USP Scholarship termination and basic human right to political activity

Dear Sir,

In recent years the Bainimarama Government has been proclaiming proudly that by lowering the voting age to 18 they are strongly encouraging young people to be involved in the politics and governance of the country.

A necessary corollary of that must be that young people (including students) not just vote but be involved with political parties, policy issues and campaigning with voters to get their views across.

Indeed, the world over, students are at the forefront of political activity, and often radical activities, such as opposing wars, opposing racism, protecting the environment, and even being the youth arms of political parties.

The Bainimarama Government might even be hoping that the frequently and selectively maligned “old politicians” will be replaced by fresh young politicians, with fresh ideas.

But wait.

The media has reported (FT 28 May 2014) that a student’s scholarship at USP has been terminated by the Tertiary Scholarship and Loans Board because he had been allegedly associating himself “in political agendas” (according to the letter from Secretary to the TSLB, Ms Tofinga).

The letter from TSLB made a number of other puzzling allegations implicating USP and the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs:

2.         “and as per clause five of your award letter, you are required to abide by your institute’s  rules and regulations”  (i.e. presumably USP’s rules and regulations)

3.         “the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs has zero tolerance for behaviour contravening those aspects”  and the “MTA reserves the right to terminate your scholarship if a report is received from your institute” (i.e. presumably from USP).

Click here to read the full letter :

“Scholarship termination and basic human right to political activity”. Letter to Editor 30 May 2014.

Dear Sir,

The University of the South Pacific has been built since it inception in 1968, by thousands of academic and administrative staff.

A few of us who have spent our entire working lives at USP, have an abiding interest in USP’s continued development, and a larger social responsibility to raise issues of concern to the regional member governments and the taxpayers, especially when academic excellence is under threat, despite the many successful and prominent signings of agreements.

It is a matter of serious concern when USP management, for its own unknown motives, refuses to do its utmost to retain extremely valuable and experienced regional academics and administrative staff, especially when there is high turnover of expatriate staff.  On the contrary, the University management and senior members of the governing body appear to be doing all they can to encourage their departure from USP.

Recently, one of the more dynamic academics, Professor Biman Prasad resigned from USP, unsuccessful in his application to the position of Deputy President (Deputy Vice Chancellor).

He had also previously resigned as Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics, in total frustration with the lack of cooperation from USP management.   He had been the only Dean (out of 3) at the professorial level, and the most dynamic Dean at that.  He was  a committed lecturer and a good professional colleague to senior and junior staff alike, with the ability to galvanize them in collective academic work.

Click on the following link for the full letter:

“Flawed appointment processes at USP” Letter to the Editor, 30 May 2014.

Creeping totalitarianism at USP: an open letter to USP Council and Member Governments

Dear Sir,

When individuals do not resist small steps taken by dictators to limit their freedom, the restrictions become stronger, until one day, totalitarianism becomes the norm for the whole group.

It is especially hard to counter this when the dictators are friends one has known for more than three decades, working together to build the same institution.

USP stakeholders need to inquire if this is happening at The University of the South Pacific, deeply undermining not just its ethics, transparency, accountability and good governance, but also undermining all the universal principles which have characterized great universities over the centuries (see link below to Masefield).

While many organisations, like the FNPF, include protection of “whistle-blowers” in order to tackle internal governance problems, we all know it is extremely difficult for vulnerable individuals to “blow the whistle” on those in positions of absolute authority.

USP management recently warned all staff that they:  “must never communicate directly with the members of the University’s Executive Committee or Council over any matter.  A breach of these requirements may amount to … “gross misconduct” and may give rise to disciplinary action (including possibly, in serious cases, dismissal).” (my emphases).

I remind that USP is NOT a private company, “owned” by the Vice Chancellor, or Council Chairman, or even the Executive Committee of Council.    USP is a “public company” whose real governing body is the entire USP Council, acting on behalf of the tax-payers of the region.

Yet USP management has today virtually become the owner rather than the employees.  Moreover, the governing structure is such that USP Council may now be systematically denied information which could throw USP Management in bad light, especially if the USP Vice Chancellor and sometimes the Chair of Council have a vested interest in such matters.  Continue reading →