THE PURPOSE DRIVEN DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES– APRIL 2020

Since 2017 I have surveyed the Board Memberships of all Government Entities to determine the gender balance, Chairmanships and Board memberships. I have posted each of the surveys and commented on them.

The reaction from the Government propaganda machinery has been predictable and I have been accused of being racist for producing the survey, while the appointing Ministers responsible for the appointments have not been questioned nor have they commented.

So I am racist for highlighting a deliberate act of discrimination against our majority Indigenous community, but the Ministers who made these discriminatory appointments are not 'racists'.

I have just completed 2020’s and the results are the same so there should be little doubt that these appointments are on purpose and the discrimination is deliberate.

APRIL 2020 SURVEY UPDATE:
GENDER BALANCE: Male: 81% Female: 19%
CHAIRS: FIJIAN: 2.9%; INDIAN: 74.3%; MINORITY: 17.1%; EXPAT: 5.7%
BOARD: FIJIAN: 24%; INDIAN: 56%; MINORITY: 11%; EXPAT: 9%

There is an increasing number of Indian appointees to Boards and Chairmanships from abroad which means that government is prepared to go to the added expense to pay for the travel and accommodation costs of the appointees rather then appoint someone from Fiji.

The Government continues to pay lip service to our women’s rights under Sec 26 (3) (a) in terms of not being unfairly discriminated against directly or indirectly on the grounds of ones ‘gender identity’

To continue to deliberately exclude our 57% [2017] majority indigenous community from fair representation as Chairs of Government owned entities with less than 5% of the positions, while awarding 95% of the positions to the minority and expatriates communities and appointing 77% of Board Memberships from the minority and expatriate community and just 23% from our majority indigenous community is not only outrageous and provocative, it is in direct breach of Sec 26 (8) which states ‘Treating one person differently from another on any grounds prescribed under subsection (3) is discrimination, unless it can be established that the difference in treatment is reasonable in the circumstances.’

The fact that this has continued for the past 4 years and governments only response to this is that appointments are 'merit based' despite the fact that nowhere in Section 26 does it make any reference to 'merit based' exceptions in terms of the treatment of one person verses another confirms that this is a Purpose Driven act of Discrimination.