Dialogue Fiji’s executive director, Nilesh Lal, has expressed strong support for the Draft Education Bill 2025, particularly its unequivocal ban on corporal punishment in schools. During a presentation to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law, and Human Rights, Lal emphasized the importance of establishing clear and consistent disciplinary measures to replace corporal punishment, ensuring fairness across educational institutions.
Lal articulated that systematic application of any disciplinary action necessitates certainty and transparent guidelines delineating the sanctions for various infractions. This, he argued, would foster consistency in the enforcement of these measures across different schools.
Pooja Dutt, Dialogue Fiji’s program manager, echoed Lal’s sentiments while delivering the organization’s primary submission on the Education Bill. She lauded Section 73 of the Bill, which prohibits not only corporal punishment but also any treatment deemed cruel, degrading, or that inflicts emotional or psychological harm on students. Dutt highlighted that this provision aligns Fiji with international best practices and child rights obligations, advocating for its retention without amendments.
However, she raised concerns regarding other sections of the Bill that could undermine equity and legal clarity. Notably, Dutt criticized Section 76, which permits government and government-aided schools to levy charges, challenging the constitutional right to free education. She warned that this could erode the essence of free education and lead to a bifurcated public education system that unfairly targets economically disadvantaged communities.
Furthermore, Dialogue Fiji advised that excessive school fundraising initiatives might impose undue pressure on families, potentially causing fatigue even without coercive tactics. Dutt pointed out that while Section 10 enforces compulsory education supported by legal consequences, it could inadvertently penalize parents without them having clear knowledge of their obligations, violating fundamental legal principles.
Concerns were also raised about prohibiting school zoning, which could lead to oversubscription of popular schools while under-resourced institutions struggle with low enrollment. The lack of guiding principles for late admissions approvals, highlighted as Section 67, may usher in inconsistent decision-making processes.
In contrast, Dutt praised Section 34, which covers religious instruction, as it effectively balances freedom of religion with Fiji’s commitment to secular governance. Additionally, she commended the regulatory flexibility in Section 68, which proposes staggered school start times—such as a possible 9 AM beginning in Greater Suva—that could ease urban congestion while enhancing student wellbeing.
Overall, the discourse surrounding the Draft Education Bill 2025 reflects a critical opportunity for educational reform in Fiji, aiming to align with international standards while addressing local equity issues.
Leave a comment