'The “merger” was certainly unconstitutional under the constitutions of PINA and PIBA, since neither organisation ever held a full meeting, as required by their constitutions, to give final approval for a merger'


Two years ago, in Apia, Samoa, a very peculiar meeting occurred, peculiar even by the standards of the Pacific Way. Actually, there should have been three meetings.

One was the annual general meeting of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), established more than 30 years ago as an organisation for the region's news media. It didn't happen.

Another meeting on the agenda was the annual meeting of the Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association (PIBA). This did not happen either, as far as ISLANDS BUSINESS is aware. As far as ISLANDS BUSINESS is also aware PIBA no longer exists, although we could be wrong.

What did happen was a strange convulsion, rammed through by various characters and presented at a meeting of a miraculously achieved PINA/PIBA merger. It was completely unconstitutional, not that such a bizarre event could be said to have been conducted under a constitution. The “merger” was certainly unconstitutional under the constitutions of PINA and PIBA (if it exists), since neither organisation ever held a full meeting, as required by their constitutions, to give final approval for a merger.

At Apia, grave reservations were expressed by ISLANDS BUSINESS, a PINA member for more than 20 years, about the legality of the “merger” and about the bona fides of some people present. Were they all financial members? Who did they really represent? And whether, in view of the known dire financial plight of PIBA, could PINA be assured of not somehow becoming lumbered with PIBA's considerable debt?

A PIBA representative said its accounts would be available in two weeks. That was two years go. The affairs of PIBA, whether it continues to exist, however nebulously or not, still remains a mystery as far as it's known to its rank and file members. Meanwhile, the former PIBA director is reportedly doing a round of international gathering, invited and no doubt having his presence paid for, by professional meeting organisers who appear to be under the impression that he has a mandate to speak on behalf of the Pacific Islands journalists. If he has such a mandate, or claims to have one, then how did this become the case?

At Samoa, ISLANDS BUSINESS was shouted down in racist terms by persons intent on the pursuit of their own agendas. Since then, what has PINA been up to? Well, very soon after the Apia meeting some merger officials were junketing off to China as guest of one of the most brutally repressive and anti- press regimes on earth.

During their partying one of the group members was reportedly assaulted by a member of the Chinese Gestapo for attempting to photograph something the Gestapo didn't want photographed.

Perhaps the guests were too busy kowtowing for their supper to notice. So much for PINA and media ethics and freedom.

What was the PINA stand during the media freedom debacle in Tonga, where some Tongan PINA members were preparing for a PINA meeting to be held in Nuku'alofa during November 15-21? If it said anything, then ISLANDS BUSINESS didn't hear it. Perhaps PINA didn't wish to embarrass the Tonga organising committee. PINA has been conspicuously silent about practically every other arising issue since the curious happening in Apia. Lance Polu, the Samoan president, was reported to be off on another trip in October, to Belgium, as president. The PINA office is in the same Suva building as ISLANDS BUSINESS. Until recently two of its staff were reluctant cheque signers for PINA, purely because of their vicinity to the office. They signed as cautiously as they were able to.

Apart from news that a consultant has been found to prepare some kind of a plan for PINA, news about the activity is something few ordinary members will be aware of.
ISLANDS BUSINESS heard of the consultant only because we happened to run into him. The study is an encouragement, we suppose. In November when PINA has an annual general meeting, its members might be allowed to accept or reject the study and, oh, decide whether or not to approve a merger with an organisation that may not now exist.

Meanwhile, the Pacific's journalists are writing about the need for good governance and all that. What a pity it is that they don't practice what they preach.