A place to share my thoughts and reflections

Tumblr ↗

Tag: mental-health

  • What We Build, We Must Maintain

    My friend and fellow Rewan, Dr Winifereti Nainoca, posted on social media in vosa vakaViti yesterday, and it struck a chord with me.

    She expressed concern about the number of iTaukei men, in particular, who were dying too young. The causes are not limited to HIV or drugs. There are also the more familiar and, in many cases, preventable threats: non-communicable diseases, excessive yaqona drinking combined with cigarette smoking, eating too late or eating the wrong foods, too much processed and fatty food, and not getting enough sleep.

    Someone in the comments added another wise observation: as we grow older, we need to pay greater attention to what we put into our bodies—drink more water, reduce fatty foods and sugar, and be mindful of the things we consume that can harm our liver and overall health.

    Of course, people will say, quite rightly, that these are matters of individual choice. And they are.

    But individual choice should not prevent us from speaking honestly about consequences. Sometimes telling the truth is unpopular, particularly when it challenges habits we have become comfortable with.

    That is why I am grateful for Dr Wini’s post. The more people read, share and talk about it, the wider the circle of awareness becomes. Perhaps someone will stop and ask themselves: How much grog am I drinking? When should I stop? Am I eating at the right time? What am I actually eating? Am I getting enough sleep?

    And perhaps, most importantly: Am I spending enough quality time with my children? Do we know where our children are? Do we know who they are with, what they are doing and what influences are shaping them?

    These questions matter because health is not simply about avoiding illness. It is about how we live—and how we care for the people and things entrusted to us.

    That thought led me to something else particularly relevant to us as iTaukei.

    We are very good at building houses.

    We can save, plan, borrow, raise money, gather family and friends, and eventually put up a house we can proudly call our own. Building a home is an achievement. It represents security, progress, sacrifice and something tangible to leave for our children.

    But there is another side to the story.

    We are not always as good at maintaining the houses we build.

    A small leak appears, but we wait. A patch of paint begins to peel, but we leave it. The roof starts showing signs of age, but we tell ourselves it can wait another year. A crack appears, a gutter begins to sag, a door no longer closes properly—and somehow the small problem becomes a much larger and more expensive one.

    We build well. We maintain less well.

    And if you look around, I sometimes wonder whether this habit has extended beyond our homes into aspects of national life: schools, hospitals, government buildings, public facilities and other properties that deteriorate because maintenance is postponed until repair becomes unavoidable. But that is an argument for another day.

    My thought today is about our homes—and the lesson they might teach us about ourselves.

    As we move through life, our bodies change. We know this instinctively. We move from being teenagers to young adults, from marriage to parenthood, from middle age to mature years. Our bodies tell us that we are changing. We slow down. We may need glasses. We cannot party the way we once did. Our dietary needs change. We become more conscious of our health. We visit the doctor more often. We watch our children grow into adults, marry and have children of their own. Eventually, we become grandparents. We accept that our bodies require different kinds of care at different stages of life.

    So why do we sometimes expect our houses to remain exactly as they were when we built them 10 or 20 years ago?

    Our cars certainly do not get that treatment. We service them. We change their oil. We replace worn tyres. We fix problems before they become breakdowns. We understand that a vehicle requires regular maintenance if it is to serve us well for many years.

    Our bodies are no different. And neither are our houses.

    A house ages just as we do. The roof ages. The paint fades. Plumbing wears out. Electrical systems need attention. Windows and doors deteriorate. Bathrooms and kitchens eventually need updating. Even the furniture will need replacement. What was perfectly adequate when the children were young may no longer suit the needs of a growing or ageing family. I know peers, for example, who have had to move to the ground floor because they can no longer climb stairs.

    Maintenance is not a sign that something has failed. It is a sign that we value what we have.

    That, perhaps, is the deeper lesson I take from Dr Wini’s post.

    We should not wait for our bodies to break down before we care for them. We should not wait for our cars to stop before servicing them. And we should not wait for our houses to deteriorate before we repair, renovate and repaint them.

    The same principle applies to our families and our communities. A child who feels neglected, a relationship left unattended, a school allowed to decay, or a public facility ignored for too long may eventually require far more than a simple repair.

    Prevention is not only cheaper. It is an expression of love and responsibility.

    We put so much effort into building things: our bodies, our homes, our families, our institutions and our nation.

    But building is only the beginning.

    What we build will endure only if we are willing to care for it.

    A healthy body needs discipline. A reliable car needs servicing. A sound house needs maintenance. A strong family needs attention. A healthy community needs people who notice what is beginning to fail and act before failure becomes collapse.

    Maintenance is not a sign that something has gone wrong. It is a declaration that what we have built matters.

    So let us care for our bodies before illness takes hold, service our cars before they break down, repair our homes before small problems become crises, and tend to our families and communities with the same patience and commitment.

    Because the true measure of what we value is not only what we build, but what we are willing to protect, restore and pass on.

    We are good at building.

    Now let us become just as good at caring for what we have built.

  • Respect in a Time of Toxicity

    Fiji, we have a problem.

    It is in our phones, our comments, and, increasingly, our homes. Fijians are hurling abuse at fellow Fijians they have never met. The anger is palpable. Some seem to wake up each morning determined to find someone to attack.

    I feel sorry for them—and for the families who must live with the consequences of that bitterness.

    Behind a pseudonym, people sometimes become crueler than they would dare to be in person. Anonymity does not conceal the spirit; it reveals how we choose to use our freedom. Perhaps some of this anger is rooted in old wounds, disappointment, or unresolved trauma. But trauma is not a licence to wound others.

    And this is happening at a critical moment in our nation’s life.

    We are rebuilding trust, debating our constitutional future, trying to recover economically, and attempting to heal from decades of division. At such a time, unchecked anger is not harmless. It spills over into our institutions, our communities, and our homes.

    We have seen a former Prime Minister publicly humiliate a former comrade and fellow MP. We have witnessed the former leader publicly abuse a journalist. We have endured the condescending arrogance of a former Minister who seemed to claim authority over everything.

    And yes, we continue to live under the 2013 Constitution, shaped by the long shadow of military strongman culture—a legacy many believe diverted our nation from a more promising path to prosperity.

    When leaders behave badly, followers learn that such behaviour is acceptable. When those in authority normalise contempt, it becomes easier for everyone else to do the same.

    When outrage becomes the currency

    Our social media algorithms reward outrage. They draw us into petty disputes, turn neighbours against neighbours, and amplify the most provocative voices.

    An insult attracts more attention than a thoughtful solution. A threat travels faster than the truth.

    This is not merely a matter of bad manners. It erodes trust. It teaches our young that politics is synonymous with abuse. It discourages decent people from entering public life. It divides families and communities. And ultimately, it damages our reputation, social cohesion, and economic prospects.

    But we cannot blame social media alone.

    We must also look in the mirror.

    Have we shared an insult because it made us laugh? Have we amplified a cruel post? Have we remained silent while someone was bullied? Have we mistaken humiliation for strength and aggression for courage?

    The Fijian way is not this.

    We have veiwekani—our bonds of kinship and relationship. We have veidokai—mutual respect. We have veilomani—care and compassion for one another. We have vakarokoroko—humility and reverence.

    These are not merely words from our cultural inheritance. They are values we must actively practise, especially when we disagree.

    Respect is not weakness. It is one of the foundations of a strong nation.

    Reclaiming our decency

    What can we do?

    First, pause before posting. Ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Not every thought deserves an audience.

    Second, refuse to feed the outrage machine. Do not share toxic content simply because it is entertaining or confirms what you already believe. Every share gives it more power.

    Third, hold our leaders to higher standards. Criticise policies, decisions, and conduct—but do not strip people of their dignity. Accountability and cruelty are not the same thing.

    Fourth, create digital talanoa spaces where respect is non-negotiable. We need conversations that welcome disagreement without permitting abuse, threats, or humiliation.

    Fifth, support genuine truth and reconciliation. Healing cannot take place if we continually reopen old wounds for political advantage, personal gratification, or online engagement.

    We can be angry and still be decent.

    We can disagree profoundly and still recognise one another’s humanity.

    We can challenge authority without abandoning respect.

    And we can defend our principles without destroying our relationships.

    The screen will reflect what we choose to feed it. If we feed it outrage, it will return more outrage. If we feed it truth, respect, and hope, perhaps we can begin to change the tone of our national conversation.

    This is not just about social media. It is about the kind of Fiji we want to leave to our next generation.

    Let us choose courage over cruelty. Accountability over humiliation. Dialogue over abuse.

    Let us reclaim the values that have held our communities together—and make them visible again in the way we speak, disagree, and lead.

    For our families. For our communities. For Fiji’s future.

    Vinaka vakalevu.

  • The Drafts of Our Lives: Why Intention is Not Enough

    We have all felt it: the hot rush of blood to the head, the rapid-fire typing of a furious rebuttal, the satisfaction of hitting “send” on a message that perfectly articulates our righteous anger. In that moment, our intention feels pure. We are defending ourselves, correcting a wrong, or standing up for what is right. The emotion gives us clarity, or so we believe. But as the graphic so succinctly puts it, “when emotions lead without wisdom, even good intentions lose their way.” Intention, it turns out, is not a sufficient compass for action; it needs the steadying hand of context and clarity.

    This is a lesson I learned not in a philosophy seminar, but in the trenches of global institutional email. A sharply worded message would land in my inbox, and my immediate instinct was to retaliate with equal force. The draft I would write was a masterpiece of emotional candor—raw, unfiltered, and utterly destructive. It was a perfect representation of emotions taking the lead, of a good intention (to set the record straight) being driven by a blinding fury.

    The wisdom, however, came not in the drafting, but in the delay. I would save that volatile draft and walk away. An hour later, or the next morning, the fog of emotion would lift. Reading the draft back was like reading a stranger’s angry manifesto. The core issue I wanted to address was often valid, but the delivery was a weapon. The emotion had not provided clear direction; it had provided a blunt instrument. By stepping back, I could separate the legitimate substance of my concern from the corrosive emotion that had surrounded it. I could then rewrite the draft; not from a place of reaction, but from a place of strategic purpose. The “good intention” was finally given the clarity of direction it deserved.

    This personal ritual highlights a crucial, often overlooked aspect of emotional intelligence: the need for space. The graphic asks, “Does intention itself need context?” The answer is a resounding yes. Context is the time we give ourselves to reflect. Context is the wisdom we apply to temper our initial impulses. Good intentions are like a powerful engine; without a steering wheel, they can drive you straight off a cliff. Wisdom provides that steering mechanism, allowing us to navigate complex situations, with a clear view of our ultimate destination.

    When we fail to provide this context, we are not just risking a bad email. We are risking a fractured relationship, a professional misstep, or a deeply regrettable personal decision. We are acting on the heat of the moment, mistaking intensity for insight. A true leader, a truly wise individual, is not one without emotion, but the one who respects emotion’s power, while refusing to be ruled by it. They recognize that the gap between an impulse and an action is the most critical space for growth and decision-making.

    The practice of drafting and waiting is not about suppressing emotions; it is about mastering them. It is the process of taking the raw material of our feelings and refining them into a message that is both authentic and effective. It is the difference between being a reactor and being a responder. By institutionalizing that pause in my own life, I transformed my professional interactions and, by extension, my personal peace of mind. I learned that the clearest direction is rarely found in the heat of the moment, but in the quiet reflection that follows.

  • Fiji’s Silence is a Sentence: Why We Must Follow PNG’s Lead on the Porn Crisis

    We call ourselves the “Happiness Capital of the World,” yet behind our closed doors, a silent pandemic is devouring the innocence of our children. Fiji has a shameful, unspoken secret: a sexual abuse crisis so rampant that it has become normalized. And while we bury our heads in the sand, Papua New Guinea is actually doing something.

    PNG’s regulator has moved to block over 1,000 explicit websites. Love it or hate it, Port Moresby has admitted a truth Suva refuses to utter: that the fire hose of violent, hardcore pornography is fueling the epidemic of assault.

    Before we clutch our pearls about “freedom,” let’s look at the forensic evidence in our own police dockets. Just this week, “a teacher from a prominent boarding school has been convicted on six charges of rape involving students.” The court heard that he “lured them to his residence on various occasions and forced them to perform sexual acts.” This is not an outlier. This is a pattern. Year after year, the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre reports that the majority of rape victims are children. Children. Often abused by someone they trust.

    We wring our hands about discipline, about family breakdown, about alcohol. But we refuse to discuss the 24/7 online classroom teaching predators how to dehumanize, and teaching boys that violence is intimacy. Where did that teacher learn that his authority extended to his students’ bodies? We may never know. But we do know that in virtually every child sexual abuse material case prosecuted in the Pasifika, unlimited, unfiltered access to porn was the gateway. It normalizes the abnormal. It turns vulnerability into a genre.

    PNG’s move is not a silver bullet. Blocking websites is like locking a door while leaving the window open—determined users will use VPNs. And yes, the public supports it, but support is not a strategy.

    However, the courage of the move is what Fiji lacks. PNG is willing to look uncomfortable. Fiji, meanwhile, hides behind “tourism-friendly” optics and a culture of respect that too often silences victims to protect the powerful. Judge Justice Usaia Ratuvili found the complainants “to be credible witnesses” and ruled that “their evidence was consistent and reliable.” That a judge had to explicitly affirm the credibility of schoolchildren testifying against their teacher tells you everything about the wall of doubt victims face here.

    We cannot arrest our way out of this. We need prevention. And prevention means admitting that the pornography available to any Fijian child on a $50 smartphone. If a parent won’t sit their child down to talk about consent, the internet will. And the internet is teaching rape.

    It is time Fiji got serious. Not by blindly copying PNG, but by launching a national, multi-pronged war: digital literacy in every school, a public health campaign on porn’s neurological harm, and yes—regulating the digital sewage flooding our islands.

    Until we treat online explicit content as the public health hazard it is, we are not a happy country. We are a crime scene waiting to happen. The teacher from Tailevu is now a convict. How many more will follow, raised on a diet of virtual violence before committing the real thing?

    The question isn’t whether blocking 1,000 sites will save PNG. The question is: why hasn’t Fiji even tried to save one?

  • Toxic by Default: Why Fiji Must Wake Up to our Social Media Crisis

    Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva delivered a sobering reality check this week: social media posts do not move the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. “We only respond to evidence – admissible evidence,” she said. Hearsay and online chatter do not count in a court of law.

    But beneath that legal clarity lies a deeper crisis. If social media is not a court, what is it becoming? For Fiji, the answer is alarming. Against a backdrop of escalating drugs, HIV and NCD crises, our online spaces have devolved into an “outlaw country”—a toxic swamp of hate, scams, and anonymous trolling. As one observer put it, “every person for himself and herself.” The question for the National Security Council (NSC): Should the digital realm be policed for our national sanity? The answer is my view is, yes.

    The unseen threat to national cohesion

    Prime Minister Rabuka rightly stated that national security now includes digital systems and psychological well‑being. Social media toxicity is not a nuisance—it is a security threat. Hate speech, doxxing and coordinated harassment erode our social fabric, traumatise individuals and substitute mob rule for the rule of law. The damage to our collective Pasifika psyche is as real as any drug bust.

    Consider the real‑world consequences. Young Fijians are self‑harming after online pile‑ons. Families are torn apart by viral lies. Witnesses to serious crimes refuse to come forward because they fear being named and shamed on Facebook before they ever reach a police station. The DPP’s office cannot act on a screenshot—but the damage is already done. This is not a moral panic; it is a public health and security emergency dressed in digital clothing.

    The Singapore solution: a blueprint for the Pasifika

    Australia and Indonesia have banned under‑16s from social media. But Fiji should study Singapore’s more comprehensive model. Singapore’s Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) criminalises online harassment, stalking and doxxing, with extraterritorial reach and penalties up to 12 months’ jail. Its Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) lets authorities swiftly disable criminal content.

    Most relevant is Singapore’s new Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill (OSRA) , launched this year. It creates an Online Safety Commission with real teeth: binding takedown orders, account restrictions, and the power to unmask anonymous abusers. Victims of deepfakes, doxxing and sexual harassment get a one‑stop agency. Platforms that refuse to comply face criminal sanctions. And statutory torts let victims sue abusers, group admins and platforms directly. Singapore removes anonymity as a shield and places legal duties on those who run online spaces.

    Why does this matter for Fiji? Because our current Online Safety Commission has publicly admitted it lacks the legal authority to remove harmful content or compel platforms to act. A victim can report a death threat, but the Commission’s hands are tied. Singapore showed that strong laws do not kill free speech—they kill impunity. In the three years since POHA was strengthened, Singapore saw no decline in legitimate expression, but a measurable drop in organised online harassment campaigns.

    A mandate for the National Security Council?

    Fiji is not starting from scratch. A taskforce aims to bar under‑16s by year’s end, and Minister Tabuya admits the current Online Safety Act lacks “teeth.” But a ban on children does nothing for today’s toxic adult spaces. The NSC must urgently study the Singapore model and recommend a multi‑layered approach:

    1. Empower the Online Safety Commission – binding takedown notices, fines for non‑compliant platforms, and investigative powers without waiting for police.

    2. Criminalise anonymity for abusers – compel platforms to reveal perpetrators’ identities upon reasonable suspicion of criminal harassment.

    3. Duty of care legislation – hold group and platform administrators legally liable if they knowingly allow hate speech to thrive.

    Concluding

    The DPP’s warning is stark: the court of public opinion is lawless. When we allow social media to become a toxic dumping ground without consequence, we undermine the police, the courts and the rule of law. Protecting the national psyche is now as vital as protecting our borders. Without urgent, enforceable laws along Singapore’s lines, Fiji’s digital future will remain a lawless frontier—damaging our collective soul one hateful post at a time. The National Security Council meets to address threats. It is time they recognised that the most pervasive threat today is not at the border. It is in the palm of every Fijian’s hand.

  • The Conversations We Avoided, The Monsters We Created

    We were raised on the well-meaning but ultimately cowardly advice to avoid talking about politics, religion, and sex. This was not wisdom; it was intellectual disarmament. By silencing the conversations that matter most, we failed to build the muscles of civil discourse, leaving us unable to navigate disagreement with grace, to understand the faith of our neighbors, or to articulate the sacred boundaries of our own bodies with confidence.

    This vacuum of understanding has now been filled by its most toxic counterpart: the performative, often destructive, culture of social media, particularly embodied by a certain breed of Fijian TikTok ‘influencer’ we should all abhor.

    These digital performers are the grotesque product of our silence. Having never been taught how to have a difficult conversation, they instead master the art of the provocative spectacle. They trade in the currency of shame, scandal, and sensationalism because we never learned the value of substance. They reduce complex human beings to simplified caricatures and complex issues to inflammatory dares because we never cultivated a appetite for nuance.

    When we avoid teaching our youth how to debate politics thoughtfully, they learn to substitute reason with rabid partisan trolling. When we avoid deep, theological discussions about faith, they exchange a mature spirituality for the hollow theater of religious performance, using scripture as a weapon rather than a guide for compassion. And when we fail to have honest, consent-based conversations about sex and touch, we create a environment where these topics are not explored with respect, but are exploited for clicks through sexualized dares and risky behavior, further blurring the lines of what is acceptable.

    These influencers are not the cause of our societal dysfunction; they are a symptom. They are the harvest of a culture that prized polite silence over honest, messy, and necessary dialogue. Our silence did not create peace; it created a void, and nature abhors a vacuum. Into that void rushed the loudest, crudest, and most attention-seeking voices.

    The path forward is not to scold them, but to out-compete them. We must consciously build a culture that values difficult conversations. We must teach our children—and ourselves—how to listen, how to question with respect, how to hold a conviction without dehumanizing the opposition, and how to use our platforms not for self-aggrandizement, but for genuine connection and understanding.

    We tried silence. It gave us a digital screaming match. It is time to find our voice.

  • The Unforgivable Choice: My Struggle to See a Human Behind the Enemy

    I am writing this to myself, because the person I fear I’m becoming is watching closely.

    The news of Charlie Kirk’s death didn’t sadden me. My first reaction was colder, sharper—a quiet, unsettling sense of irony. It was the easy response, the one that required nothing of me but a cynical shrug. It felt like a victory for my side. And that is what terrified me.

    Because just a week earlier, a different death in the Pasifika, reflected my own hypocrisy back at me. In Fiji, Dr. Isireli Biumaitotoya—a beloved, controversial, and vibrant transgender known as Leli Darling—was murdered. The social media response was not grief, but a grotesque eruption of hate, a chorus of bigotry celebrating the silencing of a voice that dared to live openly.

    Two deaths. Two ideologies. One identical, chilling failure of humanity. And I felt it in myself.

    This is my uncomfortable truth: my initial instinct was not compassion. It was tribalism. It was to perform a crude calculus of grief, to measure the value of a life based on its political utility. To see a point on a scoreboard, not a shattered family.

    I am writing to fight that instinct. I am writing to choose the harder path.

    To the family and friends of Charlie Kirk: Your grief is real. To dismiss your pain as an acceptable casualty in a culture war would be to commit the very sin of dehumanization I claim to oppose. To love people who loved him means I must honor the weight you carry. I choose your humanity.

    To the memory of Leli Darling and her grieving mother: Your humanity was attacked twice—first by violence, then by a torrent of cruel words that shame our species. To remain silent in the face of that hatred would be a betrayal of everything I believe. I choose to condemn that poison unconditionally.

    This is the unforgivable choice we are forced to make in a broken world: to hold two crushing truths at once.

    1. Truth One: A complex, imperfect human being is gone, and a circle of love around them has been shattered.
    2. Truth Two: The ideas they championed have real and often devastating consequences.

    To ignore the first truth is to become the cold, cruel monster you oppose. To ignore the second is to be a naive bystander to harm. The only way through is to stand in the painful, dizzying space between them.

    So this is my challenge to you, and my note to my future self:

    The next time a polarizing figure falls, pause. Breathe. Before you share, before you comment, before you let that wave of tribal satisfaction wash over you, ask:

    • Do my words widen the rift or help stitch it closed?
    • Am I arguing against a deadly idea, or am I celebrating the death of a person?
    • Does my reaction make violence more or less likely?

    We are sliding into a world where our digital rage licenses real-world cruelty. We are becoming mirror images of our enemies, arguing against hate with hate.

    The world does not need more soldiers in this war. It needs healers. It needs people brave enough to do the hardest work: to see a human behind the label of “enemy,” and to choose empathy, not because it is easy, but because it is the only thing left that can save us from ourselves.

    I am trying to build a soul that is a refuge, not a weapon. This is the mirror I choose to look into.

    Which will you choose?