The new Chairman of Fiji’s Media Industry Development
Authority, Ashwin Raj, has been cracking the whip on the nation’s press – and even
on overseas journalists – ever since his appointment last year. His stridency is
in sharp contrast to the style of his predecessor, FNU literature scholar Professor Subramani, who kept a
low profile and seemed reluctant to carry out the regime’s media diktats.
Ashwin Raj lays down the law to Fiji's media |
Raj
apparently suffers no similar compunction about playing the role of media commissar, and his
assault on the press, both foreign and domestic, over the past six months has been dizzying. Basking in his new-found limelight,
the previously obscure Raj has unleashed a vocabulary that would drive even the
most erudite faculty member to a dictionary. By attempting to impress with polysyllabic
prowess, however, the diminutive failed academic displays an intellectual
inferiority complex that is as enormous as it is obvious.
Raj first moved against Fiji's media last October, when he announced
that MIDA would set up a media monitoring unit to ensure that
coverage of the coming election campaign will be balanced and unbiased. He also
announced that freelancers, public relations operatives, and foreign journalists in Fiji
would henceforth have to register with MIDA and follow the regime’s restrictive Media Decree. The Cook Islands-based Pacific
Freedom Forum spoke out against the added restrictions as “another layer of scrutiny in what is already a tightly
regulated media environment.” Some Fiji
media actually dared to report on that story, which apparently led to a sharp private rebuke from Raj.
At the annual Attorney-General’s conference in December, Raj lashed out against those who saw the Media Decree as an attempt to gag the press.
At the annual Attorney-General’s conference in December, Raj lashed out against those who saw the Media Decree as an attempt to gag the press.
Alarmingly, little effort has been made to actually enter the protocols of the Decree and read through its provisions, which provides a nuanced framework for the enforcement of media standards. If media holds the State accountable, the question then is ‘who guards the guard?’ What legal recourse does the public have in the event that the media has wronged them?
But these were merely appetizers for Raj’s showdown with journalists
in the New Year. At the Pacific Islands News Association conference in Noumea
in February, he took umbrage with ABC journalist Sean Dorney telling an interviewer that some there felt the press in Fiji “wasn’t as free and open . . . as it should be.” At a social function that evening, Raj reportedly went off on Dorney, who had also privately urged that PINA should stand up more for press freedom, calling
him a two-faced “Janus” and promising that he would never be allowed back into Fiji .
He followed that up with a letter of protest to the ABC’s Managing Director that threw around howlers like “asseverated,” and “epistemic,”
as if to show the Australians how intelligent he was. “Mr
Dorney’s lucubration’s [sic.] are mired in generalisations without any substantiation,”
railed Raj, who simultaneously deemed MIDA a rousing success with regional
governments. “Five months into my appointment, MIDA is beginning to enjoy the
trust and confidence of the international community.”
The silliness continued in what can only be described as
MIDA’s own version of March Madness. Unable to extract retribution against
Dorney, Raj dragged into his feud the
Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, which is funded by the ABC administered by ABC International, forcing it to cancel a planned workshop for journalists in Fiji .
Raj then demanded that PACMAS distance itself from the ABC
and Dorney. In outlining his independent media monitoring unit of "people who have a wealth of experience in the media
industry," Raj then announced that he would also require all media outlets to disclose their editorial policies. “I need to know
why certain letters get published at the exclusion of others.” The craziness recently culminated, of course, when Raj could simply stand no more of the Fiji media’s insolence and insubordination. After Fiji TV reported a speech by a chief in the prime
minister’s home province that pointed to ethnic divisions in Fiji society, Raj deemed it hateful and summoned the press for
a stern tongue lashing, even admonishing assembled journalists for discussing such issues on social media like Facebook.
All of which begs the question, who on earth is Ashwin Raj?
He has absolutely no media experience in his background, from what I can tell,
and as such he would be highly unlikely to enjoy even a scintilla of confidence among
members of the industry he regulates. His most extensive media experience, it seems, comes from reading newspapers and authoring the occasional response. “I would engage with the media as a
bystander,” he has explained. “I’d write letters to the editor.” His lack of expertise on media issues is painfully obvious, and his independence is highly suspect. “I’ve got a six
member board that keeps me accountable,” he has said, yet the membership of
MIDA – which is supposed to include representatives of women,
children, and consumers, in addition to the Solicitor-General and someone with
media experience – is apparently a closely-guarded state secret.
He is also not a lawyer, as he freely admits, which you would think might come in handy for someone tasked with administering a regulatory act. “I’ve always read law
from the perspective of society,” he reasoned for journalists.
It’s one thing to have pure, legal interpretation of the law and another to say, well what does it mean for society and how does society think through legal instruments? Law means nothing unless and until it materializes in the lives of people.
So what do we know about Ashwin Raj and his actual accomplishments? Does he have any to his credit? It is highly unlikely
that any journalist in Fiji would dare investigate, much less report on his background, or lack thereof, under
the current reign of media terror over which Raj presides. That leaves it to this
blog to find out what is known about him and publicize it in order to put the current media climate in Fiji into context. In his day job, Raj is a mid-level
administrator at a regional university. He comes from an extremely modest background,
being born to a Muslim seamstress and a Hindu gardener (at Marist Brothers
school) and raised in a Vatuwaqa shack. His parents' elopement apparently caused his mother to become estranged from her family, which objected to the mixed union, and this caused no small amount of distress for young Ashwin. He came out as gay a few years ago and
was active in the Drodrolagi movement which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer
rights in Fiji until quitting the group a couple of
years ago. He then began to ingratiate himself with the regime and has been advancing within it rapidly. He delivered the opening address to the 2012 Attorney General's conference (at about the same time that I was being hounded out of Fiji), at which he declared his admiration for the regime's "surgical strike" in 2006. Within a few months, he had been elevated as the Master of MIDA.
Ashwin Raj in Hawai'i |
Raj did prove to be a prolific letter writer during his time in Canberra ,
however, and some of his submissions to the Fiji Times belie his current
complicity in the regime. “Instead of channelling hundreds of thousands of
dollars to investigate the media and institute meaningless commissions of
inquiry that tell you the obvious,” he wrote in 2008 to criticise the Fiji
Human Rights Commission, including its report on Fiji media by University of
Hawai’i political scientist James Anthony, “that money would
have been better spent feeding and clothing the poor and the homeless.” A
letter published the previous year, however,
provides an even more delicious irony given Raj’s current position in charge of the regime’s
machinery of media repression. He began it in a manner eerily similar to his recent diatribe against the Fiji
media, which began: “I’m quite perturbed by the level of public discourse in Fiji
as we head towards the national elections.” His 2007 letter began: “I am perturbed by the mood of public discourse in
relation to the political developments since the 2006 military takeover.
Rampant anti-intellectualism, purist and locationist jibes and the very curious rise of self selected moral entrepreneurs who give philanthropy without democracy now seem to be the dominant discourses of this particular strand of democracy propagated by the proverbial monkey of good governance called the “interim administration.”
Slam-dunk !
ReplyDelete