okay i can see you aren't a native iTaukei.
View attachment 222199
View attachment 222200
View attachment 222201
We all know who runs the international fishing trade....
Chatgpt what is wrong with this statement?
There are several historical inaccuracies and misleading generalisations in that statement. In fact, I would challenge Gemini's answer quite strongly, particularly its portrayal of the 1987 coups and the relationship between iTaukei Fijians and Indo-Fijians.
The biggest problem is that it turns a complicated political and historical event into a simplistic ethnic conflict narrative.
Let's break it down.
1. It wrongly generalises the iTaukei population
Gemini says:
"The native iTaukei elite and nationalist factions became deeply restless over losing political power."
This is misleading for several reasons.
- Not all iTaukei were opposed to the new government.
- Dr Timoci Bavadra, the newly elected Prime Minister, was himself an iTaukei Fijian.
- The Fiji Labour Party was not an exclusively Indo-Fijian party. It had a multiracial, working-class political platform.
- There were significant differences within the iTaukei community, including between traditional chiefly leadership, nationalist groups, trade unionists and ordinary voters.
The 1987 election was not simply iTaukei versus Indo-Fijian. It was also a struggle over political power, chiefly authority, economic inequality and the future direction of Fiji.
Academic historian Stephanie Lawson specifically warned against reducing the 1987 crisis to a simplistic racial explanation.
Taylor & Francis Online+2
2. It ignores the democratic mandate
This is perhaps the most important omission.
In the April 1987 general election:
- The Fiji Labour Party–National Federation Party coalition won 28 of the 52 parliamentary seats.
- The Alliance Party, which had governed Fiji since before independence, won 24.
- Dr Timoci Bavadra was appointed Prime Minister.
On 14 May 1987, Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka staged a military coup and removed the democratically elected government.
The fundamental constitutional issue was that a government which had legitimately won an election was forcibly removed because sections of the political and military establishment opposed the change in power.
It is important to distinguish between legitimate indigenous Fijian interests and the actions of those who used military force to impose their political preferences.
Centre for Democracy & Dialogue+1
3. It misrepresents the Indo-Fijian community
Gemini's reference to:
"The descendants of those imported labourers"
is historically reductive.
Yes, the ancestors of a substantial proportion of Indo-Fijians arrived as indentured labourers between 1879 and 1916.
But by 1987, we were talking about a community with more than a century of history in Fiji.
Many Indo-Fijians were:
- Born in Fiji.
- Several generations removed from their Indian ancestors.
- Landowners under agricultural leases, business owners, professionals, teachers and civil servants.
- Deeply established in Fiji socially, economically and culturally.
They were not temporary imported workers waiting to return to India.
The National Library of Australia's historical collection documents the original indenture migration and its dates.
National Library of Australia (NLA)+1
4. Did Indo-Fijians flee Fiji after 1987?
The underlying point is correct
However, Gemini gets the timeline wrong by suggesting an immediate mass exodus.
The coups created enormous insecurity among Indo-Fijians, particularly following the subsequent political and constitutional changes.
The Migration Policy Institute provides some telling figures:
| Period | Indo-Fijian emigration context |
|---|
| 1978–1986 | 20,703 total Fiji citizens emigrated |
| 1987–1996 | 50,050 total Fiji citizens emigrated |
| 1997–2000 | 16,825 total Fiji citizens emigrated |
Approximately 90% of emigrants in the period covered by that analysis were Indo-Fijians.
These figures demonstrate the enormous impact of the coups, but also show that emigration was a continuing process rather than everybody suddenly fleeing in 1987.
Migration Policy Institute+1
5. It leaves out the intimidation and violence
Another serious omission is what happened to Indo-Fijians after the coups.
There were attacks, intimidation, threats and destruction of Indo-Fijian property. The Taukei movement and militant nationalist elements played a role in creating an atmosphere of fear.
Even the proposed September 1987 political compromise, known as the Deuba Accord, failed when Rabuka staged his second coup on 25 September.
The political crisis was therefore not simply about people feeling restless. It involved the overthrow of an elected government, military intervention, ethnic intimidation and the dismantling of the existing constitutional order.
ANU Press+1
My assessment of Gemini's statement
I would rewrite it as follows:
The events of 1987 marked a turning point in Fiji's history. Following the electoral defeat of the Alliance Party after 17 years of political dominance, sections of the indigenous Fijian chiefly establishment, political leadership and nationalist movement opposed the transfer of power to the newly elected Labour–NFP coalition led by Dr Timoci Bavadra, an indigenous Fijian.
On 14 May 1987, Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew the democratically elected government in a military coup. Subsequent political upheaval, intimidation, ethnic tensions and constitutional changes created an atmosphere of insecurity, particularly among Indo-Fijians.
Although Indo-Fijians were descendants of Indian indentured labourers brought to Fiji during British colonial rule, by 1987 they constituted a deeply established, multi-generational Fijian community. The political developments following the coups contributed significantly to their emigration, particularly among educated and professionally skilled families. This exodus continued over subsequent decades and fundamentally changed Fiji's demographic composition.
One final observation: There is an important distinction between saying that indigenous Fijians were concerned about protecting their land, culture and traditional institutions, and saying that they collectively supported the overthrow of democracy.
The former was a legitimate political concern. The latter is an unfair generalisation.
And equally, being concerned about indigenous rights did not justify removing an elected government by military force.
I think that distinction is essential to understanding Fiji's 1987 history fairly.
. The funny part is the military has made a submission to the Constitution Review Committee to remove the immunity clause in the constitution so that coup makers can be punished like ordinary criminals. The current PM Sitiveni (Rambo) Rabuka has not obliged, how could he, he was the original coupster of Fiji and carried out Fiji's first coup in 1987. He is losing public support and wants the military to do a coup to gain public sympathy.
