herald, fisherman, warriors, etc). Just like any modern day organisation there are different roles and level of responsibility for every rank (like in the army, etc). Take some time and observe how things are managed within and around villages. When events (internal or external) occurs sometimes chiefs will appear on behalf of the village or vanua (no chiefs or organisation wants to lose face), so with the modern day demands (everything is valued – monetary), it does not hurt if chiefs have more dollars than normal villagers because they need to be compensated for giving up family and personal time to attend to those events (government, church, vanua, and family). I guess that is the ‘wisdom’ behind why lease money were not distributed evenly. Now that money is distributed evenly….WHY SHOULD CHIEFS OR ANYBODY for that matter want to be involved in policing the roles of individuals within villages. Chiefs should not bother about others (but most cant, because they are proud of their vanua) ….IS THAT THE REAL MOTIVE BEHIND THE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION TO ENSURE THAT THE INSTITUTION (Village) COLLAPSES……Please kemudou mai Delainabua…dou raica vakayalomatua na ka e vakayacori tiko qo..Cava me da vakaturaga kina ena veikorokoro, kevaka eda vinakata me ra qarava nai tavi ni vakasokomuni tamata (tabuyani), vakatulewa maqosa eso ena vukuda nai umauma eda tiko vakavanua, sa dodonu beka mera ‘compensate’ taki me vaka ga edua na manidia se ‘CEO’ koya e sau levu toka ena noda vei vale ni cakacaka…

  18. Yes folks, you seem to get a grip on what the Honourable Khaiyum is doing. With a little bit of land lease tweaking, a little bit of dividing and a little bit of cash he will eradicate the native culture of the savages in the villages. He actually holds the intellectual property rights for these actions as outlined in his uni thesis. And there is nothing you can do about it! He is 100 times smarter, 200 times more decisive and 1000 times more ruthless than the uneducated peasants in the bush. Our clan will have the feast of the millennium when we take your land and lease it to the Chinese for 100 years.

  19. The chinese are taking prime agricultural land to plant cash crop. It is interesting to note that all their workers are i taukei paid cash $15 dollar a day to work on their farms – 7a.m. to 5 p.m. This is going around with all chinese farmers.The land is leased at very nominal rates by corrupt i taukei land unit staff – NLTB. I urge i taukei to unite as Khayium is dividing them further by getting more chinese in the country.Now chinese are taking over!

  20. FINGER-POINTING: FLP assistant general secretary Kini Marawai says “Its not me” but former school teacher Maika Bolatiki, now Managing Editor/News at Fiji Sun, who was convicted of indecent assault on 14-year-old- school girl!

    22/05/2014

    3 Comments

    Picture
    Bucalevu Secondary School, Taveuni: Bolatiki was convicted of indecently assaulting the 14-year-old school girl at this school
    “The complainant was a 14 year old school girl at the time of the incident. She was one of 18 students in a classroom sitting an examination. The appellant was supervising the examination. The complainant was sitting at a desk in the front row. She said that the appellant came and stood beside her on her left. She looked up and the appellant touched her breast with his left hand. She sat up and the accused slid his left hand down her stomach and right to her private part. He then rubbed her private part. He denied touching her breast or private parts…The learned Magistrate made a clear finding that he accepted the evidence of the complainant as truthful. An appellant Court would need very compelling and cogent reasons to interfere with that finding. There are no grounds to do so in this case…The appeal against conviction is dismissed”
    Justice Pain, Fiji High Court, September 1997

  21. The fact which none of my critics seem to be able to comprehend here is that Frank consulted no-one. No-one! And he did not have the mandate of an election.

    He didn’t even have the support of the Military Council.

    We’ll see if the decision has popular support when the votes are counted.

  22. So why not just say that rather than conjuring up some half baked article.

    Yes Frank is in charge along with all those supporting him, like it or not. Governments do not have to consult anyone if they do not want to, like it or not.

    You can whine all you want but he has been there for 8 years now, that does not happen without a lot of support.

  23. Wrong!

    Governments have to consult; elected governments at least. And no elected government would have done what Papa Pig did because land owners would have taken him to court. He did what he did through the power of the gun, without consulting land owners and that is wrong.

    Whether he owns any land worth leasing is another matter.

  24. Friends and citizens of Fiji. The issue of the distribution of land rental incomes is not as simple as many would have us believe. One has to understand the background and history of landownership to understand the issues involved. The rightful chiefs of our Fijian communities owe their authority and trace their lineage from traditional heads of families whose authority and legitimacy were beyond question. These chiefs had all the powers and authority. The members of their communities owed their very existence to these chiefs. The land belonged to the chiefs and their subjects were totally subservient to their chiefs.

    I do not expect voreqe and khaiyum to understand this. They were never a part of this reality. With due respect to our citizens, I can speak on behalf of all chiefs and also on behalf of the subjects because I am a traditional chief by birth. I know and understand what is going on. Someday soon, we will be able to resolve all these issues in the most fairest and just manner. But until then, let me say this. Voreqe and his masters have done a great injustice to native Fijians and ther history and heritage.

  25. Land belongs to the people and not only the chiefs . Majority of the lands in Fiji are owned by mataqali,s so why can’t they be entitled to what is rightfully theirs . These is empoweringg the landowners to decide for themselves . Now they can call themselves as truly owners because they are ripping the benefits . Frankly some chiefs dont own lands or lesser land . The onus for distribution to be left to the people to decide .

  26. Tomasi sa rauta mada na con tiko. We want equal shares as the land belongs equally to all landowners. I am a chief and I agree with this policy.

  27. Thank you RS and friends. Please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to say that chiefs should control everything. Neither am I saying that our Fijian people owe their existence to their chiefs. I agree that the Fijian community is a closely knit group of families who have gone through many years of struggle and challenges. I am trying to draw some historical perspective here to help us appreciate what we have today. You will agree that history helps us understand ourselves better. Before others came, we were here. Our leaders were our elders and the heads of our family units. That was where our chiefs emerged as leaders. I know there are many claimants to chiefly titles which they do not deserve. But overall, our chiefs were our leaders for hundreds of years. As such, when the others came and land became the issue for economic development, it was our chiefs and our elders who were relied upon as the authority for demarcating boundaries, and ownership, etc.

    My understanding of our chiefly system is that they represent their Vanua, families, people, lands, customs and traditions, etc. They were expected to be unselfish and generous, with an open heart to give and to fight for their people. It is sad that this has not been the case and we all know the reasons. Our chiefs are not entirely to be blamed for being unable to confront a system that is foreign and antagonistic to our way of life. But now that the GCC is pushed to the side, we have a Fijian society but without our traditional leaders. We are now all Fijians but we are not. The other members of our nation did not have traditional leaders and a society and way of life such as ours.

    Now that brings me to the land rentals. The previous practice was not a perfect system in that the bulk of the rental income went to our chiefs. From our Fijian traditional perspective, that was both proper and good because of several reasons.

    1. The land belonged to the Mataqali and Yavusa (family unit) and the head of the family unit was the Chief.
    2. As head of the family unit, he was obligated to take care of his people (family). The income from the land gave him the economic (financial ) power to fulfil his responsibilities to his or her people.
    3. The “unfair” allocation of more share for the chiefs has emerged over time because of good reasons too. One is that the chiefs have become selfish, negligent and materialistic in their outlook and practice.
    4. The chief’s rental share reinforced our traditional notion of chiefly obligations and responsibility to their people. Chiefs would be worshipped more and would win the allegienace of their people when they expressed care and love for their people through their selfless leadership and sacrifice for the sake of their Vanua. The wealth of our chiefs were the people. Their measure of success was the unity, harmony, happiness and success of the whole Vanua.
    5. The current innovation in rental distribution does not recognise these subtleties in our traditions and customs. It is a very simplistic, shallow and materialistic view of our society where everybody is equal and everybody owes nobody anything. This I think is very much against our traditional way of life as far as the role and obligations of our chiefs are concerned.

    Equality is a concept that needs to be carefully weighed and understood. It is not necessarily good and neither bad. Equality as a mathematical concept is fine, but when it is applied to metaphysical and spiritual concepts and situations, it can be a problem rather than a solution. A simple example is the case of females and males. Are we equals? Yes and no. The fact that we are different suggests some differences in the way we ought to be understood and appreciated, etc. By the same token, a husband and a wife, a father and his son, or a mother and her daughter, and so on. In short, distributing land rents equally is ok from a certain perspective. It is a perspective based not on long held Fijian tradition and culture which has proved its worth over hundreds of years. It is also a perspective which chooses to ignore the wisdom of history and the proven benefits of discussion, careful analysis and consultation. I submit that the issue of land rental distribution is more than an economic exercise. It is a significant and direct attack to our Fijian traditions and a social experiment that will impact very negatively in the way our chiefly traditions are perceived by the next generations. It is a social experiment where individualism takes precedence over community responsibility and where a once revered and admired society has been dealt a death blow that will cause tremendous palpitations in Fiji over the next decade or so. But that is if we do not let this bunch of selfish and murderous amateurs continue their selfish rule over us. I welcome your opinions. Vinaka

  28. Thanks for another informative website. The place
    elwe maay I aam gefting tthat ype off information written inn such an idseal method?
    I’ve a venturee thwt I am just now running on, aand I have been att thee glance oout for such info.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s