Banks need to ask questions of themselves

I SAY: The ANZ chief operating officer in Fiji who has complained about Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) being "hogged" by moneylenders should look inwards rather than outwards. He and other banks in Fiji need to ask themselves the following questions:
(i) Are our lending policies too restrictive thus leading to our clients resorting to Money Lenders as a way of raising loans?
(ii) Are the "collaterals" we seek from our clients too demanding?
(iii) Are the interest rates we offer on loans competitive by general market standards?
(iv) Has automation of the banking system affected business and if so, how?
(v) Are Government/Reserve Bank of Fiji regulations stifling business growth and if so, what should be done to either overcome or "cushion" the impact?
(vi) Are we doing enough, ourselves, to educate clients about the benefits of electronic banking?
(vii) Since we recognise the impact private money lenders are having on the banking system and acknowledging the fact that banks are being used by ordinary clients (employees) as a "transit point" what will we do to encourage savings rather than the current "pay-to-pay money box" savings system that our clients are resorting to ?
(viii) How do we, as lending institutions, contribute to national economic development by making small loan applications, business card applications etc, more enticing and less restrictive to small to medium companies?

I SAY: The banks in Fiji have brought the problems on themselves because ultimately, their goal appears to be more inclined towards profit-sharing by the shareholders rather than basic banking services (at reasonable cost) to their clients. They have ventured head-first into electronic and automated banking without sufficient thought to the side effects which include but are not limited to: a sacrifice of the "human" element through a reduction in actual staff numbers (hence more email correspondence rather than face-to-face discussions); acceptance (apparently without question) of government's requirement that the majority of employers pay salaries into employee bank accounts when in fact the employee prefers cash to avoid exorbitant monthly bank charges (etc).

I SAY: While Government should be lauded for putting in place measures to maximise revenue (from general taxes, Value Added Tax, Provisional/Professional Tax etc) and it's genuine endeavour to monitor money-laundering, it also has an OBLIGATION to ensure the costs of ensuring these new measures do not impact unduly on the ordinary Fiji citizen or small business. Government needs to implement regulatory measures on banks which limit the charges they pass on to clients (Fiji businesses and citizens). In the case of ANZ, can the bank explain WHY it charges up to $21 Fijian every time a business transfers salaries into their employees bank accounts? Since the transfer is being done electronically, the banks need to justify their charges, given the "non-human" element involved. If the same salaries are banked manually, the charge does not apply (but the queue at the Teller's station becomes longer).

I SAY: Yes, each business enterprise (including banks) is entitled to a profit. However, I argue that the margin of profit needs to be managed (by regulation) so that the ordinary Fijian citizen and small businesses don't have to face a burden of what amounts to "double taxation" - one by the government and the other by the banks.

I SAY: The banking system in Fiji is such that the larger and well-established business houses enjoy the benefits of modern day banking (including loan raising) without having to face the same hurdles/restrictions small and emerging Fijian businesses face. It is government's RESPONSIBILITY to regulate a level playing field. Otherwise, we perpetuate the often generalised slogan that: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer".   

The Fiji Government's first obligation is to its citizens

I SAY: While the Fiji Government should be commended for it's commitment to reciprocate binding agreements it enters into with Foreign powers, it has a moral and ethical obligation to place the interests of its own people (and at the least, the interests of  the people who voted them into power) PARAMOUNT at all times.
In the case of allocating part of Suva's historical Botanical Gardens to the Indian Government as a reciprocal gesture acknowledging the Indian government's grant of land space in India for a Fiji High Commission, the Fiji Government needs to not only recognise but acknowledge the interests of its own citizens, FIRST AND FOREMOST, particularly so where historical significance is an important factor,
Historically, the Suva Botanical Gardens and its surrounds(including Government House) have been acknowledged as being the original tribal lands owned and occupied by the people of Suvavou.
There are historical references to battles fought on the site prior to the relocation of its original inhabitants to their present location now known as Suvavou.
Apart from the site's historical significance, the Fiji Government should be obliged to consider the security impacts on its own citizens, should a foreign embassy be constructed on the site.
The proposed new Indian High Commission site is within the confines of land space that now houses the Fiji Museum  (and the museum's associated administrative buildings) as well as the now historical Thurston Gardens (or Suva Botanical Gardens).
If, as planned. a new Indian High Commission is constructed within that land space, then issues of security ... NOT just for the Indian diplomats, but ALSO for the Fiji citizens and patrons of both the Fiji Museum and the Botanical Gardens .....  need to also be paramount as a determining factor.
After all, ultimately, the interests and safety of the Fijian citizen should take preference over foreign diplomats.

I SAY: As a solution, the Fiji Government can still fulfill its obligation to the Government of India, by allocating space available at the Fiji National University's Samabula campus for a new Indian High Commission chancery. There is a site (which previously housed a kindergarten) on the boundary of FNU's Samabula campus and directly adjacent to the Indian High Commissioner's Official Residence on Princes Road.
If this parcel of land is granted to the Indian Government, it would allow the Indian High Commission to not only construct a new Chancery but also enable the Government of India to consolidate the security of its diplomatic mission and official residence in Fiji (just as the Australians have done a stone's throw away) and the Americans have done (in part), not too far up the same street.
If the boundaries are security-strengthened as the Australians and Americans have done, then the security impact on Fiji citizens will be minimised.

THE OUTCOME: Preservation of a historical site (Thurston Gardens and its surrounds), protection of Fiji citizens from "collateral damage" that may result from an attack on a foreign mission, reciprocation by the Fiji Government for a valuable piece of land to the Government of India and consolidation by the Indian Government of its assets in Fiji while fortifying its own security without undue impact on the ordinary Fijian citizen.

I SAY: Leave Thurston Gardens and its surrounds alone. Look at alternative sites for a new High Commission of India. Our history is more important than diplomatic grandstanding.