Actuary GeoƯ Ashbrooke’s Scaremongering and

Political Interference
Response to GeoƯ Rashbrooke ’s Op Ed.
It is appalling that quotes and claims made by GeoƯ Rashbrooke (a FNPF paid actuary) that
contracted pension payments were subsidized (or will need to be subsidized) by current
members. They are not verified by FNPF financial data or by World Bank, ILO or other consultant
reports that have been made public (so that we can assess the basis of the projections – many
of which are projected and based on FNPF’s poor investment returns, incorrect mortality rates,
bad/low performing investments and ineƯective management of the provident fund business).
I and other pensioners have asked for these reports to be made public, but FNPF has refused. Is
it because FNPF and a few of their consultants have made claims that are not in the reports or
that they have interpreted them to fit their agenda, e.g. consultants had recommended the
termination of contracted pensions because current members were subsidizing pension
payments as their funds had run out?
I have over 23 Years’ experience in executive and operational resort management and over 18
Years in financial management.
All claims and data in this paper are derived from FNPF’s annual financial reports from 1975 to
2012, and 2022 and 2023 that I have examined. They can be verified as to its authenticity and
correctness.
A. Not a single cent of members’ money was ever used to pay contracted
pensions or will be used to subsidize restitution to pensioners.
The pension scheme was and is sustainable – see item C, D and E below.

B. Restitution to Pensioners must be Funded by FNPF – not by taxpayers
or current members. An illegal profit of $255m was made by FNPF when pensioners
were terminated and investment income continues to be made from the profit – some $258m.
FNPF has the financial capacity, so, it must make restitution to pensioners with compound
interest (not funded by taxpayers or current members). See C and D above.
C. FNPF has the Financial Capacity to:
I. Honor Contracted Pension Payments in 2011
Refer to Appendix 7 page 67, note 30. FNPF net assets of $3.768m were suƯicient to
meet liabilities to members and pensioners leaving an excess of $123m.
II. To Make Restitution to Pensioners Now.
Refer to Appendix 8, page 51. After making provisions for liabilities due to current
members and pensioners, the FNPF General Reserve account balance stands at

2
$2.001 billion. After providing for the Reserve Bank’s solvency reserve guideline of
$884m, there is still a net General Reserve of $1.117 billion. FNPF’s strong financial
position is partly due to illegal profits from pensioners! There is no need for funding
by taxpayers or current members.
FNPF and the Government of Fiji have a moral responsibility to compensate
pensioners and correct the bullying and illegal actions taken by the FNPF and the
illegal Fiji First government that deprived pensioners of their hard-earned pensions.
D. Usual/Standard Practice of Pension Funds.
Here are quotes by GeoƯ Rashbrooke that have been debunked:
I. “It should not have come as a surprise then that the reserves for making pension
payments would run out, once the tap of contributor subsidy was turned oƯ.
He intentionally omits to state that pension funds should also be supported with
investment income on annuitants’ monies – FNPF’s Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve
account was not credited with investment income – $821m based on 6%
compounded yearly). There would be suƯicient funds in the account. Deceitful? Refer
to Appendix 1.
II. Decree 51 says that annuity liability should be met from annuitants’ conversion sums
plus investment returns.
Quote from Part 2, Article 4, (2) c:
“the Board’s annuity liability for current annuitants cannot continue to be met from the
annuitants’ conversion amounts plus investment returns, and so must be met by
applying a proportion of FNPF member contributions to that purpose (including by way
of reserving against these liabilities.
BUT FNPF did not pay Investment Returns on Pensioners’
Monies.
Despite the FNPF and the Fiji First government statement in Decree 51 that investment
income should be considered in deciding sustainability, FNPF did not credit any
investment income to the Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve (PBFR) account for some 36
Years.
Proof. I have examined the PBFR account in the FNPF financial statements from 1975 to
2011 (this is where FNPF records pensioners monies, i.e., pensioners’ conversion
money to purchase pensions and pension payments). There were no credits for
Investment Income. Refer to Appendix 1.
Adding investment returns to annuitants’ conversion amounts is international best
practice for pension funds! FNPF neglected to do this. FNPF has not upheld one of its
core values, i.e. integrity!
Could FNPF please explain?

3
Nor did it pay any interest to pensioners that was normally paid to current members
each year – discriminatory against pensioners according to the 2013 Constitution.
After the reform in 2011/2012, I note from the FNPF financial statements (from 2013 to
2023), that it has since made payment of investment income to the Retirement Income
Fund Reserve account. See Appendix 9 note 34, (b). Why did FNPF not do this prior to
the reform in 2011? It is further proof of discrimination against pensioners by FNPF.
Instead, FNPF stealthily credited investment returns earned on annuitants’ monies into
the General Reserve account. Hence, a sizable portion of the General Reserve
account belongs to pensioners.
E. The Contracted Pension Scheme was more than Sustainable –
Surplus for Current Members.
The value of investment return on pensioners’ monies at 6% (lower than the rate used to pay
interest to members annually) compounded annually from 1975 to 2011 amounts to
approximately $821m ($0.8210 billion)! GeoƯ Rashbrooke, who was FNPF’s actuary in 2011,
had valued the liability owing to pensioners was $565m till they all passed away; there would
be a substantial surplus $337m after including investment income ($821m + $81m PBFR
account balance = $902m – $565 pensioners’ liability = $337m)! See Appendix 1.
So current members were not subsidizing pensioners; in fact, pensioners were and are
continuing to subsidize current members!
F. GeoƯ Rashbrooke Alleges Need for Subsidy from members.
Several times, he has referred to the need for subsidy for pension payments – by current
members. He has made hollow claims without providing any proof from FNPF financial
statements. I have provided evidence that pension payments did not require any subsidy.
(see C, D and E above).
Scaremongering?
It appears that he is trying to create fear with current members and taxpayers as he has
alleged the need for subsidy so many times. Is he trying to influence public opinion against
pensioners – a repeat of what FNPF and the Fiji First government did prior to the 2011/2012
reform with false, deceptive and unsubstantiated claims?
He is asserting that the contracted pension scheme was unsustainable and needed subsidy
from current members.
Quotes made by Geoff Rashbrooke that subsidy was made or would be required:
i. Quote: “Without reforms, it would become necessary to take money from
contributors to maintain pensions at past levels.

4
a. Pensioners’ liabilities were valued by GeoƯ Rashbrooke at $565m in 2011 financial
statements. The statement shows there were adequate assets to meet the future
liabilities of pensioners. See Appendix 7, page 67 Item 30.
There was no need to take any money from current members. It was not the reason
for reforms.
There is no evidence that reputable organizations or actuarial consultants have
recommended termination of contracted pensions; he (a paid FNPF consultant) may
be the only exception. I have asked for proof from the FNPF CEO, but no proof was
given and FNPF has refused to make these and other reports publicly available.
b. The real reason for the reform was the FNPF board and management’s inability to
eƯectively manage the pension business during changing and adverse operating
conditions.
c. The eƯects of global and Asian financial crises, repeated military coups, the $378m
impairment on loans and investments (including Natadola), the increased number of
members taking pensions and the termination of the two cent contribution were the
main reasons.
d. The above caused low returns on investments – 4.5% to 5.8% to sustain the business.
e. FNPF board and management were too slow in reacting to these changing
conditions. The developers of the original augmented pension scheme had
recommended that PCRs be reviewed periodically. It was not done in time.
This augmented social pension scheme (approved by law, employers and
employees) was a novel one and not based solely on usual practice. The above
surplus of $337m proves that it was a successful model.
ii. “Even now, any degree of reinstatement of former pensioners by FNPF as some have
been urging, could only be at the expense of ordinary members.”
Not true and no statistical proof – It can be funded by FNPF. See items C, D and E
above.
iii. “The World Bank (2007 Report) was very firm that the FNPF pension business was
insolvent, and that pensions needed reduction. The liability for future pensions was
demonstrably higher than the funds available once provision had been made to
safeguard members.”.
Not True. The FNPF was solvent in 2007 with Capital Reserve of $703m.There was a
need to reduce new pension contracts from 25% to 15% for long term sustainability
as the FNPF was making very low investment returns.
Quotes from the World Bank, ILO and consultant reports should only be made if they
are made available for public scrutiny.

5
iv. “It would seem the principle that pensions should not be subsidised was duly
recognized.”
It has always been recognized. Subsidies from members to pay pensioners were
never made. Refer to items C, D and E above. Pensioners are in fact subsidizing
current members!
v. “It should not have come as a surprise then that the reserves for making pension
payments would run out, once the tap of contributor subsidy was turned oƯ and
the PCR left well above the ILO’s 10 per cent.
False claim. With the addition of investment income on annuitants’ monies, the PBFR
account would have more than enough to pay pensions till all pensioners passed
away. Refer to items D and E above.
vi. “The reasoning behind this policy approach could certainly be reviewed, but any
adjustments would need to either be cost-neutral or paid for out of tax revenues.
Otherwise, the principle of protecting member accounts would be breached.”
 These suggestions are not the only options available.
 FNPF should fund restitution out of the General Reserve account – a significant
portion belongs to pensioners as investment income was credited to this
account. See B, C and D above.
 Pensioners do not agree that adjustments be funded out of tax revenue.
vii. “So, to sum up, pensions in 2012 had to be reduced. The actual method employed

might be reviewed, since it involved policy choices. But one way or another the much-
needed retirement savings of Fijian workers had to be safeguarded then, and

continue to be safeguarded now.”
GeoƯ Rashbrooke rationalizes that the termination of legal pension contracts in 2012
is acceptable to safeguard current members even though it breaches human rights
laws of Fiji and UN International Declaration of Human Rights. How unprofessional!
Pensioners totally agree that workers’ savings must be safeguarded. Not a cent of
workers’ savings was used to subsidize pension payments. See D and E above.
viii. “There was little left over after refunding the pensioners’ retirement sums, and this
was employed to boost the pensions of those who chose to re-invest.”

The “little left over” was not used to boost the pensions of those who chose to re-
invest. Again, GeoƯ Rashbrooke did not provide any proof.

The $255m profit ($565m actuarial certified pensioners’ liability less $310m refunded)
that FNPF made from the termination of legal pension contracts can hardly be
considered little.

6

FNPF used $100m for top-up but this is a government social issue that government
should fund – not by FNPF – it was done to reduce opposition to the 2011 reform.
A significant balance of $155m profit was stealthily credited to the General Reserve
account – not used to support the new pension scheme which was based on it being
sustainable and self-funding! Another false claim by GeoƯ Ashbrooke.
ix. “In relation to the assertion that pensions were protected by contract, entitlements
look to have arisen through statute, not business transaction. A legal case
therefore would seem unlikely to succeed. Taking into account the rights of
contributors to enjoyment of their own funds might also be relevant.”
He is again talking about the rights of contributors as if their savings were being
threatened when there is no such danger. Scaremongering again.
I cannot understand why GeoƯ Rashbrooke would predict a legal outcome when that
depends on the Fiji High court and the Coalition government and pensioners to
decide. Is he a legal expert to predict the outcome of our High Court. Ouster laws may
be challenged in court and disapplied.

It should be noted that he is a member of FNPF’s Board Audit & Risk Committee. I believe that he
is receiving a fee from FNPF as a committee member. Therefore, his opinion is not independent –
there is a conflict of interest slanted in favor of FNPF. He makes statements that are deceptive or
wrong without any proof.
As an experienced actuary contracted by FNPF from 2011 to 2018 and especially now, that he is
a member of the FNPF Board Audit & risk Committee, and he was the actuary that certified the
FNPF liability to contracted pensioners as $565m in 2011, he would have had access to FNPF
financial statements and would have full knowledge of the original pension scheme. He would
know that the Pension BuƯer Fund Reserve account did not include return on investment on
pensioners monies. But he never mentioned this.
His article is scaremongering to seek resistance from taxpayers and current members to interfere
in the coalition government’s role. FNPF conducted a huge publicity campaign prior to the
pension reform in 2011 making many false claims that were not used to empower Decree 51.
GeoƯ Rashbrooke is suggesting that funding for pension restitution should be cost neutral or paid
out of tax revenue, otherwise, the principle of protecting member accounts would be breached
– he is suggesting that current members would have to fund restitution if taxpayers did not.
As an actuary and a member of the FNPF Audit and Risk committee, he should know that FNPF is
in a strong financial position in 2023 with $2.001 billion in General Reserves available to fund
restitution.
He is interfering in the government’s responsibility and meddling in Fiji politics and court related
issues. I am wondering if his visa to enter and work allows him to do these things.

7
Some pensioners are asking if he should be reported to the NZ Society of Actuaries and to FICAC
as his article contains false statements, is unprofessional and may constitute misconduct,
political interference by a non- citizen and other malfeasance furthering the FNPF’s illegal profit
from terminating legal pension contracts. Pensioners ask that he makes a public apology to the
Coalition Government of Fiji and pensioners.
God bless Fiji, our coalition government and pensioners who have suƯered for over twelve years
because of illegal termination of their pensions.
Christopher Jackson Mar

Email: Jacksonmar9@gmail.com

Rashbrooke’s Indifference to Rule of Law and Justice

Geoff Rashbrooke, one of the actuaries advising the Fiji National Provident Fund in 2011, has strangely resurfaced in Fiji (Fiji Times article August 10, 2024) alleging that “any degree of reinstatement of former pensions by the FNPF… could only be at the expense of ordinary members”.

Rashbrooke glosses over all the illegality with which the Bainimarama Government broke the lawful contracts of the 2012 Pensioners turning their retirement into a time of uncertainty, emotional pain and financial loss for their families and dependents.

He totally ignores the illegal Decree throwing out the Burness case already being heard in court, thereby denying the 2012 Pensioners their basic international human right to go to court with their just grievance.

Let us be clear that the 2012 Pensioners are simply asserting the legality of the contracts offered by FNPF itself on Forms 9-OP, and hence the legal (and moral) obligation on the FNPF to abide by the terms, then in 2012 and today.

If Rashbrooke was either in 2011 or 2024 giving his actuarial advice to FNPF on what the pension rates should be for those who were retiring in future, no one would give a hoot.  But that is not the case here: he is giving advice on 2012 pensions already agreed to by FNPF and being paid.

It is appalling that Rashbrooke selectively ignores the 2011 final advice given to FNPF by senior actuaries Tomkins and Mason (of the company Promontory) that their recommendations for reduced pension rates were for future retirees, and not those already on pensions (I refer to them as the 2012 Pensioners) which they stated would be “difficult” to reduce under contract law. 

If Rashbrooke’s ill-considered advice supporting the consequences of the Bainimarama regime’s illegal breach of contracts of the 2012 Pensioners’ contracts is accepted by FNPF, it would also undermine the Coalition Government’s current efforts to restore Fiji’s broader Rule of Law undermined by the cancers left by the Bainimarama Regime and Government. 

Sadly, Rashbrooke in 2024 is displaying the same contempt for Fiji’s rule of law that he had in 2011, a contempt that would never be tolerated in his current country of residence, New Zealand or original home United Kingdom.

This article rebuts Rashbrooke’s allegations, devious and warped reasoning.

It also highlights some FNPF facts on the collapsed “Pension Take Up Rates” (Graph 1 below) and reality of declining numbers of pensioners (Graph 2 below), that Rashbrooke selectively and conveniently chooses to ignore in 2024, because they do not fit his agenda and “advice” to FNPF.

The legal contract Rashbrooke does not understand

I remind that Rashbrooke’s advice to FNPF in his 2024 Fiji Times article: 

1. refers to that very small group of 2012 Pensioners who had already accepted contracts on the 9-OP forms they signed and were already receiving pensions which had been freely offered by FNPF itself;

2.  The 9-OP forms specified the dollar amounts based on percentages determined by the lawfully elected Government of Fiji, led then by Sitiveni Rabuka (who is also Prime Minister today). These percentages were approved also by the Opposition Parties and their representatives in both Lower and Upper Houses of the Fiji Parliament, and therefore made law;

3. The 9-OP forms guaranteed that these 2012 Pensioners would receive these pensions (dollar amounts stated) until they passed away;

4.  The 9-OP forms stated clearly that once the pensioners had signed up on the 9-OP forms, they could not change the terms. i.e in fairness, neither should FNPF be able to do so, but it did.

Why does Geoff Rashbrooke not understand or respect the legal and moral basis of the 4 statements above, together representing the 2012 Pensioners basic human right to property, promised in a lawful contract, by the largest publicly owned financial institution in Fiji, bigger than all the banks put together?

Why does Rashbrooke choose to ignore the fact that Fiji’s Minister of Finance (Professor Biman Prasad) and the Coalition Government have fully recognized the illegality of the reduction of the 2012 pensions and made partial reparation using Fiji taxpayers’ funds?

Rashbrooke’s 2012 Article: trashing Fiji law

To grasp the extent of Rashbrooke’s biased and warped thinking, the public should read his 2012 presentation to an International Actuaries Association event in Hong Kong, available here:

http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/MBR12_Rashbrooke.pdf

Rashbrooke acknowledged in his 2012 paper that a 2012 Pensioner (he did not name David Burness) had a legal case in court for breach of contract, but he honestly admitted “This is a legal argument and one on which the author is not qualified to give a definitive opinion.”  Why did Rashbrooke leave out these key words from his 2024 Fiji Times article?

Instead Rashbrooke went on to falsely allege in his 2012 Paper that because “the pensions have been returned without penalty and the pensioners have enjoyed much better than average investment returns, then a legal challenge was not considered likely to succeed.”  

This legal opinion was from an actuary who has just admitted that he was not qualified to give a definitive opinion on the legality of the case. 

Furthermore, Rashbrooke’s phrase “the pensions have been returned without penalty” would be laughable were the consequences not so painful for those 2012 Pensioners given a lump sum instead of their pensions for life, as I have demonstrated in my earlier Fiji Times article (July 6, 2024).

Rashbrooke then alleges in his 2024 Fiji Times article that “In relation to the assertion that pensioner were protected by contract, entitlements look to have arisen through statute, not business transactions. A legal case would seem unlikely to succeed.” Rashbrooke does not ask himself the logical question: why would the Bainimarama Regime impose a Decree to stop the 2012 Pensioners’ legal case being heard in court, if it was “unlikely to succeed”? 

Rashbrooke’s questionable and euphemistic thinking can be seen in the way he describes the draconian Decree stopping the legal case. He airily stated  “The new law provides protections against future legal challenge, but that was a matter of expedition [sic] rather than any concern about the legal foundation.”.

Rashbrooke’s warped thinking is evident when he suggests “Conceptually, it would have had the same effect had the FNPF established a new entity for members and transferred to it the member balances and the required solvency margin. This would have left the current pensioners to make their own arrangements for dealing with the insolvency.” 

How incredible that Rashbrooke was theorising that FNPF could just as well have created a new entity to which would be transferred all of the “member balances and the required solvency margin” while leaving the 2012 Pensioners to deal with the remaining “insolvency“? i.e. high and dry.

How dare Rashbrooke allege that pensioners’ legal case against FNPF’s breach of the 9-OP contracts were mere “assertions” and based on mere “statutes” not “business transactions”? Is Rashbrooke suggesting to the Fiji public that “business transactions” should be superior to Fiji’s “statutes” (laws)? 

How dare Rashbrooke ignore that the original “statutes” (or laws set by legislature) setting the pension rates were decided by the highest authority in Fiji- the democratically elected Sitiveni Rabuka Government in 1998, and made law by the unanimous vote of the Fiji Parliament (Lower and Upper Houses, Government and Opposition)?

Instead of acknowledging the sacred authority of the Fiji Parliament and its laws (statutes), Rashbrooke 12 years later again gives his opinions why an illegal Bainimarama Regime and the FNPF Board were correct in illegally breaking the contracts of the 2012 Pensioners and reducing their pensions or forcing them to take away “a lump sum”, both resulting  in a large financial loss for them. 

Rashbrooke is once more callously arguing that FNPF should not today be recompensing these 2012 Pensioners.

We need not debate the following

We are not debating whether some of the 2012 Pensioners were doing well (as some were) but some were also dying early just as many pensioners are doing today.  But that was the “luck of the draw” that FNPF had itself created and offered, not any of the pensioners’ making.

We are not debating whether the FNPF could sustain the 2012 Pensions. They could.  Even Rashbrooke acknowledges that ILO advice in 2011 had said they could. 

Pensioner Jackson Mar’s numerous detailed submissions over the last twelve years have clearly established that FNPF had more than adequate funds for the liability, to which the FNPF management have never bothered to answer (shame on them).

Pensioner Ross McDonald had even pointed out in a letter (14 June 2011) to CEO Aisake Taito that Section 10 of the FNPF Act Cap 219 clearly stated  that “If the Fund is, at any time, unable to pay any sum which is required to be paid under the provisions of this Act, the sum required shall be advanced to the Fund by the Government and the Fund shall, as soon as practicable, repay to the Government the sums so advanced.”   

CEO Aisake Taito had declined to reply to this legitimate observation. So much for FNPF’s annual boasts of being accountable and transparent to Members.

Rashbrooke in his 2012 paper also acknowledged that this ultimate Government guarantee of FNPF was in the legislation but observed “this section has never been called on or otherwise tested.”  

But then Rashbrooke outrageously asserted that “In the event that it became apparent that a claim might be made in circumstances where the advance could not be repaid, it is not unreasonable to assume the government would not accept this outcome”. 

Why on earth should Rashbrooke imply likely dishonesty on the part of the Fiji Government, especially given that it has totally controlled the FNPF Board since inception.

We note also that the Fiji Government has also derived massive benefits from FNPF such as generous low interest loans on tap (that comprise a large chunk of Fiji’s Public Debt) or crucial loans to key enterprises like FSC, FDB and Fiji Airways when they were struggling. The Fiji Government has never reneged on its financial guarantees, as Rashbrooke alleges without evidence that it might.

The Criminal Illegality that Rashbrooke ignores

While Rashbrooke is making many allegations that the 2012 reduction of FNPF pensions (rates and dollars) were justified, he very conveniently ignores the unpleasant draconian facts and “elephants in the room” staring into his face:

(a) He totally ignores that the 2012 reduction of pensions and “breach of contract” was instigated by the illegal Bainimarama Regime which had overthrown the democratically elected lawful government of the late Laisenia Qarase (possibly to stop prosecution of some powerful individuals for the deaths of fie CRW soldiers in military custody); 

(b) Rashbrooke totally ignores that the legal Burness case which was being heard by the judiciary was then thrown out by the illegal Decrees of this same illegal Bainimarama Regime, thereby

(c) Rashbrooke totally ignores that these 2012 Pensioners were denied their basic international human right to go to court for a perceived grievance (and that many of them have died between 2012 and today, including the late David Burness and his wife Talei).

If Rashbrooke were to ignore (a), (b) and (c) above in New Zealand or UK I suspect that this professional reputation would be in tatters. 

Rashbrooke merely noted in his 2012 Hong Kong article that “one pensioner” (David Burness is not named) had “made application to the High Court in a test case pleading that his human rights would be violated should the government attempt to change the rules. The Court did not immediately dismiss the case but granted the plaintiffs time to better develop pleadings.” 

Rashbrooke then conveniently ignores that the Bainimarama Regime had thrown out the Burness legal case by merely stating in his 2012 article “The new law provides protections against future legal challenge, but that was a matter of expedition [sic) rather than any concern about the legal foundation.” One presumes that Rashbrooke meant “expediency” in his 2012 article. 

Rashbrooke clearly thinks that he can get away with his kind of nonsense in Fiji, which is currently agonizing on how to resolve the constitutional mess in the rule of law left to the elected Coalition Government by the previous Bainimarama Government.

Rashbrooke ignores the collapse of the Pension Take Up Rate

Rashbrooke’s selective use of statistics is further demonstrated by his refusal in 2024 to continue a an extremely important graph that he had in his 2012 paper for the Actuaries event in Hong Kong, for the “Pension Take Up Rate”.

This graph showed clearly that the  “Pension Take Up Rate” had dramatically declined from a high of 37% of those retiring in 2004 to just above 15% in 2011.

All actuaries’ reports have stated that any decline in the Pension Take Up Rate made it easier to fund the pensions even at the rates prevailing in 2011.

But my Graph 1 here shows that since 2011, the Pension Take Up Rate has been falling even further down to below 5% for the last five years.

Why then did Rashbrooke not comment in his 2024 Fiji Times article that the Pension Take Up Rate has collapsed from 15% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2023?

How appalling that neither has FNPF ever expressed concern that while FNPF is supposed to be a “Pension” Fund, more than 96% of the retirees are not taking the pension option but the lump sum.

How appalling that the FNPF Annual Reports no longer give the graph that I give here, which they used to give in earlier Annual Reports?  Who made that decision to leave out this graph from the Annual Report? Did any of the Board Members object?

Rashbrooke also refuses to acknowledge that the numbers of pensioners has not been increasing dangerously as the fearmongers had alleged in 2011. In fact the number of pensioners had dropped dramatically in 2012. It has dropped even further in 2023 and there is little prospect of it increasing dramatically into the future.

But pointing out these two salient negative trends would not suit Rashbrooke’s fearmongering narrative that the FNPF should not pay the reparations to the 2012 Pensioners.

It is dismaying that the new FNPF Board also declines to ensure that such important statistics and graphs are clearly presented in the Annual Reports, while any amount of useless information and colourful photos occupy much of the space.

Any FNPF views on Rashbrooke?

To any outside observer, it would seem that actuarial expert Rashbrooke is trying to curry favour with FNPF management and Board by arguing against any restitution to the 2012 Pensioners.

I call on the Chairman of the FNPF Board (Mr Daksesh Patel and new members Adish Naidu, Attar Singh, Joweli Taoi and Ms Susie Waqabaravi) and the FNPF Management to inform the Fiji public whether 

(a) they were aware of Rashbrooke’s intended article for Fiji Times

(b) whether they quietly agreed (wink and a nod) to let him go ahead, despite the sensitivity of the issues currently under consideration by the FNPF Board and the Minister of Finance.

I remind the FNPF Board of the many decent and responsible Fiji citizens among the 2012 Pensioners who have publicly requested justice. They include Jackson Mar, Ross McDonald, Isake Komailevuka, Professor Vijay Naidu, Dr Esther Williams, Dewan Chand, Amraiya Naidu, Rishi Ram, Daniel Fatiaki. and many others.  Sadly, many have passed away already without justice being done to them and their families ((like the brave late David Burness and his late wife Talei). 

Hope for Rule of Law in Fiji

Thankfully, there is some hope that the rule of law will be fully restored in Fiji with full justice delivered to the 2012 Pensioners.

It is serendipity that the current Prime Minister (Sitiveni Rabuka) is the same person under whose Government the original FNPF statutes were passed (whatever may be Rashbrooke’s apparent indifference to “statutes”). Rabuka could come full circle and re-establish those pensioners rights which his Government had determined twenty five years ago.

It is not serendipity that the FNPF is in a strong financial position today, because illegally reducing the 2012 Pensions over the last thirteen years has put hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the 2012 Pensioners into its kitty all accumulating at compound interest to more than $800 millions today, as Jackson Mar has amply pointed out.

Sadly, the public have never held to account that unethical 2012 FNPF Board and especially its Chairman then whose business links would probably not bear looking into for possible conflicts of interest with the Bainimarama Regime and donations to the Fiji First Party.

But I am sure that the FNPF Board today will have the full support of the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister (Professor Biman Prasad), if they were to try to correct this terrible historical blot on FNPF’s  reputation left by a previous unprincipled FNPF Board and management. 

The Minister of Finance has already proven his good will and compassion by using taxpayers’ funds to restore the pensions from 1 August 2024 of those who had been forced to accept lower amounts in 2012. There is more to be done for those who had been forced to take lump sums also implying even larger losses for them. Of course, there is also the need to restore the “back pay” for both groups of 2012 pensioners.

May I also suggest that current FNPF Members demand at the next talkfest organized by FNPF Management around the country, that at least 3 members of the FNPF Board be elected by them. The Board Members should also be totally accountable only for the Members’ interests as had been recommended in 2011 by the Promontory Report to FNPF, but conveniently ignored by all FNPF Boards and Governments since then.

Disclosure: Professor Wadan Narsey is one of the 2012 Pensioners and he also helped Dr Shaista Shameem in 2012 to prepare the David Burness case, which was thrown out by an illegal Bainimarama Regime Decree.

The devastating betrayal of Fiji’s aged pensioners by the FNPF Board members and Coupe Administrators

There are a number of what are commonly called Cock Ups in the attached publication, this old man will list a few, feel free to add your observations in the comments section. Naturally, I do not expect all to agree:

The Minister for Finance needs a proofreader because having said the payments will not be backdated, it then states that they will be paid from August 2014.

It is a fact and common knowledge that the management ( Including Aisake Taito) and Board of FNPF including our old friend “Tom” who should have known better, committed an illegal act by reducing payment of pensions to existing pensioners, they illegally coerced pensioners either to accept a lower pension structure or to take part or all of their retained funds.

It is also a fact that the illegal act was legalised by a government that was elected after a questionable constitution was imposed on the nation in 2013 by the leader of the 2006 Coupe who claimed he would uphold the 1997 constitution.

The current actions by the Minister for Finance and government in selective compensation of surviving pensioners smack of bias and lack of testicular strength in the office making the decisions.

Firstly the nation’s taxpayers should not burdened with the repayment of any part of the monies misappropriated by FNPF. The Fund has prospered using those monies and it should be the Fund that compensates the pensioners they cheated.

Secondly, the Minister for Finance and the government may be putting at risk the pensioners they are making payments to effective August 2024. Since it could be argued by FNPF in any future litigation, that those pensioners had accepted a settlement from the government, and that FNPF no longer had any liability to settle.

Finally, be a man SLR, instruct FNPF to do the right thing, and give the overburdened taxpayers a break.

There are a number of what are commonly called Cock Ups in the recent combined publication by the Government and FNPF, this old man will list a few, feel free to add your observations in the comments section. Naturally, I do not expect all to agree:

1. The Minister for Finance needs a proofreader because having said the payments will not be backdated, it then states that they will be paid from August 2014.
2. It is a fact and common knowledge that the management ( Including Aisake Taito) and Board of FNPF including our old friend “Tom” who should have known better, committed an illegal act by reducing payment of pensions to existing pensioners, they illegally coerced pensioners either to accept a lower pension structure or to take part or all of their retained funds. 
3. It is also a fact that the illegal act was legalised by a government that was elected after a questionable constitution was imposed on the nation in 2013 by the leader of the 2006 Coupe who claimed he would uphold the 1997 constitution.
4. The current actions by the Minister for Finance and government in selective compensation of surviving pensioners smack of bias and lack of testicular strength in the office making the decisions. 
5. Firstly the nation’s taxpayers should not burdened with the repayment of any part of the monies misappropriated by FNPF. The Fund has prospered using those monies and it should be the Fund that compensates the pensioners they cheated.
6. Secondly, the Minister for Finance and the government may be putting at risk the pensioners they are making payments to effective August 2024. Since it could be argued by FNPF in any future litigation, that those pensioners had accepted a settlement from the government, and that FNPF no longer had any liability to settle.
7. Finally, be a man SLR, and instruct FNPF to do the right thing, and give the overburdened taxpayers a break.