The nation’s mourning for the late President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau has taken a distinctly personal turn as new reflections, calls for lasting honours and civic protests have surfaced in letters to the editor this week. Correspondents recalled intimate memories of the statesman, reported a two‑hour farewell on chiefly Bau Island that moved even Tonga to share in Fiji’s grief, and urged concrete gestures — including a naming right — to ensure his legacy endures. At the same time, readers raised fresh concerns about public accountability over a proposed incinerator near Saweni Beach and condemned a last‑minute denial by police of a planned peaceful march against the Vuda waste‑to‑energy project.
Several writers emphasised how Ratu Epeli’s quiet, approachable manner left an impression beyond official pomp. Donald Singh from Nausori described the “high definition” memory of being asked in Beijing whether the late president preferred wine or beer and carefully pouring his drink — a small moment that, he said, captured Ratu Epeli’s humanity. Other correspondents remembered seeing him walk unguarded along Waimanu Road, queue patiently at ATMs and joke self‑effacingly — images that reinforced the “down‑to‑earth” Chief portrayed in recent national tributes.
Those personal remembrances dovetailed with public ceremony: Shalwyn Prasad of Nabua said “the nation stood still for two hours” as thousands gathered to farewell Ratu Epeli on Bau Island, and noted that Tonga’s own expression of sorrow underlined the former president’s regional standing. Prasad suggested a naming right somewhere in Fiji as a fitting and lasting tribute to a leader he described as “our home‑grown hero” and “noble banner blue.”
Amid the reflections on culture and language, Paul Geraghty of the University of the South Pacific lodged a technical correction about the iTaukei word reguregu after a previous letter was altered in print. Geraghty clarified that reguregu, like many verbs, can also function as a noun in certain constructions — and reminded readers about the linguistic use of the prefix ‘i’ with common nouns but not proper names. His note points to attention to cultural detail even in the small ways public memory and language are recorded.
Not all letters were memorial. Jan Nissar, writing from Cairo, used memories of childhood Sundays at Saweni Beach to underline current worries about a proposed multi‑million‑dollar incinerator near that coastline. Nissar argued the debate should focus less on abstract environmental claims and more on transparency: “who was paid off and how much, by whom and when,” he wrote, urging opponents to ask pointed questions about procurement and governance rather than only contest the project’s suitability.
Civic rights and process were also central to a complaint about policing. One correspondent condemned the Fiji Police Force’s decision to deny a permit at the eleventh hour for a lawful, non‑violent march opposing the Vuda waste‑to‑energy project, calling the move “disgraceful” and warning that the unexplained refusal smells of suppression. The writer said the lack of official reasons for the denial compounded the frustration and evoked memories of less democratic periods in Fiji’s recent past.
These letters together mark the latest development in a country balancing public mourning with persistent civic concerns. As Fiji honours Ratu Epeli, readers are using that moment of reflection to press for tangible recognition of his legacy, to insist on linguistic and cultural accuracy in public discourse, and to demand transparency and accountability in decisions that affect communities and civic freedoms.
Leave a comment